Contents

4) What we have said helps us understand the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled "What is man" published at the end of 2019... which subtly opens the door to the legitimization of homosexual acts.

 

 

God enlighten us.

What we have said so far also gives us light regarding a document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission which is entitled "What is man?" Ed. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019, the text is now online.[1]  We noted above that one of the causes of errors and deviations of some regarding the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality is to be found in a "new" exegesis: "... according to which the Bible either has nothing to say on the problem of homosexuality, or it would even somehow give tacit approval, or finally it would offer moral prescriptions so culturally and historically conditioned that they could no longer be applied to contemporary life. Such opinions, which are seriously erroneous and misleading, therefore require special vigilance.” [2]

This same line of attack but in a more "discreet" way seems to me to be used in our days by the proponents of the "paradigm shift" precisely with the document we are talking about in this paragraph: the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled "What is the 'man?" Ed. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2019.

As a great expert in exegesis, among the members of the PCB, whose name I avoid revealing due to the danger it could run, personally explained to me: the PCB document contains some very worrying ambiguities on the question of homosexuality, which seem to leave the open door for a revision of the teaching of the Church, many Catholic exegetes also think so, but unfortunately no one has written in the PCB document expressing these thoughts, I am not surprised that they avoid speaking, if they did they would probably risk being totally put aside party and losing their jobs, Pope Francis and his collaborators have clearly shown that those who oppose their line by reiterating the Truth are sanctioned with removal from teaching, think of the case of the professor. Melina…

The document in question, both for the fact that it is produced by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and therefore by its President who is the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and for the fact that it deals with Sacred Scripture, deserves considerable attention.

I would like to remind you that the Pontifical Commission in question is "a consultative body, placed at the service of the Magisterium and connected to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, whose Prefect is also the President of the Commission (cf. art. 1). ”[3]; it is made up of experts in the biblical field who stand out: "for science, prudence and Catholic feeling towards the ecclesiastical magisterium" [4]

I would like to point out that the document in question was specifically requested by the Pope from the Pontifical Biblical Commission[5]; Cardinal Ladaria spoke of a: "... initiative of Pope Francis to entrust the Pontifical Biblical Commission with the mandate to prepare a Document on biblical anthropology, as an authoritative basis for the developments of philosophical and theological disciplines, in the renewed awareness that Sacred Scripture constitutes «the supreme rule of faith» (Dei Verbum, § 21) and «the soul of sacred theology» (Dei Verbum, § 24).” [6]

A text of this kind will certainly be cited in the future (in fact it was cited in a document of the German Synod) ... and therefore it is necessary to know it and examine it well to clearly see what appear to be its shortcomings.

I would add that a text must be read in the light of the historical period in which it is published. These experts of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and their superiors obviously know this very well. We are in a time in which the LGBTQ ideology is very strong and clearly wants to obtain from the Church the legitimation of homosexual acts and other disordered acts therefore it is absolutely important in this period to strongly reiterate the Catholic truth against homosexualist errors, we will see that this does not happen with this document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PCB) we will see how this text is fundamentally an assist to the "paradigm change" promoted by Pope Francis and therefore an assist to the legitimization of homosexual activity desired by gay groups, on the other part, as seen, this Commission is a body at the service of the Pope and therefore it is clear that the current Pontiff, who is working for the subversion of Catholic doctrine also with regard to homosexual acts, has worked together with Cardinal Ladaria to adequately address the line of this subversion, the text we are examining.

God intervene!

 

 

a) The document lacks a clear presentation of the statements of Tradition which, for 2000 years now, have interpreted the Bible condemning homosexual activity.

 

 

God enlighten us.

The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission aims to be strictly biblical.

The authors are Catholic exegetes and I point out that the exegetes are first and foremost Catholic theologians and must speak in the light of sound Catholic exegesis which is closely united to the sound doctrine that Tradition spreads.

We have seen above that the Bible is closely linked to Tradition.

I spoke above about the right relationship between the Bible, Tradition (therefore the Fathers) and the Magisterium precisely to destroy at the root the action of those who even today, as in the 1980s, try to normalize homosexuality starting from a deviant biblical interpretation , which excludes Tradition and the Magisterium...

We saw above that Dei Verbum is very clear in explaining how the Bible must be interpreted and we also saw how the Catechism of the Catholic Church as well as Pope Benedict XVI explain precisely how sound biblical exegesis must be implemented but there is no trace of all this in the text that we are examining in the part relating to homosexuality.

We saw that the Bible itself invites us to follow the holy Traditions and Tradition more deeply (2Thess 2,15; 3,6; 1Cor. 11,2 etc.)

I presented above various texts of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church as well as texts of the Papal and Episcopal Magisterium which, based on the Bible, have clearly condemned, over a period of 2000 years, homosexual acts as a very serious sin, but evidently all this documentation which falls within the Tradition of the Church, and therefore of the clear testimony of Tradition which radically condemns such acts on the basis of the Bible itself, there is no indication in the part relating to homosexuality of the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission that we are examining.

Even for the creation of the document in question the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission took Tradition into account, Fr. Bovati, who was then secretary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, specified: "We have kept in mind - as is logical - the entire Christian tradition , because no thought comes from nothing.”[7]

The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, although talking about the Bible, practically does not report, particularly in the section that interests us, the statements of Tradition that have interpreted the Bible for 2000 years now, it does not report the Magisterium that has interpreted the Bible for 2000 years years ago and does not refer to this Tradition for a correct biblical interpretation. The document practically "intelligently" skips the Tradition which interprets the Bible in a unanimous and binding way.

Even at the end of the discussion of homosexuality, the Commission does not refer to Tradition but says "Certain formulations of the biblical authors, as well as the disciplinary directives of Leviticus, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values ​​that the sacred text intends to promote, thus avoiding to repeat literally what also brings with it cultural traits of that time. The contribution provided by the human sciences, together with the reflection of theologians and moralists, will be indispensable for an adequate exposition of the problem, only sketched in this Document. Furthermore, pastoral attention will be required, in particular towards individual people, to implement that service of good that the Church has to assume in her mission for men." (n. 195)

Even the prof. M. Tabet, a Catholic priest and biblical scholar, noticed this and wrote: "We then observe an overly restrictive separation between the precise examination of biblical passages and the context of Tradition in which the biblical texts developed, which, as we know, intrinsically accompanies it. It is true that the authors have made a programmatic choice, but the reader may feel uncomfortable seeing that greater emphasis has not been given, at least in the conclusions of each chapter, to the light projected by Tradition on the topic covered, which is inherent and connatural to the text, as underlined by Dei Verbum, n. 9 when he states that Tradition «transmits

the word of God in its entirety - entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the apostles - to their successors, so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve it, expound it and spread it with their preaching; it thus follows that the Church draws certainty about all things revealed not from Scripture alone and that consequently both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence." From here also originates the affirmation that, thanks to the action of God "in and through" the hagiographers, they were able to write, as true authors, all and only those things that he wanted to be written" (DV 11) .”[8].

Biblical interpretation must be carried out under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as we have seen.

Many Fathers, Doctors, Bishops and Popes had the Holy Spirit who, interpreting the Scripture, have clearly and unanimously condemned homosexuality for 2000 years now; in this line the biblical words of Christ that: "Whoever listens to you listens to me, whoever rejects you rejects me" (Luke 10,16) certainly concern the teaching that Tradition offers us, with which the clear statements are also interpreted biblical and with which homosexual acts are radically and unanimously condemned.

The Church with its Tradition has already interpreted the texts mentioned in the document of the Pontifical Commission and precisely through this interpretation has radically condemned homosexual acts.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, by failing to underline how Tradition, precisely by interpreting the Holy Scripture, has clearly and unanimously condemned homosexuality for 2000 years and by failing to underline how this condemnation is evidently infallible, as seen, and practically immutable, offers a great assistance to the " "paradigm change" of Pope Francis and the claims of homosexualist movements and appears unreliable in dealing with these issues.

 

 

b) The document is silent on the absolute and unanimous condemnation issued by Tradition regarding homosexual acts and opens up a new evaluation of them.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Then entering more decisively into the analysis of the text that interests us (pages 161-170), it seems important to me to start by examining the significant initial words and the conclusion that the document elaborates on this topic.

The text begins with these words “The institution of marriage, constituted by the stable relationship between husband and wife, is constantly presented as evident and normative throughout the biblical tradition. There are no examples of legally recognized “union” between people of the same sex.”

Therefore marriage is presented by the Bible as the only union wanted by God. The text adds that there are no examples of legally recognized homosexual "union"; I wonder why they talked about legal recognition and not divine recognition... In reality, God himself does not recognize other unions.

Furthermore, here we talk about union but we don't immediately talk about acts... homosexuality concerns first of all acts... and we know well that the Bible and Tradition radically condemn such acts... through his Word, God has never legitimized homosexual acts!

The text continues by reporting the statements of some who disagree with the anthropological approach of the Sacred Scripture which is transmitted by the Church with the moral condemnations that it entails; in fact, they believe that this approach is a reflection of an archaic mentality belonging to a certain historical period. The Pontifical Biblical Commission explains: “We know that various biblical statements, in the cosmological, biological and sociological fields, have gradually been considered outdated with the progressive affirmation of the natural and human sciences; similarly - it is deduced by some - a new and more adequate understanding of the human person imposes a radical reservation on the exclusive valorization of heterosexual union, in favor of a similar acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of 'human being. Furthermore, it is sometimes argued that the Bible says little or nothing about this type of erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned, also because it is often unduly confused with other aberrant sexual behaviors." (p.161) The Pontifical Biblical Commission, it should be noted, does not radically and immediately condemn these statements but simply says that it is necessary to examine the biblical passages in which the homosexual problem is treated... The conclusion that the PCB presents at the end of the examination of the various biblical texts on the subject in question is the following: “The exegetical examination conducted ... revealed elements to be considered for an evaluation of homosexuality on an ethical level. Certain formulations of the biblical authors, as well as the disciplinary directives of Leviticus, require an intelligent interpretation that safeguards the values ​​that the text intends to promote, thus avoiding literally repeating cultural traits of that time. The contribution provided by the human sciences together with the reflection of theologians and moralists will be indispensable for an adequate exposition of the problems just outlined in this Document...."(p. 169-170)

I remember that the PCB in creating the document in question obviously kept Tradition in mind, in fact the secretary of this Commission stated: "We have kept in mind - as is logical - the entire Christian tradition, because no thought arises from nothing."[9]

The text of the PCB, therefore, when speaking about the evaluation of homosexuality, does not forcefully reiterate the magisterial evaluations already made and uses some verbs in the future tense to make it clear that the evaluation has yet to be carried out...

Therefore the evaluation of these acts is not already established by the Church, after 2000 years of Catholicism and after many documents written by Popes and holy Doctors and Fathers; there is evidently no absolute and immutable evaluation regarding such acts; for the new evaluation it is necessary to take into account the elements that emerge from this document; the biblical texts presented in this document require an intelligent interpretation, which preserves the values ​​that these passages promote but also takes into account the cultural dimension that they present; for this interpretation the contribution of the human and theological sciences is needed; in conclusion: for the PCB there is no clear assessment of condemnation of homosexual activity in the Bible!

This assessment, in reality, has already been made by the Tradition of the Church for 2000 years now and is unanimous in condemning such homosexual acts and unions!

The Commission indicated has therefore implemented with discretion but effectively a true subtle but real subversion of the Truth that the Holy Spirit has clearly proclaimed and reiterated a thousand and a thousand times; a clear and obvious assist to the "paradigm shift" that Pope Francis is implementing and to LGBT groups regarding the legitimization of homosexual acts and blessings for homosexual couples.

 

 

c) The biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is presented in a clearly reductive and imprecise way, the idea that the Bible says very little in this regard is subtly supported.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

At the beginning of its discussion on homosexuality, the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission reports this statement from those who oppose sound Catholic doctrine regarding homosexual relationships: "Moreover - it is sometimes argued - the Bible says little or nothing about this type of an erotic relationship, which should therefore not be condemned, also because it is often unduly confused with other aberrant sexual behaviors."

The Commission's treatment of homosexuality in the Bible should and could respond very effectively to these statements but in reality it does not do so, in fact, as we will see better in the following pages, it presents the biblical teaching on this topic in a reductive way and thus fundamentally endorses the statement that the Bible says little about it opens the door to a revision of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

 

 

c,1) The Commission does not highlight that throughout the Bible God radically condemns homosexual activity.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission states that the Bible deals with homosexual acts: "in a few texts, different from each other in terms of literary genre and importance." (n. 185) in reality, however, as we saw above, it is the whole of Holy Scripture that condemns negatively or positively, directly or indirectly, implicitly or explicitly, such activity.

The Bible never praises homosexual practice; there is not a single praise of such acts and of those who practice them and no hagiographer of the Bible has ever denied the radical condemnation of impure acts against nature made by Lev. 18 and Lev. 20.

The condemnation of such acts therefore remains absolute and intact, the whole Bible, in this sense, highlights it negatively, that is, never speaking in favor of homosexual activity or of those who practice such activity.

On the other hand, as mentioned, the scope of the Old Testament and New Testament biblical texts which invite us to follow the divine Law and not commit sin obviously also includes the prohibition on performing homosexual acts, as we have seen.

This means that many biblical texts directly although in more general terms condemn homosexual activity.

Furthermore, as we have seen, through every prescription of his Law, God refers to the entire Law and commands the observance of the entire Law, therefore also the prohibition of homosexual acts.

More generally we can say that the Bible does not deal with homosexual acts in just a few texts; the whole Bible, as it commands the observance of all divine law, radically condemns homosexual acts.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 134: “All the divine Scripture is one book and this one book is Christ; "in fact all the divine Scripture speaks of Christ and finds fulfillment in him."

But Christ is absolute holiness and purity, he is perfect charity and perfect implementation of the Law, therefore he is total opposition to homosexual acts; Christ through Scripture and Tradition manifests himself as absolute and radical condemnation of homosexual acts: therefore all Scripture condemns such acts.

In this line it is also necessary to consider that all of the Sacred Scripture is a single book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 112) which has God as its Author[10]  who through it, calls us to live all of his Law, in Christ, and therefore throughout the Bible condemns homosexual practice; Through the entire Bible, God wants to guide us to Heaven and therefore through it he wants to keep us away from homosexual activity which objectively is a serious sin and excludes us from eternal life.

Dei Verbum states: “Therefore, since sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit through which it was written, in order to accurately derive the meaning of the sacred texts, one must pay no less attention to the content and unity of all Scripture, taking due account of the living tradition of the whole Church and the analogy of faith.” [11]

Dei Verbum also clearly states the: "Unity of the two Testaments" and specifies that: "God therefore, who inspired the books of both Testaments and is their author, wisely arranged that the New be hidden in the Old and the Old was revealed in the New.” [12]

The unity of Holy Scripture implies the unity of its fundamental teaching and that teaching contains a radical condemnation of homosexual activity.

The entire Bible, directly or indirectly, negatively or positively, condemns homosexual activity.

I would add that the Bible, as we know, refers to Tradition.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that the teaching of the Church which radically condemns homosexual practice is in organic continuity with the vision of Holy Scripture and with constant Tradition; the Christian community experiences a deep and lasting bond that unites it to the generations that preceded it in the sign of true faith[13]; in this line we must affirm that the whole Bible and the whole Tradition, to which the Bible refers and which interprets it, radically condemn homosexual acts. God speaks to us throughout the Bible and Tradition and radically condemns homosexual acts.

I conclude by noting that the few texts that speak more directly and specifically about homosexuality are so few also for two fundamental reasons:

1) the biblical authors do not aim to publicize certain sins beyond what is strictly necessary so as not to stimulate people to commit them;

2) because the Jews, according to the statements of some of their authors, have never had a special habit of carrying out certain acts; among the Jewish people, as mentioned, especially in some periods, impure sin against nature was rarely practiced.[14]

Christ reign.

 

 

c,2) The Commission does not explicitly present in all its crudeness God's radical detestation of homosexual acts.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Commission states “The institution of marriage, constituted by the stable relationship between husband and wife, is constantly presented as evident and normative throughout the biblical tradition. … The Old Testament legislation on the subject is very limited. … Only in the book of Leviticus do we find a precise list of prohibitions regarding reprehensible sexual acts, and among these also that of homosexual intercourse between males.” The Commission adds that on the basis of the biblical texts of Leviticus (18,22 and 20,13) such homosexual behavior was considered "gravely unbecoming by the Old Testament law" ... "the gravity of the act perpetrated, as well as the qualification of "abominable thing », is highlighted by capital punishment”.

The Commission cites the divine affirmations that in Lev. 18,22 and 20,13 indicate the divine abomination (tô'ēbāh) for such acts but does not speak of the further divine statements that in Lev. 18, 24ff indicate the profound abomination that God has for homosexual acts; I believe it is important to offer them to you directly: “Do not make yourselves impure with any of these practices, since with all these things the nations that I am about to drive out before you have made themselves impure. The earth was made impure by it; therefore I punished her fault and the earth vomited its inhabitants. You will therefore observe my laws and my ordinances and will not commit any of these abominable practices: neither he who is native to the earth, nor the stranger who dwells among you. For the people who were before you have committed all these abominable things, and the land has become unclean. May the earth not vomit you also, for having made it impure, as it vomited those who inhabited it before you, because whoever practices any of these abominations, every person who commits them, will be eliminated from his people." (Lev. 18,24ff) Note how many times words are used that indicate God's supreme hatred for such practices: "the earth has vomited", "abominable practices" etc. the Italian translation reports the Jewish statements very directly. God evidently shows that he extremely detests homosexual practice and these biblical statements are further strengthened by those that we read in Leviticus 20 and which the Commission also fails to underline: "If anyone has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed a abomination; they will have to be put to death: their blood will be on them. … You will therefore observe all my laws and all my prescriptions and put them into practice, so that the land where I am leading you to live does not vomit you. You will not follow the customs of the nations that I am about to drive out before you; they have done all those things, therefore I am disgusted with them and I have said to you: You will possess their land; I will give it to you as your property. It is a land flowing with milk and honey. I, the Lord your God, have separated you from other peoples.” (Lev. 20, 22-24) Also in this text we find terms that denote supreme divine hatred for the sins just indicated by God: "abomination", "the earth ... does not vomit you" and "I disgust" with the use of 'Hebrew quts which means to have a deep hatred, horror, true disgust... which links well with "vomit"... Among the sins that God abominates, hates and for which the earth "vomits up" is the impure sin against nature...

The Commission does not highlight this radical divine abomination for sins against nature... an abomination never denied neither in the Bible nor in Tradition... and an abomination to which such terrible effects are linked. This abomination obviously implies a radical divine condemnation for this sin and this emerges from all of Scripture and from all of Tradition.

Guided by God, the Christian community experiences a deep and lasting bond that unites it to the generations that preceded it in the sign of true faith, and in this bond the Church reaffirms the condemnation of homosexual acts.[15]

God, through the teaching of the Church which is in organic continuity with the vision of Holy Scripture and with constant Tradition, radically condemns homosexual activity and in this condemnation we must see the radical divine abomination towards homosexual activity!

This divine condemnation and detestation, with all the related penalties, for homosexual acts, are practically set aside in the Commission's text; in fact, as mentioned, when it presents this condemnation and this reprobation of such acts it avoids mentioning God. omission has its significant implications which we will see in the following pages.

 

 

c,2,1) Clarifications on divine hatred and our imitation of it.

 

 

The Cross of Christ be our light.

Let's go back to what we said in the first volume regarding the various types of hatred and in particular the hatred that is combined with charity.

The Holy Scripture reports in various passages the detestation of God especially for some sins and for sinners and correspondingly it reports the hatred of the saints for sins and sinners.

In the Psalms we read…

“ … fools cannot resist your gaze. You hate all evildoers. You destroy those who tell lies. Bloodthirsty and deceivers, the Lord detests them.” (Ps 5,6f)

“The Lord searches the righteous and the wicked; he hates those who love violence.” (Ps 11,5)

“… I hate the band of criminals” (Ps. 26,5)

“How much I hate, Lord, those who hate you! How I hate those who oppose you! I hate them with implacable hatred, I consider them my enemies.” (Ps 139,21f)

In the book of Wisdom we read: "For God hates the wicked and his wickedness equally." (Wisdom 14,9)

Michel in the Great Lexicon of the New Testament[16], effectively specifies how God's hatred towards various created realities should be understood, including the sinner, which the Bible highlights in various passages (Deut. 12,31; 16,22; Jer. 44,4; Am 5,21; Is. 1,14; Wis. 14,9; Sir. 12,6; 27,24 (LXX)), such hatred is repudiation of sin, it is a fight against sin, it is judgment and retaliation against sinner (column 331). The article just cited also specifies that, like God, even the righteous, being with God, hate evil, that is, they have within themselves a passionate rejection of evil or evil (column 332); the hatred we are talking about here is not so much a feeling as a rejection of evil and an opposition to evil on the part of the will and therefore of the action (column 333) even in the rabbinic tradition one finds a hatred commanded against some sinners: seducers, epicureans etc. (col. 336 ff)

In the Gospel, Michel continues in the article just cited, whoever wants to follow Christ must hate (Lk. 14,26; Mt. 10,37; Jn. 12,25) all those who on the other hand must love among creatures, including himself, such hatred is conscious refusal, detachment and renunciation to be linked exclusively to Christ (column 343) in Ap. 2,6 speaks of Jesus' hatred for the works of the Nicolaitans and in Heb. 1,9 applies hatred of iniquity to Christ, highlighting the ministry of Christ as judge and lord (column 344); in Jude 23 the idea of ​​hatred wanted by God is highlighted and is also highlighted in Rev. 2,6. (column 349); even in the NT, Michel concludes, there is a holy hatred which is part of true charity towards all men (column 350).

Similar to those of O. Michel but less profound are Briere's statements regarding hatred in God and in us according to the Bible.[17]

According to s. Thomas (“In psalmos Davidis expositio.”, Super Psalmo 24, n. 13) there is:

1) a good "hatred" by which sin is hated and the sinner is hated for his guilt and Psalm 138 speaks of this hatred;

2) there is an unjust hatred for which nature or justice is hated and therefore it is said, in the Bible, "with unjust hatred they hated me" that is, unjust and without cause "so that the word written in their Law might be fulfilled, since I they hated without reason” (John 15).

Good hatred is found supremely and metaphorically in God, as explained by St. Thomas: “Metaphorically… one can say that God hates certain things. And this for two reasons. First, because God loves things, in wanting their good to exist, he wants their evil not to exist. … Second, for the fact that God sometimes wants a greater good which cannot exist without the suppression of the lesser good.”(“Sum against the Gentiles”, ed UTET, 2013, ebook, book I c. 96)

It should be noted that hatred is a passion and divine impassibility implies that there are no passions in God; s. Thomas explains that, in itself, no passion of the affections, which proceeds from the sensitive part of man, can be applied to God who has no senses or sensitive knowledge[18]; every passion according to which implies bodily transmutation is inapplicable to God because He has no body[19]; passions belong to potential beings, but God is pure Act[20], therefore he has no passions. God's hatred is metaphorical and is characterized as radical opposition to sin and just punishment of the sinner which can lead to damnation. It is a "hatred" that derives from divine Charity because God is Charity; our hatred must equally arise from charity and be participation in the metaphorical hatred that God has towards sin and towards the sinner and must lead us to wisely oppose this sin and therefore those who commit it and in some cases it can lead to punishment of the sinner and also the killing of the same, think of the case of legitimate defense against an unjust aggressor, of the case of just war against an unjust aggressor or of the case of the just imposition of capital punishment on the guilty of serious crimes.

The holy hatred I speak of comes from true charity, as St. explains. Thomas reporting a significant statement of St. Gregory: “Ut autem dominus demonstraret hoc erga proximos odium non de affectione proceed, sed de caritate, addidit dicens adhuc autem et animam suam di lui. Constat ergo quia amando debet odisse proximum qui sic eum odit sicut seipsum: seipsum: enim bene animam nostram odimus, cum eius carnalibusdesiris non acquiescimus, cum eius appetitum frangimus, eius voluptatibus reluctamur.”(Catena in Luke, chapter 14 l. 5.) Therefore there is a "hatred" (towards others and towards ourselves) which proceeds from charity and not from passion; he who in charity must "hate" his soul in a holy way (Jn 12,25) must similarly "hate" his neighbor in a holy way; for such holy “hatred” we do not accept the desires of the flesh, we fight against the pleasures of our souls and break the sinful desire of our souls within us; for this holy "hatred" we must wisely oppose the sins and evil in ourselves and in others.

In the Summa Theologica s. Thomas states: “Respondeo dicendum quod in pectoribus duo possuntconsiderari, scilicet natura, et culpa. … secundum naturam suam sunt ex caritate diligendi. … secundum culpam, qua Deo adversantur, sunt odiendi quicumque sinners, etiam pater et mater et propinqui, ut habetur Luc. XIV. We must enim in sinners hear what sinners are, and study what men are capable of happiness. Et hoc est eos vero ex caritate diligere propter Deum.” (II-II q. 25 a. 6)

Two things can be considered in sinners: nature and guilt; by their nature they must be loved with the love of charity, for the sin with which they oppose God, all sinners must be hated, even the father, mother and relatives, as the Gospel of Luke says in chapter. 14; in fact in sinners we must hate their being sinners and love their being capable of bliss, this is truly loving them in God with charity.

Adds s. Thomas: “… iniquos prophetaodio habuit inquantum iniqui sunt, habensodio iniquitatem ipsorum, quod est ipsorum malum. And hoc est perfectum odium, de quo lui ipse dicet, perfectoodio oderam illos. Eiusdem autem rationis est odire malum alicuius et diligere bonum eius. Unde etiam istud odium perfectum ad caritatem pertinet.”(II-II q. 25 a. 6 ad 1m)

The prophet hated sinners because they were sinners, hating their iniquity, which is their evil. And this is the perfect hatred of which he himself says: “With perfect hatred I will hate them” (Ps. 139,22).

The same rule prescribes to hate one's evil and love one's good. Therefore this perfect hatred belongs to charity.

The same s. Doctor explains that in this line of the s. hatred combined with the s. charity means biblical imprecations against sinners. (II-II q. 25 a. 6 ad 3m)

We saw above that: "To save himself, therefore, man must love God so much that he directs all his intentions towards him and does not accept anything that he deems contrary to divine love, and consequently, to save himself, hatred and self-denial.”[21] ... holy hatred of ourselves as sinners is necessary ... and, along these lines, holy hatred of others as sinners is necessary; in this too we must have Christ as an example: “Et ideo sciendum, quod in omnibus factis nostris factum Christi debet esse nobis exemplum. Deus enim diligit et odit. Here in quolibet homine duo sunt consideration: scilicet natura et vitium. Natura quidem in hominibus diligi debet, vitium vero odiri.”(“Collationes in decem praeceptis” a. 2) In everything we do we must have Christ as an example.

God, and therefore Christ as God, in fact hates and loves in man: he loves nature, he hates vice; we must imitate Christ in this too and therefore we must, in ourselves and in our neighbours, love nature and hate vice. And this truth is reiterated and clarified by s. Thomas in De virtutibus, q. 2 a.m. 8 ad 8. “Ad octavum dicendum, quod Deus non odit in aliquo quod suum est, scilicet bonum naturale vel quodcumque aliud, sed solum illud quod suum non est, scilicet peccatum; et sic etiam nos in hominibus debemus diligere quod Dei est, et odire quod est alienum a Deo; et secundum hoc codicil in Psalm. CXXXVIII, 22: perfectoodio oderam illos.” God, and therefore Christ, hates not what is his, i.e. good, but what is not his, i.e. sin and so we too must love, in ourselves and in others, what is God's and hate what is alien from God, that is, sin.

This was achieved with supreme perfection in Christ the man through supreme participation in charity and therefore in the "holy hatred" that we have seen in God. The charity that shines in Christ, even as man, is a charity that holyly hates sin and holyly " hate” the sinner according to Psalm 138 verse 22; specifies in this regard the s. Angelic Doctor “Ad sextum dicendum, quod non oderat eos perfecto hatred, nisi inquantum Deo inimici erant; hoc autem est inquantum peccabant; therefore I do not hate in eis quos perfecto I hate oderat, nisi peccatum.” (Super Sent., book 3 d. 30 q. 1 a. 1 ad 6.)

Verse 22 of Psalm 138 which speaks of perfect "hatred" towards enemies is therefore interpreted by s. Thomas in the sense that this “hatred” concerns their sins for which they were enemies of God.

Such perfection of holy hatred was in Christ both as God and as man.

He, as a man, wanted to assume passibility, in fact his soul suffered the pains of the body and had human passions, but in Him they never inclined towards illicit objects, they never prevented the judgment of reason, much less did they overwhelm the reason.

In Christ the man there was the sensitive appetite, or sensuality, as s. Thomas states clearly[22], even in Him this appetite was divided into concupiscible and irascible and furthermore the affections of this appetite are found in Christ, that is, the passions, as the s clearly says. Doctor[23].

According to s. Thomas, more precisely, in Christ the man there were passions but they were different from us in terms of three aspects:

1) the object of his passions did not push him to commit the sin;

2) his passions followed the judgment of his mind, of his reason, and were oriented by that judgment;

3) his passions did not pull reason towards them, as happens in us, but left her totally free to do what was convenient. The motions naturally suitable to human flesh remained in the sensitive appetite of Christ in such a way that reason was not prevented from doing those things which were suitable; therefore yes. Thomas accepts the doctrine that Christ truly began to feel sad, in particular in Gethsemane, but since this passion did not dominate his soul, it is said that out of passion he began to feel sad, in fact one has perfect passion when one understands that the soul , that is, reason, is dominated by such an affection of the sensitive appetite, propassion occurs when such dominion is lacking, that is, when such an affection has begun in the sensitive appetite but does not extend beyond[24] ; also out of passion Jesus began to fear[25].

In this line we can say that Christ suffered significantly and suffered sadness and fear, in Him there was also wonder, not as regards blessed science or as regards infused science, but as regards experimental science, also in Christ there was wrath but evidently a virtuous anger, that is to say that anger which is linked to holy zeal[26]; instead we must absolutely exclude ignorance and concupiscence from Christ, such imperfections, in fact, would have been unsuitable for his mission[27].

He was hated with evil hatred (see John 15) but he holyly "hated" with perfect hatred, full of perfect love, the sinners whom he opposed as workers of evil and for whom he even gave his life, for their salvation. And this holy hatred in Christ was radical and persevering until the final reprobation of evil, as we can understand from what s. Thomas further specifies “Per hoc quod lui codicit odi intelligitur odium perfectum quo quis perseverat in detestationem mali usque ad finalem reprobationem ipsius, de quo codicil in Ps. CXXXVIII, 22: perfecto odio oderam illos, scilicet malos, inquantum sunt sinners.” (Super Rom., chap. 7 l. 3.) The “perfect”, holy hatred is therefore that by which, imitating God, we persevere in detesting evil until its final reprobation and with this hatred we must holyly hate sinners, that is, others and ourselves as sinners; this holy and good perfect "hatred", as said, was fully in Christ as God and as man and, by participation in Him, must be in us. It should also be clarified that hatred is a passion and as such can be good or bad, charity precisely helps us to use hatred for the good and in this sense makes this passion good.

Christ, in this line, holyly hated the wicked, that is, he radically opposed the wicked as enemies of God and sinners, he opposed the evil they wanted to do, but he loved them supremely as men created by God and having Paradise as their ultimate goal. For this love, Christ suffered for them precisely to convert them and direct them towards Heaven.

True charity therefore contains a holy and radical "hatred" for sin and for the sinner, that is, a radical opposition to sin and to those who want to do it.

As a participation in divine charity, created charity leads us to imitate God in the love of good and the detestation of evil and also leads us to love and hate more what God loves and hates more.

As I wrote in my doctoral thesis: “… the Eucharist is the maximum moment of man's conversion and assimilation to Christ; therefore, through the Eucharistic Mystery, our sensuality and our passions are supremely reformed and sanctified, in a certain sense. Spiritual life, which develops through participation in Christ through the Eucharist, also makes us participate in the "perfection" of his passions, elevates us in Him to participate, in particular, in the divine perfections of Joy and Love and makes our condition, in a certain way, similar to that of our ancestors before original sin who had some passions, says s. Thomas, but they were totally subservient to reason[28]. "[29]

Our spiritual life takes place through participation in Christ, in Him our passions, among which there is hatred, can be transformed and ordered towards good. Precisely in Christ we can holyly hate sin and the sinner through participation in Him.

The Tridentine Catechism states in n. 249 :“… just as God is the first of the goods to be loved, so sin is the first and greatest of the evils to be hated. Therefore, the same reason that forces us to recognize that God must be supremely loved also forces us to bear supreme hatred for sin. Now, that the love of God must be placed before everything else, so that it is not permissible to sin even to preserve life, is clearly shown by these words of the Lord: "Whoever loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Mt 10,37); “Whoever wants to save his life will lose it” (Mt 16,25; Mk 8,35).” (From the Tridentine Catechism, ed. Cantagalli 1992, n.249)

Charity makes us love God supremely and makes us hate sin supremely and therefore makes us propose never to sin.

The Council of Trent states that he who reflects on those exclamations of the saints: "Against you alone have I sinned and done evil against you" (Ps 50, 6.); “I am tired of groaning, I go and wash my bed every night” (Ps 6, 7); “I will look back on all my years, in the bitterness of my soul” (Is 38, 15.), and on similar others, he will easily understand that they came from a truly vehement hatred of the past life and from a great detestation of sin[30], that is, from a radical detestation of the sins committed.

The Council of Trent, as seen, also specifies that the contrition that has first place among the penitent's acts is the pain of the soul and the detestation of the sin committed, with the intention of no longer sinning. This contrition contains not only the cessation of sin and the purpose (of a new life) and the beginning of a new life, but also contains the hatred of the old life, according to the words of the Holy Scripture: Put away from you all your iniquities, with which you have transgressed and build for yourselves a new heart and a new soul. (Ez 18, 31) [31]

St. Alphonsus affirms: "He the Eternal Word as much as he loved his Father, so much he hated sin, whose malice he well knew: in order to take away sin from the world and not to see his beloved Father offended anymore, he had come on earth and became man, and undertook to suffer such a painful Passion and death. "[32]

The Catechism of St. Pius Why does the pain have to be so great? The pain must be supreme, because we must regard and hate sin as the supreme of all evils, being an offense against God, the supreme Good.”

The act of pain that in the Catechism of St. Pius I don't want to commit any more of these in the future and I propose to avoid the opportunities. Lord, mercy, forgive me.”

St. John Paul II, changing the word hate with its synonym detestation, said: “As for humility, it is evident that without it the accusation of sins would be a useless list or, worse, a arrogant claim of the right to commit them : the “Non serviam”, by which the rebel angels fell and the first man lost himself and his descendants. Humility is indeed identified with the detestation of evil..."[33]

The saints, like s. Thomas, who truly loved their neighbor in Christ, holyally "hated" sin but also the sinner, opposing him because he wanted to sin; the saints loved and hated most what God loved and hated most!

 

 

c,2,2) The detestation to which we are called regarding sin against nature.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The words of Holy Scripture which indicate the divine abomination for sins against nature indicate that man must also abominate this sin and must holyly oppose it and those who want to commit it.

Let's go back to one of the passages seen above: “Do not make yourselves impure with any of these practices, since with all these things the nations that I am about to drive out before you have made themselves impure. The earth was made impure by it; therefore I punished her fault and the earth vomited its inhabitants. You will therefore observe my laws and my ordinances and will not commit any of these abominable practices: neither he who is native to the earth, nor the stranger who dwells among you. For the people who were before you have committed all these abominable things, and the land has become unclean. May the earth not vomit you also, for having made it impure, as it vomited those who inhabited it before you, because whoever practices any of these abominations, every person who commits them, will be eliminated from his people." (Lev. 18,24ff)

In these and similar words, the Lord, therefore, does not simply tell us his disgust and detestation for such practices but is telling us that we too must imitate him in such disgust and such abomination.

This abomination and detestation is not opposed to charity but is part of it.

True charity contains a holy and radical "hatred" for sin and for the sinner, that is, a radical opposition to sin and to those who want to do it; therefore charity leads us to saintly "hate" adultery, homosexual acts and every serious sin in ourselves and in others.

Charity leads us to hate in a particular way the unnatural sin that God, in Scripture, shows he hates in a particular way; in fact, as a participation in divine charity, created charity leads us to imitate God in the love of good and the detestation of evil and also leads us to love and hate more what God loves and hates more.

The saints, like s. Thomas, who truly loved their neighbor in Christ, holyally "hated" sin but also the sinner, opposing him because he wanted to sin; the saints loved and hated most what God loved and hated most!

God wants us to be his imitators and therefore shows us what he hates so that we too can hate it.

On the other hand, also to make his people participate in this abomination towards impure sin and towards those who commit it, the AT clearly states that those who fall into such sin are put to death (Lev. 18 and 20); that is, the holy divine hatred for this sin must correspond to an active and holy hatred of men for it and for those who commit it.

Likewise, the very severe ecclesiastical penalties imposed for this sin enter into this participation, to which man is called by the Lord, in the supreme abomination that God has for this sin.

The PCB does not precisely highlight either the radical divine abomination for sins against nature nor the fact that we must imitate this abomination in radically and holyly opposing this sin and those who want to implement and spread it.

God intervene.

 

 

c,3) The Commission does not offer important clarifications regarding the homosexual erotic inclination.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The Commission states: “It should be noted immediately that the Bible does not speak of erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts.”

This statement is not accurate!

God throughout the Bible radically condemns homosexual activity, as seen, so obviously implicitly indicates the erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex as disordered.

If homosexual acts are clearly prohibited by Scripture, it is evident that according to Scripture itself, any tendency that pushes towards such acts is disordered and tempting.

Professor Healy wrote: “… Old and New Testament texts also censure interior lustful passions, whether toward persons of the same or the opposite sex (eg, Exod 20:17; Deut 5:21; Matt 5:28; Rom 1:26–27; Eph 4:22; 1 Thess 4:5; 2 Pet 2:10).”

The texts of the Old and New Testament condemn the internal passions of lust (Ex. 20,17; Dt. 5,21; Matt. 5,28; Rom. 1,26-27; Eph. 4,22; 1 Thess. 4,5; 2Pt. 2,10)

In particular, the second Letter of Peter to chap. 2 does not only condemn the acts but also the disordered desire of them, Keating, a Catholic exegete in his commentary states: “The final phrase of this section is difficult. Peter says that this judgment falls especially upon those who follow the flesh with its depraved desire and show contempt for lordship.[172] The condemnation of “disordered desire” marks the entire letter (1:4; 2:10, 18; 3:3) and is one of the most serious failings of the false teachers.”[34]

Peter states that divine judgment falls especially on those who follow the flesh with its depraved desires and show contempt for the lordship of God.

The condemnation of "disordered desire" marks the entire letter (1, 4; 2,10.18; 3, 3) and is one of the most serious failures of false teachers. The disordered and unnatural desire of the sodomites was justly and terribly punished by God.

Precisely in this line the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2358: “A non-negligible number of men and women have deeply rooted homosexual tendencies. This inclination, objectively disordered, constitutes a test for most of them.”

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “It should instead be specified that the particular inclination of the homosexual person, although not in itself a sin, nevertheless constitutes a tendency, more or less strong, towards intrinsically bad behavior from a moral point of view. For this reason the inclination itself must be considered objectively disordered. Therefore, those who find themselves in this condition should be the object of particular pastoral concern so that they are not led to believe that the implementation of this tendency in homosexual relationships is a morally acceptable option. …homosexual people…. when they engage in homosexual activity... they reinforce within themselves a disordered sexual inclination, itself characterized by self-satisfaction. …”[35]

Conclusion: the magisterial statements just seen are deeply rooted in the Bible which evidently considers the tendency to perform homosexual acts to be disordered and tempting; the Commission with its imprecise words clearly offers support for those who oppose such magisterial statements and deny that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.

 

 

c,4) The profound motivation for the condemnation of homosexual acts is presented by the Commission in a superficial way, the fundamental, Christological dimension of this condemnation is missing: Christ calls us to life in the Spirit and therefore to chastity and victory over Satan.

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

For the Commission, the profound motivation for the condemnation of homosexual acts can be considered to lie in the protection and promotion of a sexuality open to procreation in accordance with Gen. 1,28; furthermore, the system of diversity and complementarity established by God the Creator has its keystone in the difference between man and woman, its value is therefore contradicted and threatened by homosexual acts (p. 165-6)

Homosexual acts are clearly opposed to the word of God which states: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth; subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Gen 1,28:XNUMX).

The Commission gives a somewhat superficial motivation, however, because it fails to see the profound Christological motivation behind this condemnation: when God offered his Law to the Israelites he offered it in order to Christ; the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “The ancient Law is a preparation for the Gospel. … It prophesies and presages the work of liberation from sin that will be accomplished with Christ … Finally, the Law is completed by the teaching of the books of wisdom and the prophets, who orient it towards the New Covenant and the kingdom of heaven.”( Catechism of Catholic Church n. 1964)

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “God, through all the words of Sacred Scripture, says only one Word, his one Word, in which he expresses himself entirely. (Cf Heb 1,1-3.) … ” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 102)

St. Augustine said: “Everything in the Scriptures speaks of Christ; as long as there are ears to listen.”[36]

The profound Christological motivation behind this condemnation of homosexual practice is that man is called to love as Christ loved, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that is, in holy chastity; s. John says, “Whoever says he remains in him must also behave as he has done.” (see 1 John 2), Jesus himself says: "This is my commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you." (John 15,12:XNUMX)

Christ lived the Law to the full: “Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, ... had the duty to observe the Law, practicing it in its entirety down to the smallest precepts, according to his own words. And he is also the only one who could have done it perfectly (Cf. Jn 8,46.).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 578)

Christ observed the Law in full: "The perfect fulfillment of the Law could only be the work of the divine Legislator born under the Law in the Person of the Son. (Cf Gal 4,4)..." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 580)

The same Catechism still says “The moral law finds its fullness and unity in Christ. Jesus Christ himself is the way of perfection. … «The end of the law is Christ, so that justice may be given to everyone who believes» (Rm 10,4).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1953)

Further in the same text we read: “Following Jesus implies observance of the commandments. The Law is not abolished, but man is invited to rediscover it in the person of his Master, who is its perfect fulfillment.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2053)

Again, the same Catechism states “When we believe in Jesus Christ, communicate his mysteries and observe his commandments, the Savior himself comes to love in us his Father and his brothers, our Father and our brothers. His person becomes, thanks to the Spirit, the living and interior rule of our conduct." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2074)

The profound, Christological motivation of the above-mentioned statements in Leviticus, which condemn homosexual acts, is therefore that God calls man through Christ to live the Law in Him and with Him, guided by His Spirit; God calls man to let himself be guided, in Christ, by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8,14) and the Holy Spirit guides man to a divinized life, in purity and chastity, a life that is radically opposed to homosexual practice (1 Cor. 6,9; 1 Tim 1,10; Rom. 1, 26-27; 2 Pt. 2, 6 -10; Jude 5-7) (see Catechism of the Catholic Church nos. 1965s. 1972)

In the sixth beatitude Christ proclaims: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God" (Mt 5,8).

Christ is supremely pure of heart. The "pure in heart" are those who, in Christ and with Christ, have attuned their intelligence and will to the demands of God's holiness, in some areas above all: charity, chastity or sexual rectitude, (Cf 1 Thess 4,7; Col 3,5; Eph 4,19.) the love of truth and orthodoxy, that is, rectitude, of faith. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2518)

Jesus came to restore man, he came to recreate the divine likeness in him so that he can live holiness and therefore chastity to the full, Christ is supremely chaste and gives us the gift of being fully chaste in Him, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states at no. 2336: “Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of his origins.”

Jesus came to bring man back to the purity of his origins, before original sin, to full resemblance with God; in Christ man is raised to the life of grace, supernatural life, and can be fully chaste. Christ is supremely chaste and through the Sacraments he immerses us in his perfection and calls us to participate in it which is radically opposed to impure sins against nature.

The Holy Spirit guides, in this line, man to convert from impure sins and above all from sins against nature; the Holy Spirit guides men to help sinners to convert and therefore guides to help those who commit impure acts against nature to convert.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in nos. 2348f.: “Every baptized person is called to chastity. The Christian has put on Christ, (Cf Gal 3,27.) model of all chastity. All believers in Christ are called to lead chaste lives according to their particular state in life. At the moment of Baptism the Christian committed himself to living his affectivity in chastity."

The supremely holy and chaste Christ gives us the gift of living holiness and chastity in Him, in Christ it is possible to be chaste and therefore not fall into adultery or another sin against the sixth or ninth commandment. With the gift of chastity, which Christ gives us, a perfect integration of sexuality in the person is achieved, according to the divine plan, and consequently the interior unity of man is achieved in his physical and spiritual being. (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2337)

More deeply we can say that the Christological motivation of the statements of Leviticus is that man is called by God to a divinized life, in Christ, in purity and chastity, under the action of the Holy Spirit.

God's original plan was the divinization of man: “Constituted in a state of sanctity, man was destined to be fully "divinized" by God in glory. Seduced by the devil, he wanted to become "like God" (Gen 3,5), but "without God and putting himself before God, not according to God"[37].”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 398) This divinization was in purity and holiness.

Christ came precisely to bring man back to divinization in purity and holiness: "The Word became flesh so that we might become "participants of the divine nature" (2 Pt 1,4): "For the Son of God became man to make us God."[38] «The only begotten […] Son of God, wanting us to participate in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that, having become man, he could make men gods»[39].”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 460)

Satan, who seduced man at the beginning, still guides him, as then, to a false divinization in sin and above all in serious sin and homosexual practice is a very serious sin; the first letter of John is illuminating in this regard: “Whoever commits sin comes from the devil, because from the beginning the devil is a sinner. For this reason the Son of God was manifested: to destroy the works of the devil.”(1 Jn. 3,8) From the beginning the devil tempts men to walk outside the Law of God (Gen.3) therefore he tempts man also to practice homosexual acts.

Christ came to free man from the works of the devil, that is, from sins, therefore also from homosexual acts, and to divinize man himself.

The Apostles and all Tradition understood this very well, given that, in a very clear way, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and in the name of Christ they have always invited men to divine life in Christ and to the fight against the temptations of Satan and therefore they have always radically condemned homosexual practice as a very serious sin.

Significantly, in this line, before Baptism the catechumens must renounce Satan and one of the questions that is preceded by this renunciation is this: "Do you renounce Satan, the origin and cause of all sin?" ...this renunciation obviously contains the renunciation of every sin of homosexuality.

In the First Letter of John we read "In this the children of God are distinguished from the children of the devil: whoever does not practice justice is not from God, nor is he who does not love his brother." (1 John 3, 10)

Whoever follows the devil, who lets himself be guided by his temptations, becomes part of his ranks, becomes in a certain way "his son" and walks towards damnation, says St. Thomas "... sola caritas est, quae distinguit inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli" (Only through charity are the children of God distinguished from the children of Satan) (Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chapter 7 l. 2. ) That is, whoever has charity is a child of God, whoever does not have it is a child of Satan.

St. Alphonsus reports a significant statement of s. Thomas: “Says St. Thomas (In Iob. c. 31. ) that for every vice man distances himself from God; he especially goes away due to the dishonest vice: Per luxuriam maxime recedit a Deo.”[40]

The text of s. Thomas states precisely: "... per peccatum luxuriae homo maxime videtur a Deo discedere". (In Iob c. 31)

The same s. Thomas also said: “Diabolus codicil maxime gaudere de sin luxuriae, quia est maximae adhaerentiae, et difficile ab eo homo potest eripi, insatiabilis est enim delectabilis appetitus ut philosophus codicil, in III Ethic.” (I-II, q. 73 a. 5 ad 2) The devil delights most in this vice, because it is most closely linked to the human soul and those who have it can hardly free themselves from it, the delightful appetite of man in fact, it is insatiable.

Satan pushes man to lust and therefore to homosexual acts because he knows that with them man distances himself further from God and becomes a son of Satan.

God also through the absolute prohibition of lust and homosexual activity calls us to full divinization, in purity, only in Christ, who is man par excellence, man lives his humanity to the full but precisely this fullness is realized in purity and therefore in the total repudiation of unnatural acts. The Commission does not highlight this profound Christological motivation which lies at the basis of the ban on homosexual acts and which brings out in a very clear, strong and luminous way the absolute goodness and validity, for us and for all men, of this ban .

Forgetting this profound Christological motivation, the Commission also implemented a deviation from what we read in the presentation, made by Cardinal Ladaria, of the same document, in fact in it the Spanish cardinal recalled that: "only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of 'man" (Gaudium et Spes, § 22).

 

 

c,5) The Commission states that the "motif of homosexuality" is not evoked in the Gospels but things are not exactly like that...

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Commission states that the "motif of homosexuality" is not evoked in the Gospels (n. 191) and this is a significant inaccuracy because in reality the Gospel speaks about it abundantly, as we have already seen and as we will see.

Certainly the Gospel does not use the specific words of condemnation of homosexuality that we find in St. Paul and this, according to p. Gilbert, is probably due to the fact that Judaism of the period of Christ was not affected by this type of tendency, which moreover abhorred[41] however we have already said, a few paragraphs above, that the entire Bible radically condemns homosexual acts, which means that the entire Gospel also speaks about and condemns them!

First of all, I would like to point out that there is only one passage in the Gospel that is favorable to homosexuality, but the Pontifical Biblical Commission (PCB) does not underline this!

I also remember that Christ said: “You must not think that I have come to abolish the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to abolish it but to fulfill it in a perfect way.” (Mt. 5,17) Christ did not come to abolish the condemnation of the divine law against homosexual sin but rather he came to make this condemnation more perfect by stating that even the consenting to the desire to perform impure acts is a grave sin.

St. Paul, the other hagiographers of the New Testament who wrote and renewed the condemnation of homosexuality and the whole of Tradition understood very well that Christ reiterated and strengthened the condemnation of impure acts against nature.

The Holy Spirit, that is, the Spirit of Christ, has not remained silent regarding homosexuality, but has clearly and always condemned it, even through the Apostles and their successors, precisely in the line established by the OT and specified by Christ, as mentioned, and it was obviously Christ himself who spoke in them, he who, as seen, said: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16)

The scope of the words of Christ set down in the Gospel with which he invited us to follow the Holy Spirit in the Law of God and condemned the various sins has already been specified, by Christ himself, through the words of the Apostles and Tradition so that we can affirm with certainty that in the words of Christ himself present in the Gospel we must read a clear and insurmountable condemnation of homosexual practice.

In his reiteration of the command to love God with all your heart, soul etc. (Mk 12,29ff) Christ obviously affirmed the need to observe the norm of Lev. 18,22 which prohibits homosexual practice and the Apostles understood this very well and reiterated it in the letters of the New Testament, the Fathers, the Doctors and the Magisterium understood this very well who stated in the name of Christ that this practice is gravely sinful; Tradition is very clear in stating in the name of Christ that this practice is seriously sinful and that this practice is therefore contrary to the words of Christ.

Furthermore, through the words of Christ: "You know the commandments: Do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness, do not defraud, honor your father and your mother" (Mark 10,19) Christ himself obviously reiterates the need to observe all the commandments in order to be saved, even if he names only a few; among the commandments established in Scripture is that of Lev. 18,22 which prohibits impure sins against nature. With these words, obviously, Christ clearly reiterated the need to follow the divine Law and therefore to avoid homosexual acts; The Apostles and all of Tradition understood this very well, given that in a very clear manner and in the name of Christ they have always invited the faithful to follow the divine commands, to live in chastity and to flee from impure sin against nature.

Only those who lack the Holy Spirit can think that Jesus said in the passage just seen: you must live according to all the commandments except the one that commands you not to commit impure sins against nature.

In his more general reiteration of the need not to sin, Christ obviously affirmed the need not to fall into the impure sin against nature condemned in particular by Lev. 18,22 and the Apostles understood this very well and reiterated it in the letters of the New Testament, the Fathers, the Doctors and the Magisterium understood this very well who stated in the name of Christ that homosexual acts are very gravely sinful; Tradition is very clear in stating in the name of Christ that this practice is seriously sinful and must therefore be avoided.

Therefore in Christ's words to the adulterous woman: “μηκέτι ἁμάρτανε”, “sin no more” (Jn. 8) the command was obviously included: do not commit impure acts against nature; Jesus fully accepted the A. Testament and then Lev. 18,22, the Apostles and all Tradition understood this very well, given that they condemned homosexual sin very clearly and in the name of Christ. It is obviously a very serious error, not to say a real heresy, to say that in this statement of Christ the command is not included: do not commit impure acts against nature, in the line of Lev. 18,22pm.

The significance of Christ's words: "repent and believe in the Gospel" (Mk 1, 15) obviously also includes the need to convert from the impure sin against nature, a very serious sin, and to live according to the Gospel in chastity; the verb μετανοέω in fact indicates not only a mental but also moral conversion from sin[42] The Apostles and all of Tradition understood this very well, given that in a very clear manner and in the name of Christ they have always radically condemned homosexual practice as a very serious sin and have always called those who practiced homosexuality to the necessary conversion.

Only those who lack the Holy Spirit can think that Jesus said: you must live according to all the commandments except the one that commands you not to commit impure sins against nature...

Only those who lack the Holy Spirit can think that Jesus said: you must convert from all sins except from impure sins against nature.

Furthermore, in Mark 7,22 Christ evidently condemns ἀσελγείᾳ, (unbridledness, lasciviousness, lust) and the scope of these words also extends to the condemnation of homosexual acts because it is a term that generally indicates all forms of sexual sins[43]; s. Peter (2 Pt. 2, 7-8) uses this term to indicate the unnatural immorality of the sodomites.

The aforementioned term ἀσελγείᾳ therefore clearly also includes homosexual acts.

The term ἄνομος (man without law, violator of the Law) that Christ pronounces in Luke 22,37 and which implies divine condemnation for ἄνομος, also includes those who practice homosexual acts given that the Law clearly condemns such acts, . Peter indicates with this name the acts of the sodomites (2 Pt. 2, 7-8).

In the Gospel, when Christ generally speaks of sins of the flesh as in Mt. 15,19 or Mr. 7,21 using the term πορνεία he certainly also includes in them the impure sins against nature, which are the most vile among the "carnal" sins .

Indeed, as Zorell explains[44], in this line, the term πορνεῖα (fornication) with the words connected to it indicates more generally every impure sin... therefore also the impure sin against nature in fact, as explained by F. Hauck and S. Schulz[45], although originally this group of terms referred more directly to prostitution, already in late Judaism "πóρνηῖα" and the terms connected to it take on a broader meaning that indicates more generally any impure sin and which also includes impure sin against nature. Along these lines, e.g. Ap. 21,8 uses one of these terms to indicate how all those who are guilty of impure sins, i.e. the "immoral", are destined for eternal damnation; obviously these include those who practice homosexuality.

The Christ who condemned sins is not another God than the One who spoke through Paul to condemn homosexuality, and the Christ who speaks in the Gospel is the same one spoken of by St. Paul when he states: it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2,20). The life and writings of s. Paul are nothing other than the extension of the life and words of Christ himself. Christ speaks through Paul! The Gospel continues in the letters of st. Paul and in the other texts of the New Testament, therefore Christ was able to affirm: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16) ... and precisely the same s. Paul and then s. Peter and s. Judas and all the Apostles and Doctors and saints, in Christ and in the Spirit of Christ, have radically and always condemned practiced homosexuality and Christ has condemned it through them: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16)

More generally, as said, we must reiterate that the whole Bible and every passage of it, therefore the whole Gospel and every passage of it, since the Holy Scripture is a single book (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 112) which has as its Author God (see Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Verbum”, 11: AAS 58 (1966) 822-823), condemns homosexual practice.

Bottom line: The PCB's claims about homosexuality in the Gospels appear superficial and fundamentally false, as mentioned. The whole Bible and within it the whole Gospel teach directly or indirectly, negatively or positively the grave immorality of unnatural acts.

 

 

c,6) In the PCB's treatment, some of the texts that most directly condemn homosexuality in the New Testament are missing... or rather many are missing...

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

What we have seen in the previous paragraph leads us to understand that the entire Bible and therefore the entire N. Testament teach directly or indirectly, negatively or positively the serious immorality of unnatural acts.

In the next paragraphs we will see how other texts of the New Testament, in addition to the Gospels and the texts most directly cited by the Commission, directly but more generically condemn such acts.

Let's say straight away that, as R. Penna states, the lack of many Christian texts directly and specifically against homosexuality must be sought "...not in a permissive attitude in this regard, but in the fact that homosexuality is already traditionally condemned in the Jewish context , to which practically all the first Christian writers are indebted, and which equally in the Greek context it is branded by the predominant Stoic philosophy as contrary to nature. Thus, to remain in the first century, Philo of Alexandria, who is the greatest exponent of Hellenistic Judaism, repeatedly in his treatises condemns sodomy and pederasty as «illicit couplings» (On Abraham 135) and those who practice them as « enemies of nature" (On special laws 3,36) ... The New Testament therefore did not have a particular battle to wage on this front, having only to align itself with current positions in the cultural world of the first century."[46]

What the professor says. Penna makes us understand why only a few passages of the NT speak more directly and specifically about homosexual acts. However, we must add and underline that many passages of the New Testament more directly but generically condemn such acts.

First of all, it should be noted in this regard that the Commission's text leaves aside two texts that it had cited marginally when it spoke of the sin of Sodom, two texts taken one from the letter of Judas and one from the second letter of Peter, When he speaks more broadly than the New Testament in reference to homosexuality, the Commission ignores these two passages, yet they contain an important double condemnation of unnatural sin. I specify that we will return later to examine these texts in more depth with their strong statements when we criticize the statements of the Commission regarding the sin of Sodom. However, we are already focusing on them now because they are very significant in relation to what I am saying in this part. Below we will first look at a passage from the Letter of Jude, then we will go to other texts of the New Testament and then we will examine a passage from the second Letter of Peter.

I conclude by underlining that Christ speaks and manifests himself through the Apostles and hagiographers! Christ was able to say: “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” (Luke 10,16). All the sacred writers of the Old and New Testaments and with them s. Paul and then s. Peter and s. Judas and all the Apostles and Doctors and saints, in Christ and in the Spirit of Christ, have radically and always condemned practiced homosexuality and Christ has condemned it through them: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16); through the New Testament, in particular, the Incarnate Word who is supreme purity and who is radically opposed to unnatural sins speaks more directly, through the words of the New Testament Christ speaks who radically abominates this sin and which he manifests precisely through the New Testament texts such his radical abomination; through the texts of the New Testament, Christ speaks who supremely desires the conversion of those who are dedicated to the sins of homosexuality and who died precisely so that this conversion can take place.

 

 

c,6,1) A significant passage from Judas' letter.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The text of the Letter of Judas that interests us is the following: “Now I want to remind you, who already know all these things, that the Lord, after having saved the people from the land of Egypt, later caused those who did not want to perish. believe, and that the angels who did not retain their dignity but left their abode, he holds in eternal chains, in darkness, for the judgment of the great day. Thus Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities, which have abandoned themselves to immodesty in the same way and have followed unnatural vices, are as an example suffering the punishments of eternal fire." (Jude 5-7)

The Greek text is as follows: “Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ πάντα ὅτι Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας π εν, ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλ' ἀπολιπαόντ ς τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν, ὡς Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰ ς πόλεις τὸν ὅμοιον τρόπον τούτοις ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦς ίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι. ”[47]

Ecumenius in his commentary[48] This text from Judas highlights the condemnation of homosexual acts.

Regarding the words of Judas just seen, the “Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains” specifies that “ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας” essentially means practicing homosexuality.[49] The 1966 Revised Standard Edition translates these words equally in the sense just seen: they concern sins against nature; the “New Jerusalem Bible” equally translates “who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts” that is, with equal sexual immorality they went after unnatural vices, the CEI Bible of 2008 equally translates in the sense just indicated: “they went after vices against nature” that is, homosexual vices.

Sodom and the surrounding cities, as the text explains, have abandoned themselves to immodesty: ἐκπορνεύσασαι; the prefix ἐκ indicates a lust that is filled, completely satisfied[50]

The commentary on the Letter of Judas made in "The Anchor Bible" in 1993 underlines how the sin of Sodom indicated by Judas is the sin of homosexuality.[51]

In the New Great Biblical Commentary when it comes to the letter of Judas and verses 5-7 it is clearly said that Judas indicates the sins of homosexuality of Sodom with those words: "they have followed vices against nature", these words are connected with what we read in Genesis (Gen. 19,4-8)[52]. Also the commentary of the prof. G. Marconi highlights in these verses that the sin of pederasty and sodomy is condemned in them, Marconi highlights in this line the link between the text of Judas and the Jewish traditions which precisely indicate the sin of Sodom as the sin of homosexuality[53]. The rabbinical traditions that indicate the sin of Sodom as a sin of homosexuality are collected in an important text by Billerbeck and Strack[54].

GL Green also highlights how the text of Judas refers to the sin of Sodom as a homosexual sin[55].

The verb ἐκπορνεύω, present in the text of Jude, is used 47 times in the Septuagint, 1 time in the New Testament and means to commit fornication, to prostitute oneself, in various cases this verb translates the Hebrew verb zanah which in turn means to prostitute oneself, to commit fornication, to be unfaithful to God.

This verb is connected to πορνεία whose scope, as we saw above, also includes impure sins against nature, which are the most vile among the "carnal" sins.

Indeed, as Zorell explains[56], the term πορνεῖα (fornication) with the words connected to it indicates more generally every impure sin... therefore also the impure sin against nature in fact, as explained by F. Hauck and S. Schulz[57], although originally this group of terms referred more directly to prostitution, already in late Judaism "πóρνηῖα" and the terms connected to it take on a broader meaning that indicates more generally any impure sin and which also includes impure sin against nature. Along these lines, e.g. Ap. 21,8 uses one of these terms to indicate how all those who are guilty of impure sins, i.e. the "immoral", are destined for eternal damnation; obviously these include those who practice homosexuality.

The commentary of the University of Navarra states regarding the text of the letter of Judas in question: “… the perversions of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18,16ff.) are prototype of impureza. El v. 7 is an explicit condemnation of homosexuality (cf. Rom 1,24:27-1; 6,9 Cor 1:1,10; 8 Tim 2357:XNUMX). According to these and other texts of the Writing, «Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (Cong. Doctrina de la Fe, Persona humana, n. XNUMX). They are contrary to the natural law. They tell the sexual act to the don de la vida. They do not proceed from true emotional and sexual complementarity. No one can receive approval in any case" (Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, n. XNUMX).[58]

The perversions of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18,16 ff.) are a prototype of lust. The V. 7 of the letter of Jude is an explicit condemnation of homosexuality (see Rom 1,24 – 27; 1 Cor 6,9; 1 Tim 1,10). Based on these and other texts of the Scriptures, “Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (Cong. Doctrine of the Faith, Human Person, n. 8), such acts are contrary to natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life and do not come from true affective and sexual complementarity. However, they cannot receive approval (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357).

The text of Judas with a euphemism simply wants to indicate that the sin of Sodom was against nature, it was a sin of homosexuality, as many biblical scholars affirm.

Literally the words “ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας” mean going after different flesh but they are in fact a euphemism that wants to indicate the practice of homosexuality.

Zorell, a great expert in Greek and Biblical Hebrew, author of 2 Lexicons, one concerning Biblical Hebrew and one concerning Biblical Greek, in his famous “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti.” [59] equally he believes that the affirmation of the letter of Judas that we are seeing means following unnatural vices, that is, homosexual ones.

Another great expert on the Greek language, M. Zerwick, states in the same way that the statement in question means following unnatural vices, that is, homosexuals.[60]

There are therefore big reasons that indicate that the letter of Judas contains a direct condemnation of homosexual acts and these reasons are not undermined by what we will see below.

The professor. Vanni, in fact, remains in doubt in the interpretation of this passage between two possibilities:

1) that the text in question condemns homosexual activity;

2) that the text in question condemns sexual union with angels.

However, for Professor Vanni the text condemns lust therefore this condemnation also implies at least indirectly the condemnation of homosexual acts because they are among the acts of lust. [61]

The doubts of the prof. Vanni are due to the fact that some authors, in the wake of the Bible de Jerusalem, have developed other translations of this text of the letter of Judas and have considered that what is condemned is not the homosexual act but wanting to sexually unite with angels and they believed that in this way Judas would follow in a certain way the book of Enoch which speaks of sexual unions between angels and men and would take up what is spoken of in the first chapters of the Bible where we read of giants who were sons of angels who had united to women.

The reconstruction of the Bible de J. is not convincing for various reasons:

1) the first chapters of the Bible do not speak of men who unite with angels but of women who unite with them instead the sin of the sodomites was evidently a sin which, in the hypothesis of the Bible de J., implied the union of men with angels as seen in Gen. 19, the men in fact wanted to abuse Lot's two guests;

2) the sodomites in Gen. 19 do not show that they know that the two men Lot welcomes are angels, so it seems absurd to say that they wanted to join angels;

3) no traditional Jewish text indicated by the Bible de J. states that the sodomites wanted to copulate with angels: neither Enoch nor the Testament of the Patriarchs; the quotations from the Bible of Jerusalem which refer to the book of Enoch and the Testaments of the Patriarchs do not appear to speak of the sin of Sodom in the sense indicated by the Bible;

a) the book of Enoch does not speak of Sodom and does not speak of unions between men and angels but of unions between women and angels;

b) the book of the Testaments of the Patriarchs specifies that the sodomites did not recognize the angels who came to Sodom (Testament of Asher VII)

c) the book of Jubilees speaks of the sins of the angels and of Sodom as pertaining to: “…wickedness and…fornication, impurity and corruption among them.”[62] but he does not speak of unions between men and angels. therefore the idea of ​​men of Sodom wanting to unite carnally with angels does not correspond to these traditional texts.

d) Jewish tradition, as we will see better later, through various texts condemns homosexuality in the case of Sodom and not the sin of men with angels, as far as I know.

In conclusion, the reconstruction of the Bible de J. is not convincing in any way.

It should also be noted that, as Zorell explains[63], the term πορνεῖα, (impure sin) with the words connected to it more generally indicates every impure sin, therefore also the impure sin against nature; in fact, as F. Hauck and S. Schulz explain[64] although originally this group of terms referred more directly to prostitution, already in late Judaism this group took on a broader meaning which more generally indicates any impure sin and which also includes impure sin against nature. Along these lines, e.g. Ap. 21,8 uses one of these terms to indicate how all those who are guilty of impure sins, i.e. the "immoral", are destined for eternal damnation; obviously these include those who practice homosexuality. The verb ἐκπορνεύσασαι, linked to πορνεῖα, is found precisely in the passage of the Letter of Judas that we are seeing and refers to the sins of Sodom, the scope of this verb therefore extends to all impure sins and the condemnation it contains implies first of all the condemnation of the most serious impure sins, that is, homosexual acts.

I add that the words of s. Paul: "... it is no longer I who live but Christ lives in me" (Gal. 2,20) can apply to s. Judas and the other apostles, Christ speaks and manifests himself through them! The Gospel continues in the letter of Judas, Christ was able to affirm: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16). All the sacred writers and with them s. Paul and then s. Peter and s. Judas and all the Apostles and Doctors and saints, in Christ and in the Spirit of Christ, have radically and always condemned practiced homosexuality and Christ has condemned it through them: "Whoever listens to you listens to me." (Luke 10,16); through the letter of Judas the Incarnate Word speaks who is supreme purity and who is radically opposed to sins against nature, through the words of Judas the Christ speaks who radically abominates this sin and who manifests his radical abomination precisely through the words we have examined ; through the texts the letter of Judas speaks of Christ who supremely desires the conversion of those who are dedicated to the sins of homosexuality and who died precisely so that this conversion can take place.

In conclusion, the text of Judas contains a strong and double direct condemnation of impure acts against nature but the PCB has not registered this text among those that most directly implement this condemnation.

 

 

c,6,2) Other texts that more directly condemn homosexuality in the New Testament…

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

I go back to what I said at the end of the previous paragraph, I was talking about the terms connected to "πορνεῖα".

No πόρνος ἢ ἀκάθαρτος that is, no lustful person of any kind or type will enter the Kingdom of God, says s. Paul in Eph. 5,5, obviously including in this group also those who practice homosexuality, as I said above, and the same teaching is reiterated by s. Paul in 1 Cor. 6,9.

It should be noted that ἀκαθαρσίᾳ means impurity (F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Rome 1990 col. 48) and is more generally used to indicate all sexual sins.

In various other texts (in particular 2 Cor. 12,21; Gal. 5,19; Eph. 5,3.5; Col. 3,5) the terms connected to “πορνεῖα” are joined with terms connected to ἀκαθαρσίᾳ to indicate all sexual sins including the sin of homosexuality.

The statements we find in Gal are particularly interesting for us. 5,19 in which all the sins of lust are placed among the works of the flesh and we find ἀκαθαρσίᾳ and πορνείᾳ mentioned together ... obviously among the works of the flesh included here it is evident that there is the impure sin against nature ...

In addition to the texts already seen, we find the term ἀκαθαρσίᾳ used to indicate every form of lust in Eph. 4,19; Rom 1,24. 6,19; 1 Thess. 4,7 ... and, I underline, obviously, among the various forms of lust there is also the sin of homosexuality, as indicated by Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium ...

So even these texts, just seen, more directly and many others with them, more generically, as we said, in the New Testament unite in condemning the practice of homosexuality.

On the other hand, the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission clearly states on p. 161, speaking of prostitution, which various texts of the New Testament condemn those who indulge in prostitution and any immorality in the sexual sphere and cites Rm. 13,13; 1 Cor. 5, 9-11; 6,9; Gal. 5,19; Eph. 5,5; Col.3,5-7; 1 Tim. 1,10; Tt. 3,3; Heb. 12,16; 13,4; Ap. 21,8; 22,15 ... but obviously among these immoralities there are impure sins against nature ... but these texts are not cited when talking about the sin of homosexuality.

If the Commission had included all the texts in which such statements are found that directly concern homosexual activity in more general terms, in the New Testament, this would have led to a colossal increase in biblical passages that more directly condemn this sin.

I conclude by recalling that the entire N. Testament never praises the impure act against nature or those who practice it; the entire N. Testament, as said above, teaches directly or indirectly, negatively or positively the grave immorality of acts against nature.

 

 

c,6,3) A significant text taken from the second Letter of Peter.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The text of the second letter of Peter states that God: “… condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes, setting an example for those who would live wickedly. Instead he freed the righteous Lot, distressed by the immoral behavior of those villains. In fact, that righteous man, because of what he saw and heard while he lived among them, was tormented every day in his righteous soul by such ignominies. The Lord knows how to free the pious from trials and keep the wicked for punishment on the day of judgment, especially those who in their impure passions pursue the flesh and despise the Lord.” (2 Pt. 2, 6 -10)

The Greek text is as follows: πόδειγμα μελλόντων ἀσεβεῖν τεθεικὼς 7 καὶ δίκαιον Λὼτ καταπονούμενον ὑ πὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ ἀναστροφῆς ἐρρύσατο· 8 βλέμματι γὰρ καὶ ἀκοῇ ὁ δίκαιος ἐγκατοικῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας ψυχὴν α δικ ίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν · 9 οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέραν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, 10 μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σα ρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους καὶ κυριότητος καταφρονοῦντας. τολμηταὶ αὐθάδεις δόξας οὐ τρέμουσιν βλασφημοῦντες,”[65]

The professor. Vanni clearly states that in the passage of 2 Pt. 6-8 the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah "sinful cities, full of people without moral law and dedicated to a lustful life" is highlighted; these cities, Vanni continues, "are contrasted with the figure of Lot" who "endures the immorality that surrounds him with discomfort" [66]. The terms used by s. Peter clearly refer to lust, the scope of the term ἀσελγείᾳ includes the various forms of lust[67]; as Bauerfeind says in the “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”[68] the term ἀσελγείᾳ indicates debauchery, immorality, and this obviously has a particular relationship with lust.

I would like to point out immediately that the second Letter of Peter is notoriously closely connected to the letter of Judas[69]

The terms “ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους” translated from the 2008 CEI Bible as “in their impure passions they go after the flesh” clearly indicate unbridled lust and they connect to the similar statements we saw in the Letter of Jude[70] and include unnatural lust.

All lust, in fact, is obviously condemned through these words, especially the most serious one, that is, homosexual lust which the Letter of Jude speaks more directly about.

Note that very similar words are used in the two texts:

– in the Letter of Peter we read: “ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους” that is, in their impure passions they go after the flesh;

– in the Letter of Judas we read: “ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας” which literally means: they went after other flesh; the text is translated from the 2008 CEI Bible with: they went after unnatural vices.

As is evident, the two texts are similar, in both we find two identical words used in succession and in the same order: “ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς” which mean behind the flesh; the famous great expert on Hebrew and Greek Prof. F. Zorell in his Lexicon notes that in these two passages the term flesh means the human body as the seat and instrument of the desires of lust which include those relating to homosexual acts.[71]

As seen and as we will see better later, and as appears in the interpretation of many authors, the sin of Sodom, which is also spoken of in the Second Letter of Peter, is a sin of lust and in particular of lust against nature, which emerges from Gen. 19; such a sin in this passage of the letter of s. Peter appears indicated more generically with various terms: it is impiety, immoral behavior, going after the passions of the flesh and therefore he is condemned several times; in this regard it is also important to consider that the second Letter of Peter is notoriously closely connected to the letter of Judas[72], which we have seen, and which speaks much more plainly of unnatural lust concerning Sodom; s. Peter therefore speaks of the same sin and more generally of every type of lust and radically condemns it.

Seriously examining this text of the Second Letter of Peter leads us to understand even better how in statements against carnal sins, such as those used in this text, a condemnation of homosexual activity is obviously included.

To effectively respond to the objections of those who believe that homosexuality is poorly addressed in the Bible, the Pontifical Biblical Commission had ample possibilities which, significantly, it did not exploit!

 

 

c,7) The statements of the Commission regarding the Pauline texts.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The Commission stopped only to examine the Pauline passages most evidently against homosexuality... 3 in all... and after examining two of them it had to state: "for Christians, homosexual practice is considered a grave sin"... (p. 167) Question: but aren't the members of the Commission Christians? So why not say: for all of us homosexual practice is a serious sin? Aren't the statements of the Magisterium which has repeatedly and radically condemned homosexual acts valid for the exegetes of the Pontifical Biblical Commission?

Not simply for Christians, homosexual acts are a serious sin but for the Church, for the Bible and above all for God.

Indeed, as God himself has clearly stated, precisely through the Bible, the Magisterium and Tradition, homosexual acts are, objectively, a very serious sin, a mortal sin of special gravity.

Furthermore, as mentioned, there are many other texts by s. Paul who condemn sexual sins more directly even if with generic words, in fact the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission clearly states on p. 161, speaking of prostitution, that the texts of the New Testament condemn those who indulge in prostitution and any immorality in the sexual sphere and cites Rm. 13,13; 1 Cor. 5, 9-11; 6,9; Gal. 5,19; Eph. 5,5; Col.3,5-7; 1 Tim. 1,10; Tt. 3,3; Heb. 12,16; 13,4 ... obviously among these immoralities there are impure sins against nature ... but the Commission does not speak of these texts when it deals with homosexuality ...

The Commission must however state that for s. Paul excludes the sin of homosexuality from the kingdom of God (p. 167) but is not simply s. Paul says it, it is God, the main Author of Sacred Scripture, who affirms it; in fact s. Paul does not speak of this exclusion saying that it is an opinion of him and the s. Tradition that interpreted the texts of s. Paul precisely considered this exclusion as a divine teaching, in fact he taught that homosexual acts performed with full awareness and deliberate consent are serious sins and therefore, if they are not repaired with contrition and Confession, lead to eternal damnation.[73]

Church discipline has always considered homosexual acts as serious sins.

No Pauline text is favorable to homosexual acts!

The whole Bible and therefore all the biblical writings of s. Paul states directly or indirectly, negatively or positively that homosexual activity is gravely sinful.

There are therefore not only three Pauline passages that condemn homosexual activity nor are there only three texts that more directly condemn such activity!

However, I must give credit to the Commission for having really written effectively regarding S.'s statements. Paul on homosexuality in Rom 1,26:27-168. Pages XNUMXs, of the text of the PCB before the conclusion, seem to me truly powerful in dealing with the words of the great Apostle and the message that comes to us from him.

I would add that the biblical condemnation does not only concern male homosexuality but also female homosexuality: the PCB also states this on p. 169 examining the words of s. Paul.

The professor. Edart wrote an important article on these Pauline texts highlighting how they effectively condemn homosexual acts and how this condemnation is absolute and insurmountable and also quotes M. Gilbert in this line[74]; in the same article professor Edart refutes the doctrines of authors who deny these statements in various forms, particularly in the letters of s. Paul.

In his article just quoted on homosexuality in the Bible[75] M. Gilbert cites the Pauline texts to which the Commission also refers.

Gilbert points out, regarding 1 Cor. 6,9 that the term malakos means sweet, therefore it applies in a sexual context to effeminate men, especially young men, who experience homosexual relations as passive partners; the term arsenokoitai appears as an adaptation of Lev 18,22; 20,13 in the LXX version and means that a man sleeps with another man, the corresponding Hebrew term is mishkav zekor.

Gilbert excludes that the text of 1 Cor. 6,9 concerns only pederasty, he instead believes that it is a general condemnation of homosexual acts and specifies that this condemnation does not simply concern the Corinthians but everyone.

The Belgian exegete adds that the text concerns only men and that female homosexuality was probably rarer so there was no need to talk about it.

Regarding the text of the Letter to the Romans (Rm 1, 26-27) which condemns homosexuality, M. Gilbert develops a series of reflections and concludes: “Bref, pour Paul, toute homosexualité détourne du plan de Dieu (Gen 1, 27 ) and it is not that the fruit corrupts the essence of God's senses; If you are in Christ, you can free the world from suffering and despair.”

In short for s. Paul every type of homosexuality, both male and female, distances us from the divine plan for man and is the fruit of the loss of the sense of God; only faith in Christ can free the world from paganism and depravity. Gilbert examines some terms of the text and concludes: “These texts dénoncent tout autant l'homosexualité masculine que féminine.” These texts condemn both male and female homosexuality.

Regarding 1 Tim 1,10 Gilbert focuses on some terms including arsenokoitai and concludes by stating that in this passage male homosexuality is condemned, in particular; however there is some indication that may suggest that every type of homosexual act, even between women, is condemned with this biblical text.

Gilbert concludes by stating that the texts in question denounce both male and female homosexuality, and do so from various perspectives: in the Letter to the Romans Paul sees homosexuality as the fruit of idolatry and in this sense we see a connection with Wisdom. 14,10-31; in the Letter to the Corinthians homosexual acts are indicated by the Apostle as unjust on a moral level and a sign of the absence of the justice that comes from God in Christ, such acts exclude one from salvation; in the Letter to Timothy the hagiographer highlights how the Law condemns homosexual acts and it is clearly contrary to sound doctrine to practice certain acts.

Furthermore, it is significant, for the Belgian exegete, that homosexual acts are repeatedly included in catalogs of serious vices, homosexuality is not a minor vice, it is a serious vice.

Gilbert concludes his article with some significant highlights from which we can draw that:

1) the Bible condemns all forms of homosexuality, including female homosexuality, and therefore also pederasty;

2) every form of homosexuality is condemned, both active and passive;

3) the N. Testament is connected to the condemnation made by Leviticus against homosexual acts;

4) homosexuality, as a behavior, is condemned as contrary to God's plan for man;

5) the texts of s. Paul (Rom 1, 26-27; 1 Cor 6, 9-10) but also some texts of the Old Testament (Gen 19, 1-11 and Wis 14, 10-31) are a look at the pagan life that makes us understand that homosexuality cannot be Christian behavior; to affirm the contrary would be "an empty verbiage" (1 Tim 1, 6) of people who present themselves as doctors of the Law and do not know that the Law also rejects this behavior, just as the Gospel rejects it;

6) man can free himself from homosexuality with the grace that Christ brought;

7) the Church's teaching and Bible-based condemnation of homosexuality cannot be erased. [76]

As can be clearly seen, the conclusion of Gilbert's article is very different from that of the PCB since the latter, unlike the former, and contrary to the entire Tradition, leaves the door open to a revision of the Catholic position on homosexual acts.

 

 

c,8) The Commission does not cite a significant text from the book of Wisdom, correlated with Rom. 1, 26s., and does not present other texts from the Old Testament

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The Commission does not highlight an interesting text that we read in the book of Wisdom in the part in which it highlights the terrible fruits of idolatry and which says: "Everything is mixed up:

blood and murder, theft and deception,

corruption, disloyalty, tumult, perjury,

bewilderment of good people, forgetfulness of favors,

corruption of souls, sexual perversion,

disorders in marriages, adultery and unchastity.” (Wisdom 14, 25-26)

M. Gilbert says regarding this text that it was probably written in the time of the emperor Augustus and that in it the author proposes an enumeration of 22 vices, which means, total perversion. The Belgian exegete notes that the author also through the use of letters (the letters T, the last letter of the Hebrew alphabet and the letter A which is the first) shows the perversion of the pagan world; the pass of Sap. 14,25 is dependent on the Decalogue through Hosea [77]

The text is in clear correlation with the statements of s. Paul in Rom. 1,26s because he highlights the vices of the pagans among which homosexual activity also appears, in fact in Wis. 14,26 we find an interesting statement which is significantly translated in the Italian text with "sexual perversion" the Greek term is γενέσεως εναλλαγή whose literal translation is: inversion of generation; the Jerusalem Bible translates it as crimes against nature, so with these words homosexual activity is spoken of and condemned.

All commentators see in such words a condemnation of unnatural vices and therefore of homosexual activity, says M. Gilbert[78]. The Belgian exegete continues by stating that the author of Wisdom with this condemnation of unnatural acts targets men as much as women and does not distinguish ages, in the line of Lev 18; it is therefore a radical condemnation of sins against nature and homosexuality in its various forms (pederasty, lesbianism, sodomy).

Furthermore, in the text in question, Sap. 14,26, ασέλγεια is also condemned, translated into Italian as “imchastity” whose scope includes homosexual acts, as seen above; s. Peter (2 Pt. 2,7) uses this Greek term to indicate, as we have said, the unnatural immorality of the sodomites, making us understand even better than in the condemnation of Wisdom. 14,26 must be included "doubly" and in particular also those who practice the same vice as sodomites.

As M. Healy pointed out “The document does not treat the biblical texts referring to homosexual cult prostitution (Deut 23:17–18; 1 Kgs 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; 2 Kgs 23:7; Job 36 :13–14), nor the story of Ham's sin against Noah (Gen 9:20–27), which is arguably an act of incestuous homosexual rape (see Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice, 63–71; Nissinen, Homoeroticism, 52–53).” [79]

The document does not deal with the biblical texts relating to homosexual sacred prostitution nor with the story of Ham's sin against Noah, who was also homosexual.

 

 

d) The clear condemnation and terrible punishment of Sodom for the unclean sin against nature is denied in the document, contrary to what the Bible states!

 

 

In the following pages we will see what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says regarding the Sodom episode, then we will criticize these statements first of all by showing that the sin of Sodom was mainly a sin of lust.

 

 

d,1) The statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission on pages 162-4 absolutely states that the sin of Sodom was a sin of lack of respectful welcome towards the foreigner, with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior judged very serious and therefore deserving of being sanctioned with maximum severity because the rejection of the different, needy and defenceless, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly penalty that deserves an adequate punishment.

To reach this conclusion, the Commission states first of all that the fate of Sodom in Gen. 19 is a kind of oppositional counterpoint with the story of the man marked by the blessing, that is, Abraham; Sodom is indicated in the Bible (see Dt. 29,22; Is. 1,9; 13,19; Jer. 49,18; Ezek. 16,56; Lam. 4,6; Lk. 17,29 etc.) , the document specifies, as a paradigm of the divine curse in the form of catastrophic punishment.

Subsequently, the same Commission states that in other passages of the Hebrew Bible that refer to the guilt of Sodom, homosexual sexual transgression is never alluded to and cites Is. 1,10; 3,9; Ger. 23,14pm; Ez. 16,49; Sir. 16,8; Dt. 32,32-34.

The document in question therefore speaks of a different interpretation that emerges from some texts of the New Testament and which has established itself since the 163nd century of the Christian era, becoming a habitual reading of the biblical story; for this interpretation the sin of Sodom is sodomy. The biblical text, states the Commission, would seem to give clear support to this interpretation but the story does not intend to present an entire city dominated by uncontainable desires of a homosexual nature; instead, "the conduct of a political and social entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect and seeks to humiliate him by forcibly forcing him to undergo submissive treatment" is denounced (p. XNUMX)

Furthermore, this entity cannot tolerate those within it who open their home to strangers.

The welcome given by Lot to the two foreigners obtains him salvation and equally the welcome given by Abraham obtains him the blessing, but whoever opposes and seriously offends the foreigner will suffer the curse and in this regard the Commission cites Gen. 12,3 which frankly does not seem to me to have a close relationship with those who practice hospitality towards the stranger because this text refers directly to those who blesse Abraham and not to those who welcome or blesses every stranger.

This way of reading Gen. 19, according to the Commission, would be confirmed by Sap. 19,13-17 and something similar would emerge indirectly from Mt. 10,14-5 and Luke 10,10-12.

A further stronger confirmation of this interpretation would come, according to the Pontifical Commission, from the episode narrated in Judges 19.

Below we will see how the statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission essentially collapse in the face of various biblical and traditional evidence and manifest themselves as a somewhat ideological discourse which subtly but decisively supports the errors of Pope Francis and which leads, against the very clear biblical statements, to hide the terrible condemnation and terrible punishment that God himself inflicts for the sins of depraved sexuality and in particular for sins against nature.

 

 

d,2) Text and fundamental data for the exegesis of Gen. 19

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

A) The text

The chap. 19 of the book of Genesis is closely linked to Gen 18, 16-32, the two angels spoken of in Gen. 19 are part of the group of three "men" indicated in Genesis 18.

The “New Great Biblical Commentary” of 1997, of the Queriniana, on page. 29 states that the first three verses of chapter 19 present a parallel with 18,1-8, Abraham welcomes the three "men", Lot welcomes the two man-angels, Abraham receives the promise of his son, Lot receives the instruction to flee . [80]

In reality the two angels first refuse Lot's offer but then accept, Lot, knowing full well that it was dangerous to stay out the night in Sodom, unlike other cities, insists.[81]

The sodomites do not go to Lot during the day but at night (Gen. 19,4) and do not send their soldiers to fulfill a law of the city, it does not seem to be the king who had this perverse action carried out on the 2 guests, it is not in the execution of a law that such perversion is carried out; yet the whole city presents itself to Lot to join carnally with the two man-angels.

The fact that the whole city is willing to unite carnally with the two guests is a fact presented with emphasis by the text and indicates the total lack of shame on the part of the entire population.[82]

The sin of Sodom is therefore committed in a brazen way, it is ostentatious, as Isaiah will specify (Is. 3,9)

The Hebrew word (yada) used by the sodomites in Gen. 19,5 to indicate the unnatural sexual union that they wanted to implement on the two guests is a euphemism which ordinarily means to know but is often used to indicate sexual intercourse (Gen. 4,1.17.25 ,19,5.8; 24,16; 19,22.25; Jdc. 21,11; 12-39,10) translating this term the LXX uses the verb συγγίνομαι (to unite sexually), the same verb that it will use to indicate the sin it wanted fulfill Potiphar's wife with Joseph even if in the latter case the Hebrew verb used is not yada; the same verb συγγίνομαι is used in other cases in the Septuagint to indicate a sinful sexual relationship (Gen 12,16, Jdt 13, Dan. 11.39, XNUMX).

Refuting J. Boswell's claims, Lynne C. Boughton highlights how yada really means sexual activity. [83]

The exegetes Davidson and Hamilton underline very effectively that the terms used (in particular yada) are not those of violence or abuse but are simply those indicating an unnatural sexual relationship, and when Lot offers his daughters to the sodomites he is not talking about violence but he simply says that they can join them, instead in Judges 19,24, in a similar case, the old Ephraimite offers his daughter and the concubine of his Levite host to the perverse people of Gibeah so that they can "sexually mistreat them." [84]

The impure sin against nature, notes Skinner, was considered in Israel as the most aberrant perversion (see Lev. 18 and 20; Ezek. 16,50; Jdc. 19,22[85]

Lot opposes the sodomites and offers his virgin daughters to their impure desires. (Gen. 19,6ff.).

Lot points out that the sodomites' action goes against the rules of hospitality and Lot's actions in this case are those expected of a host; according to the mentality of the time, evidently, the daughters could be handed over to save the guests[86]; clearly what is presented here is a primitive morality and unacceptable for us, in Christ it is radically overcome.

It should be noted that in Gen. 19,7.9 and Judges 19,23 the verb having the same root as the adjective in Gen 13,13 is used; Lot and the Ephraimite use the verb ra'a' (to be evil) to tell the sodomites and men of Gibeah not to do certain evil acts; in these 3 cases therefore the verb ra'a' is used which has the same root as ra' found in Gen. 13,13.

More precisely, these verbs and adjectives all have the root r“ according to the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament and indicate wickedness.[87]

Seeing that the sodomites want to forcefully overcome Lot's opposition and then take the two men - angels, the latter intervene: they pull Lot in, bar the door and make the sodomites move away, then warn Lot to get ready and go away from the city.

Clearly it is the impure act and then the violence used by the sodomites that causes the words of the two angels: now the punishment is decreed. Lot and his family are very hesitant in leaving Sodom, especially his wife, who will die during this move.

At sunrise the punishment strikes: fire and brimstone radically burn, along with Sodom, the other cities of the valley in the southern region of the Dead Sea; Soar is saved, despite being close to them, because Lot takes her as her refuge.

Abraham returns to the place of his meeting with God and looks down on the area of ​​the cataclysm, the divine punishment was just, Sodom with its perversion was destroyed, Lot, evidently the only righteous one, was saved. [88]

The punishment was meted out directly by God Gn. 19,24, without the mediation of any creature, this also means that the act goes against the Law of God and God takes it upon himself to punish it!

B) The context.

The context of the chapter. 19 was extensively examined by Peterson in his book entirely dedicated to the sin of Sodom, he also talks about this context in his article on the same topic.

In his book Peterson says “… scholars have also noted that the Sodom narrative is purposefully placed between the promise and fulfillment of the birth of the promised child, Isaac (cf. Genesis 18 and 21), to highlight the problem of “sterile” sex , which same-sex relations embody.”[89]

Thus some scholars have noted that the Sodom narrative intentionally places itself between the promise and fulfillment of the birth of the promised child, Isaac (see Genesis 18 and 21), to highlight the problem of “sterile” sex, which homosexual relationships embody.

Professor Healy, presenting the PCB document, also points out that the position of chapter 19 and its context as well as two texts of the New Testament (Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10) make understand that the message offered through the chapter concerns sexuality.[90]

The professor. Peterson further states: “However, the sexual nature of Sodom's sins does not only find support in the immediate context of chapters 13–19 … the broader context of Genesis 4–20 points in this direction as well.” [91]

The sexual nature of Sodom's sins finds support not only in the immediate context of chapters 13-19 but the broader context of Genesis 4–20 also points in this direction.

In one of his articles Peterson also underlines that the entire chapter. 19 of Genesis focuses on the violation of the Divine Law on sexuality, first with the act of the sodomites and then that of Lot's daughters, in both cases we have a clearly manifested perverse sexual desire.[92]

C) Fundamental data for exegesis.

I would like to remind you first of all that the fact characterizing Catholic exegesis: "... is its conscious placing in the living tradition of the Church, whose first concern is fidelity to the revelation attested by the Bible. … Catholic exegesis approaches the biblical writings with a pre-understanding that closely unites modern scientific culture and the religious tradition coming from Israel and the primitive Christian community. Its interpretation is thus in continuity with the hermeneutic dynamism that manifests itself within the Bible itself and which then continues in the life of the Church. It corresponds to the need for vital affinity between the interpreter and his object, an affinity which constitutes one of the conditions of possibility of exegetical work.

However, every pre-understanding carries its dangers. In the case of Catholic exegesis, there is the risk of attributing to some biblical texts a meaning that they do not express, but which is the result of a further development of the tradition. The exegete must guard against this danger.”[93]

Pope Benedict XVI stated: “… Scripture must be proclaimed, listened to, read, accepted and lived as the Word of God, in the wake of the apostolic Tradition from which it is inseparable[94]. "[95]

Therefore the exegesis of Gen 19 must be carried out in the wake of Tradition, being careful not to fall into the error of attributing to some biblical texts a meaning that they do not express, but which is the result of a further development of the tradition.

Furthermore, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself stated in the document on biblical interpretation in the Church: “Intertextual relationships acquire an extreme density in the writings of the New Testament, full of allusions to the Old Testament and explicit quotations. The authors of the New Testament recognize the value of divine revelation in the Old Testament. They proclaim that this revelation found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus… In light of the Easter events the authors of the New Testament reread the Old Testament.”[96]

Therefore it is necessary to pay particular attention to the New Testament rereadings of Genesis 19 and more generally of the entire cycle of Sodom because they are carried out in the full Light of Christ and therefore reveal the most complete meaning of this cycle.

Precisely to grasp this meaning it is important to keep in mind that: "Most exegetes admit that the final drafting of the patriarchal narratives, those of the Exodus, the conquest and the Judges was done after the Babylonian exile, during the Persian period .”[97]

Therefore, according to most exegetes, the final redaction of the texts of Genesis in which Sodom and its punishment are spoken of more directly (Gen. 13-19) was made after the Babylonian exile, during the Persian period.

According to the text just quoted: “Like the surrounding peoples, the Israelites of the 5th-4th centuries BC began to tell their past. These were stories that took up ancient traditions, not only to say that they had a more or less rich past, like other peoples, but also to interpret and evaluate it with the help of their faith. ... More than the concrete facts, what matters is their interpretation, the meaning that emerges from them in the rereading today. … The biblical writers meditated, with their living faith in God, on the survival of their people down the centuries, despite the many moral dangers and terrible catastrophes they had to face, and on the role that God and faith in Him had played for such survival; from this they were able to deduce that it was also like this at the beginning of their history.”[98]

Definitively specifying its thoughts, the PCB in the 2014 document stated: "... to evaluate the truth of the ancient biblical stories, it is necessary to read them as they were written and were read by Paul himself: "All these things happened to them [the Israelites] as example, and they were written for our warning, of us for whom the end times have come” (1 Cor 10,11:XNUMX).”[99]

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 134: “All the divine Scripture is one book and this one book is Christ; "in fact all the divine Scripture speaks of Christ and finds fulfillment in him."

In this line it is necessary to consider that the "cycle of Sodom" (Gen. 13-20) speaks of Christ and finds fulfillment in Him, and since Christ calls us to imitate him (Jn. 13,15; 15,12; Rm 15 ; 5 Thess. 1, 1 etc) it is necessary to realize that this cycle is written to give us an example of life, to admonish us so that we follow the right path, in Christ and keep ourselves away from sin, which is opposed to Christ. The letter of Judas and the II of Peter precisely carry out this rereading of Sodom in Christ in a particular way and state "Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities, which have abandoned themselves to immodesty in the same way and have followed unnatural vices, they are as an example suffering the pains of eternal fire.” (Jude 6-5)

God “… condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes, setting an example for those who would live wickedly. Instead he freed the righteous Lot, distressed by the immoral behavior of those villains. In fact, that righteous man, because of what he saw and heard while he lived among them, was tormented every day in his righteous soul by such ignominies. The Lord knows how to free the pious from trials and keep the wicked for punishment on the day of judgment, especially those who in their impure passions pursue the flesh and despise the Lord.” (2 Pt. 2, 6 -10)

As can be seen, these two inspired and closely linked texts highlight the sin of Sodom as a sin of unnatural lust.

 

 

d,3) Various exegetical texts, some of which fall within Tradition, state that the sin of Sodom is related to sexuality.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Clement of Alexandria highlighted the sexual nature of Sodom's sin[100].

  1. Ambrose underlined that Sodom is lust and lasciviousness and Lot chose badly by choosing to stay near Sodom.[101] The sin of Sodom is evidently very serious and the sodomites do not worry about it, they do not undertake to pray and make amends for the evil done... and they prepare for themselves a terrible punishment: "Nam Sodomitae pro pietatis officiis impuritatis augebant flagitia." (De Abraham” PL XIV col. 438)
  2. Ambrose specifies that God is patient... but up to a certain point; God's patience could wait no longer regarding Sodom, the measure was complete... [102]

The clamor, the protest that reaches God, according to s. Ambrose, it is the cry of the crimes that Sodom commits, just as the cry of the blood of Abel, killed by Cain, reached God.[103]

God's justice could wait no longer.

The sodomites were attracted to men and precisely the two angels go in the form of men so that while the righteous Lot welcomes them, the sodomites instead want to abuse them, in this way their crime is manifested more strongly, as St. says. Ambrose: “Quid sibi autem vult quod illi qui ad Abraham simul cum Domino venerant, Sodomam petierunt viri, nisi ut acerbaretur crimen eorum, si quos justus honoraverat, his majore sacrilegio impii vim conarentur inferre? Nam quod viros dixit, evidens est ratio; quia speciem praeferebant virorum.”(“De Abraham” PL XIV col 439s.)

The lust of the sodomites pushed them to want to unite with the two man-angels and made those lustful men, precisely to satisfy their sexual appetites, overlook hospitality, which even among barbarians is recognized as inviolable; the impure vice against nature brought the sodomites to Lot to ask that the two men come out and hand themselves over to the impure desires of the city's inhabitants. (see “De Abraham” PL XIV col 440.)

St. Ambrose adds that all sodomites sinned and those who had no possibility of sinning with the body did so with affection; the elders of Sodom lacked strength but their minds were full of lust; Lot offered his virgin daughters to those people full of desire for impure sin. (See “De Abraham” PL XIV col. 440) It should however be said that s. Ambrose also highlights in particular Lot's hospitality to the two men-angels and the great importance that such hospitality had for him and also for the ancients; s. Ambrose adds that the angels blind the impure sodomites who wanted to join them carnally and specifies that lust is blind and does not see ahead of itself. (see “De Abraham” PL XIV col. 440)

In homily 57 s. John Chrysostom, starting from Scripture, speaks of gluttony as a vice that led Sodom to her unjust loves, that is, to her homosexual activity.[104]

The same s. John Chrysostom, in his homily on the words of St. Paul: "I do not want you to be ignorant..." (1 Cor. 10,1) said that the punishment of Sodom had no other reason than the punishment of the sins of the inhabitants of that region for which they had given themselves over to illicit sexual unions, illegitimate loves and they had radically subverted the laws of nature (see PG, 51 col. 243-245)

St. Augustine also stated, in line with the Scriptures seen: “After this promise and after Lot had been brought out of Sodom, the whole territory of the depraved city was set on fire by a rain of fire that came from heaven, because in it the carnal acts between males had introduced a custom more credible than the lawfulness of those acts that moral norms allow. The punishment was a sample of the future divine judgment.”[105]

St. Jerome speaks in his writings of an adulterous and sodomite man... obviously referring to his sexual depravity.[106]

The same s. Doctor states that the sodomites sinned with all freedom and had no shame therefore they told Lot to bring out the two foreigners to unite carnally with them: “Sodomitæ cum omni libertate peccantes, et ne pudorem quidem ullum habentes in scelere, dixerunt ad Lot: Educ ipsi ut concumbamus cum eis (Gen. XIX, 5)”[107]

St. Gregory the Great says regarding the punishment of Sodom: “That sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh is confirmed by the history of the Holy Scripture itself, when it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured on Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish the crimes of the flesh in it, and the very nature of his punishment highlighted the shame of that crime. Because sulfur smells, fire burns. It was therefore right that the sodomites, burning with sinful desires originating from the stench of the flesh, should perish at the same time by means of fire and brimstone, so that from the just punishment they would realize the evil done under the pressure of a perverse desire."[108]

St. Bede stated that the sodomites did not hide their sins but sinned brazenly and also wanted to pervert Lot's two guests. [109]

Taius Cesaraugustanus, states: the punishment of Sodom indicates its crime: those who burned after the perverse and therefore fetid desires of the flesh were right to perish in the stench of sulfur and in the heat of fire.[110]

St. Pier Damiani states that the turpitude of the impure sin against nature is rightly considered the worst of crimes, so much so that God wanted to hit this vice with the punishment of the most rigorous revenge. “It cannot be hidden in fact that he destroyed the two infamous cities of Sodom and Gomorrah… sending rain of fire and brimstone from Heaven”[111]

Yes again. Pier Damiani stated that this vice excludes men of the Church from the ranks and forces them to pray with those possessed by the devil, separates men from God to unite them with Satan. This most harmful vice which, like a queen, rules over the Sodomites makes anyone who allows himself to be carried away by it vile to men and worthy of divine hatred; this vice commands us to be part of Satan's army and to fight horrendous battles against God, separates us from the consortium of angels, deprives the unfortunate soul of its nobility by placing it under the evil yoke of the dominion of vice itself. [112]

The Third Lateran Ecumenical Council of 1179, in can. 11 indicated the homosexual act as a sin against nature, stated that because of it the wrath of God falls on those who resist Him (Eph. 5,6) and that precisely because of it divine wrath destroyed Sodom and the other nearby cities .[113]

Pope Innocent III stated about lust: “Hæc Pentapolim cum adjacente region subvertit, Sodomitas et Sichen cum populo interemit, raptores Dinae percussit, Her Onam filios Juda percussit, … Ammon in convivio interfecit … Uriam occidit, presbyteros lapidavit, Ruben maledixit. Samsonem seduxit, Salomonem pervertit”[114] Lust has upset the Pentapolis, destroyed the sodomites...

The same Pope in the same work added that the punishment taught what unnatural lust deserved; God wanted to personally punish the sin of Sodom and rained sulfur on the stench of lust and fire on the heat of lust so that the punishment was similar to guilt. God rained fire and brimstone that is, he punished with extreme greatness and abundance. God did not forgive anyone, everyone was punished and he punished not only men but also cities and the entire region: it is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10)![115]

St. Thomas stated: “Diluvium autem et poena Sodomorum sunt inducta propter peccata luxuriae praecedentia, ex gula occasionata.” ( Summa Theologiae II-II, q. 148 a. 3 ad 1 ) The flood and the punishment of the sodomites were brought about because of the previous sins of lust, which gluttony had given rise to.

Through s. Catherine of Siena God speaks to us and makes us understand that sodomites: “… do worse, committing that damned sin against nature. ... and it is so abominable to me that for this sin alone I destroyed five cities by my divine judgment, no longer wanting to uphold my divine justice, this abominable sin displeased me so much - but not so much to me, as I told you, but to the demons , which demon the poor have made themselves lords, displeases him. ... and yet that disgusting nature of not seeing or watching that enormous sin being committed currently. ”[116].

These words are presented as words of God through s. Catherine and affirm that the sin against nature is so abominable to God that He punished Sodom and the other 4 cities close to it for this very sin. This vice is so abominable that it displeases not only God but also the demons who, moreover, are guides and lords of those who indulge in this vice.

Also a text by s. Pius V indicates that homosexual acts were the sins that brought terrible divine punishment to Sodom.[117]

The Roman Catechism stated along these lines: “Moreover, numerous examples appear in sacred Scripture of divine wrath, which the Parish Priest will be able to evoke, to distance men from reprehensible lust: the fate of Sodom and the neighboring cities (Gen 19,24, 25); the torture of the Israelites who had fornicated in the desert with the daughters of Moab (Num. 20); the destruction of the Benjaminites (Judg. XNUMX).”[118]

In the Catechism of St. Pius Why is it said that these sins cry out for vengeance before God?

These sins are said to cry out for vengeance before God, because the Holy Spirit says so and because their iniquity is so serious and manifest that it provokes God to punish them with more severe punishments."

I underline: the sins of homosexuality are said to cry out for vengeance before God... because their iniquity is so serious and manifest that it provokes God to punish them with more severe punishments.

Obviously the fact that homosexuality attracts terrible punishments is derived, in particular, from the biblical passage that speaks of the destruction of Sodom, in fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in this line in n. 1867 that: “The catechetical tradition also reminds us that there are “sins that cry out to heaven”. They cry out to the sky: the blood of Abel [cf. Gen 4,10:18,20], the sin of the Sodomites [cf. Gen 19,13; Gen 3,7:10], the lament of the oppressed people in Egypt [cf. Ex 22,20-22], the lament of the stranger, the widow and the orphan [cf. Ex 24,14-15], injustice towards the wage earner [cf. Dt 5,4-XNUMX; Jas XNUMX].”

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church the case of Sodom is expressly cited when talking about homosexual acts, in fact in it we read: “Homosexuality designates relationships between men or women who experience a sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex . ... Relying on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, (Cf Gen 19,1-29; Rom 1,24-27; 1 Cor 6,9-10; 1 Tim 1,10) Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dich. Persona humana, 8: AAS 68 (1976) 85.).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2357)

The document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which we saw above, and which in 1986 dealt specifically with homosexual people stated: "Thus the deterioration due to sin continues to develop in the history of the men of Sodom (cf. Gen 19, 1-11 ). There can be no doubt about the moral judgment expressed therein against homosexual relations.” [119]

I emphasize: there can be no doubt about the negative moral judgment expressed against homosexual relationships in Gen. 19.

Various texts of Tradition therefore qualify the sin that attracted terrible punishments to Sodom as an impure sin against nature.

 

 

d,3,1) Some considerations by important exegetes regarding the sin of Sodom as the sin of homosexuality.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The famous commentary on the "Bible de Jerusalem" clearly indicates the sin of Sodom as a fact of unnatural lust and underlines that the very serious aggravating circumstance was that the two victims had to be two angels![120]

The exegete Speiser states that for the Yahwist tradition it was the sexual depravity, the manifest sodomy of the inhabitants, which determined the only and evident reason for the terrible end of Sodom[121].

The famous historian and exegete Giuseppe Ricciotti in his “History of Israel”,[122] clearly states, based on biblical texts, that God was preparing to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah due to the impure vice that raged there and when the vicious sodomites attempted to have sexual relations even with the men-angels the punishment fell upon them.

The exegete Von Rad equally saw the sin of Sodom as sexual perversion, and considered the two angel men as extremely beautiful so that the evil passions of the sodomites were strongly excited towards them.[123]

The exegete K. Westermann reiterates that the sin of Sodom is unnatural lust combined with the violation of the guest's right not to be mistreated.[124]

In this same line also in the Biblical Dictionary directed by Spadafora in 1963 it is stated: "Four cities of the Pentapolis (Deut. 29, 22; Gen 19, 28) were destroyed in an annihilating destruction, caused by God with the contribution of natural elements of the place (bitumen, sulphurous fumes), as punishment for their sexual perversion, which attempted to undermine the righteousness of the Jewish patriarchs (Gen. 18, 16-19, 29). Only Bela' (Segor) was spared, because she was the refuge of Lot, who fled from Sodom and was protected by God (Gen. 19, 15, 29).”[125]

The professor. Asensius in his book on the "Pentateuch" also underlines the impure homosexual passion of the inhabitants of Sodom which determines divine condemnation.[126]

The professor. Vanni clearly states that in the passage of 2 Pt. 6-8 the punishment of Sodom and Gomorrah "sinful cities, full of people without moral law and dedicated to a lustful life" is highlighted; these cities, Vanni continues, "are contrasted with the figure of Lot" who "endures the immorality that surrounds him with discomfort" [127].

The exegete T. Fretheim also underlines that in Gibeah sexual abuse is particularly highlighted as in the case of Sodom but in the first case this abuse is carried out among Israelites while in the second case it is attempted by foreigners; the attempted sexual abuse and violence, both homosexual and heterosexual, constitutes sufficient evidence to proceed towards punishment. [128]

Even MJ Mulder in his article in the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament highlights lust and in particular unnatural lust in the sin of Sodom[129].

The Biblical Commentary created by the University of Navarra underlines how the sin of Sodom is in particular homosexuality. Following this biblical passage, therefore, homosexual relationships are called “sodomy”. Here the gravity of such a sin is highlighted, further increased, in this case, constituting violence against the right of asylum that accompanied the hospitality. In Sacred Scripture, the sins of homosexuality are presented as serious depravities: the Law of Moses punished them with death (see Lev 20,13:1,26) and, in the New Testament, they are considered the culmination of human degradation when men do not want to live according to the law of God (see Rom 27 – 1; 6,9 Cor 1; 1,10 Tim 8). Based on Sacred Scripture, Tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically evil" (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, n. 2357). “They are against natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not come from true emotional and sexual complementarity. However, they cannot receive approval" (Catechism of the Catholic Church n.XNUMX) [130]

An important article by M. Gilbert states that the inhabitants of Sodom are guilty of homosexual desires: “Les gens de Sodome sont coupables d'intention homosexuelle.”[131]

In 1992 exegete MJ Mulder speaking about Sodom in an article in “The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.” he clearly stated that the sin of Sodom consisted essentially of sexual perversion, pride, violation of the laws regarding hospitality[132].

The professor. Hamilton in his commentary on Genesis very effectively underlines how the sin of Sodom is of a homosexual nature and that the terms used (yada) are not those of violence or abuse but are simply those indicating an unnatural sexual relationship, and when Lot offers his daughters to the sodomites he does not speak of violence but simply says that they can join them, instead in Judges 19,24, in a similar case, the old Ephraimite offers his daughter and the concubine of his Levite host to the perverse people of Gibeah so that they can " sexually abuse them.” [133]

In a note, in the same text, Hamilton highlights that: for the books of Genesis and for that of Judges it is evident that homosexual acts are morally more serious than rape. [134]

The exegete Davidson also underlines how the verb yada simply indicates an unnatural sexual act, not sexual violence. [135]

The reflections of Hamilton and Davidson are very interesting and enlightening and are a response to what the exegete G. Wenham states who instead highlights the sin of Sodom as a sin of homosexuality practiced with violence, he says that this sin was punished with death in the Old Testament and adds that the populations close to Israel allowed such sins between consenting adults but in this case we have violence regarding the implementation of this sin, contrary to the norms regarding hospitality;[136] the same author in the same text justifies, more precisely, the divine punishment in these terms: the homosexual act was accepted by the populations around the Israelites but the rape of men was not accepted, it was punished in Assyria with the death penalty and elsewhere it was intended for prisoners of war but not for guests, so the men of Sodom with their action were going not only against the norms of Israel but against the universal rules of behavior accepted in the East.[137]

Wenham's reasoning is interesting, but given his statements, first of all it must be reiterated that the punishment of Sodom is not linked only to one sin but to a series of sins culminating with the sin of Gen. 19,5.

Furthermore, it should be noted that the punishment of Sodom comes directly from God and not from men, therefore we must not simply seek what was supremely reviled by men but what is supremely reviled by God.

Although homosexuality was not a serious sin for the men around Israel, it was for God. Actual homosexuality, in itself, is supremely detested by God, causes the earth to "vomit up" those who practice it and God foresees death for them!

As Hamilton said, the terms used by Lot and the sodomites indicate that their fundamental idea was not to implement rape but unnatural sexual intercourse; only when Lot opposes do they try to impose themselves by force.

If the homosexual act is serious before God, homosexual rape is even more serious, which the sodomites probably wanted to carry out in the face of resistance from Lot and his guests!

This violence that the sodomites wanted to carry out is enriched with further aggravating circumstances because it concerns the guests of the one for whom Sodom was saved; in fact the two angel men are guests of Lot and precisely to save Lot, Abraham, his uncle, defeated those who were deporting the sodomites (Gen. 14).

Furthermore, this rape is attempted on two men-angels who have come precisely to judge Sodom.

The sin of Sodom indicated in Gen. 19 is, therefore, combined with the serious sins that had already been perpetrated in that city, extraordinarily serious and abominable in the eyes of God and attracts the most terrible punishment of God on Sodom.

J. Clifford in the “New Great Biblical Commentary” of 1997 states that the sin of Sodom is an impure sin against nature and cites the text of Lev as a reference. 18,22, then adds that it is also a lack of hospitality, but here he does not give any biblical reference[138].

Cortese, professor of the Old Testament at the "Studium Biblicum Franciscanum" in a 1997 article criticized those who affirmed that the sin condemned in the story of the destruction of Sodom was not that of homosexuality and showed how in reality what ails the sodomites is Lot's opposition to their claims to unnaturally unite sexually. The sin stigmatized by Gen. 19 is, therefore, homosexual practice and the sin of Sodom is very great, Cortese specifies, as we read in Gen. 18,20.[139]

Bergsma and Hahn in an interesting article have clearly underlined, together with other authors, the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom, creating an interesting parallelism between this sin and its punishment and the sin that led to the flood and the flood itself as well as between the history of daughters of Lot and that of the sons of Noah.

[140]

The authors cited note: a parallel, which does not appear fortuitous, between:

1) the sin of the flood, linked to shortcomings particularly in the sexual field and terribly punished by God, followed by the sin of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9);

2) the sin of Sodom linked to shortcomings particularly in the sexual field and terribly punished by God, followed by the sin of Lot's daughters (Gen. 19).

The parallel between the flood and the destruction of Sodom is also noted by the Jerusalem Bible in the 2009 Italian version created by EDB, see the note on Gen. 19,31.

As is evident from Lv. 18,24ff and 20,23 the peoples who were in the land of Canaan used to practice homosexuality; explains the commentary of the University of Navarra on Lev 18,21 that it was necessary to preserve Israel from the influence of contemporary neighboring peoples, truly immoral situations occurred in them, sometimes reaching true sexual perversions, such as sacred prostitution, homosexuality, incest and bestiality, in Greece the laws of Solon allowed the union between the father's brothers; despite the precepts of the divine Law, on some occasions Israel also fell into these abominations (see Jdc 19,22; 2 Sam. 13,14; etc.).[141]

Through the story of Gen. 19, in a very strong way, God commands his people not to follow the lustful practices of neighboring peoples and underlines well the punishment imposed on Sodom also to distance the people in the most radical way from such abominable acts.

In this line, Prof. Giuntoli, one of the members of the PCB, in a 2013 text stated that Gen. 19,5 makes it clear that the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom indicated in Gen. 13,13 is manifested precisely in Gen. 19 as a sin linked to exercise of homosexuality.[142]

In 2016, prof. Peterson wrote an interesting article in which he states that the sin of Sodom was homosexual.[143]

In the article just cited we read in the conclusion that: when the sin of Sodom is seen in both the immediate and broader context, sexual depravity better defines the reason for their destruction. In the same way that sexual depravity was the impetus that drove the Canaanites to be destroyed/thrown out of the land (Lev 18:3, 26–30), so too the Sodomites lost their land and their lives primarily to of the only sexual sin identified as an abomination: homosexual acts.[144]

The same author published an entire book on the question of the sin of Sodom in the same year in which he reiterates the same statements[145].

Chukwuma Okoye indicates in the attempted homosexual abuse and in the violation of hospitality by sodomites two acts that affect 2 important values ​​for the Bible and for the mentality of that time[146] and who evidently have been terribly punished by God.

It should also be noted that, in contrast to what the PCB states on p. 162 of the document we are examining, as Peterson says: some scholars have noted that the narrative of Sodom is intentionally placed between the promise and the fulfillment of the birth of the promised child, Isaac (see Genesis 18 and 21), to highlight the problem of sex “sterile”, which homosexual relationships embody.[147]

Professor Healy, presenting the PCB document, also points out that the position of chapter 19 and its context as well as two texts of the New Testament (Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10) make understand that the message offered through the chapter concerns sexuality and therefore she shows her disagreement with what the PCB says, in fact she states: “In the eyes of the biblical narrator, the sin of Sodom consists neither in hostility to foreigners alone nor in sexual immorality alone. Rather, it consists of a depraved mélange of homosexual sex, violence toward strangers, and contempt for the messengers of the Lord.” [148] That is, the sin of Sodom consists of a depraved mixture of homosexual sex and violence towards foreigners and contempt towards the messengers of God.

The professor herself highlights various omissions and exaggerations that are noted in the PCB text. [149]

 

 

d,4) Focus on the case of Gabaa (Jdc. 19), cited by the Commission in support of its thesis, and on the lust which is also the basis of the possible humiliation.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

A case of violence combined with lust, similar to that of Sodom, is what is indicated in the book of Judges in chapter. 19

According to the PCB in Gdc. 19 and 20 the same sin as in Genesis 19 is thematized, that is, a sin of failure to welcome the stranger combined with attempted violence "... some citizens of Gabaa, «unrighteous people» present themselves to the owner of the house, with the request to «get to know» the guest (Judges 19,22); their violence is unleashed on the Levite's woman until she dies (v. 28), which shows that they were not sexually attracted to the male, but only eager to impose themselves on the stranger, humiliating him with shameful treatment, perhaps even with the intent final to kill him (see Jdc 20,5).”

For our part, we note first of all that the case of Sodom differs widely from the case of Judges 19 because:

1) Sodom, as Gen.13 and 18 says, already sinned a lot before the arrival of the two angels and therefore God had decided to punish it, the same is not said of Gabaa;

2) Sodom was visited by 2 angels in the form of men, Gibeah is visited only by some men including a couple of Israelites;

3) the two angel men who visit Sodom are strangers, the men who visit Gibeah are Israelites;

4) all the men of Sodom showed up at Lot's house to join carnally with the two guests; in the case of Gdc. 19, only some evil inhabitants of Gibeah work to abuse the newly arrived guests;

5) God's direct punishment fell on all of Sodom and the surrounding cities, this did not happen in Gibeah;

6) Sodom is punished with fire and brimstone that comes from God, Gibeah is punished by men through a war;

7) the New Testament says nothing about the case of Gibeah but in two texts (Jude 5-7 and 2 Peter 2) it specifies the sin of Sodom, its continuation and the divine punishment caused by this sin.

However, there are also significant similarities between the two steps.

1) In both cases they want to sexually abuse the guests.

2) In both cases the event takes place at night.

3) In both cases it is an attempt at an impure act against nature

4) In both cases a terrible punishment falls on the wicked.

Let us immediately point out that according to some exegetes it is not clear that the inhabitants of Gibeah in Jdc 19 wanted to abuse the Levite, indeed, for them it seems safer to believe that those men wanted to abuse the woman from the beginning and precisely when the man gives her up to them, they appear satisfied and leave the host's husband and family alone and spend the whole night raping the woman, furthermore the woman's husband in Jdc 20,5 makes no allusion to an attempt at sodomy[150]; the Bible of the Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem allows you to read Gdc. 19,5 in the sense that the men of Gibeah wanted to violate the woman and not the man[151] and states that Josephus says precisely this[152]. The PCB goes in this line.

The professor. Gilbert in a famous article on homosexuality in the Bible sees a radical difference between Gen. 19 and Judges 19: in the first case, according to him, the sin is the homosexual intention, in the second case it does not seem that the perverse attackers want to unite sexually with the man.[153]

The Hebrew text, however, is very clear in saying that the perverts wanted to unite with the man sexually (Judges 19,23) and says nothing about the fact that they wanted to humiliate him; the Hebrew word (yada) used by the perverse people of Gibeah in Jdc. 19,22 and then also in Gdc. 19,25 to indicate sexual union ordinarily means knowing but it also means knowing carnally, that is, uniting sexually with a person and in this latter meaning it is used several times in the Bible (Gen 4,1.17.25; 19,5; 24,16, 38,26; 1; 1,19 Sam. 19,22.25; Jdc. 1; 1 Kings 4:19,5 etc.); it is also used in Gen XNUMX, i.e. in the case of Sodom, precisely to indicate the sexual relationship that the sodomites wanted to have with Lot's two guests.

Precisely in the line clearly indicated by the biblical text BG Webb is very clear in recognizing in the case of Gibeah the intention of committing the impure sin against nature on the part of the wicked inhabitants of the place and in affirming that the Levite of Gdc. 19 trying to avoid the cities of foreigners and wanting to find shelter in an Israelite city he stops in Gibeah but right here he finds himself in another Sodom.[154]

T. Fretheim also underlines that in Gdc. 19 particularly highlights sexual abuse as in the case of Sodom but in the first case this abuse is carried out among Israelites while in the second case it is carried out by foreigners.[155]

The commentary on the “Sagrada Biblia” of the Universidad de Navarra states: the scene of Jdc 19 recalls that of Gen. 19; that is, an attack of a sexual nature, here however, I add, it is of a homosexual and heterosexual type, while there it was only of a homosexual type.[156]

Cortese, who was a professor of the Old Testament at the “Studium Biblicum Franciscanum”, stated in a 1997 article that in Judges 19 “what is condemned and averted as a crime (nebala) is sodomitic behavior (see 19,23) .”[157]

Even P. Sacchi in his commentary on this passage says that the "nebalà" (infamy) that the master of the house wanted to avoid was the unnatural sin committed against his house![158]

Even M. O'Connor, in the New Great Biblical Commentary, states that the sin of the inhabitants of Gibeah is a sin of attempted homosexuality to the detriment of the Levite and adds that this story is similar to that of Gen. 19; the wicked men of Gabaa want to rape the man through homosexual intercourse and this is a nebala. [159]

The Encyclopedia Judaica states that the Bible refers to actual incidents involving homosexuality only when it describes the abominations of the sinful city of Sodom, where the entire population asked Lot for the surrender of its visitors so that they could "know" them sexually with sodomy (Gen. 19,5), and again when he reports the story of similar behavior carried out by a group of Benjamites in Gibeah, which led to a disastrous civil war (Judges 19-20).[160] So also for the Encyclopedia Judaica, which is situated in the Jewish tradition, the sin of the inhabitants of Gibeah was of a homosexual nature.

When the Levite reports what happened to him (Judges 20) he does not underline the violation of the rules regarding hospitality but the fact that they wanted to carry out a criminal action worthy of death[161] against him through sodomy, a clear reference to Lev 18 and 20 which provides for death for a man who unites carnally with a man; the Levite adds (Judges 20,5) that his concubine was raped and killed, and underlines that this is a very bad, impure action (“zimmah”)[162] and it is "nebalà", this term indicates more precisely an act against the Law of an immoral nature, in particular rape, an impure act against nature.[163]

The words used by the Levite focus, as is evident, on the serious violation of norms relating to sexuality, not hospitality.

The Hebrew text shows how this word in particular (“nebalà”) is found in various ways in Jdc. 19, 23-24 and indicates precisely the impure act that they wanted to do to the man and his wife, then it is found in 20,6 and then in 20,10 indicating in particular the same act[164]; the condemnation of Gabaa, decreed by the assembly of Mispah is precisely for the nebalà that we have indicated, a condemnation that we can clearly also connect to Lv. 18 and 20, texts that predict death for those who engage in unnatural sexual intercourse, and to the texts that predict death for those who rape a woman already married to another man (Deut. 22:25–27).

The perverts of Gabaa are guilty of criminal actions, in particular of nebalà that is attempted rape of the man and also of rape of the woman until her death.

It should be noted that also in Gen. 34,7, in Dt. 32 and in 2 Sam.13,12 the term nebalà means sinful action of a sexual type and that this term is used 13 times in the entire Old Testament and in at least 7 cases means a sexual transgression.

All this seems to me to make it clear that Cortese and Sacchi etc. are completely right. to underline how the sin that is particularly condemned here is precisely the unnatural act concerning man; the term nebalà in these texts recalls the term toebah that we encountered in Lv. 18pm and 20pm.

I would add that as the Encyclopedia Judaica says: the biblical passage that speaks of the inhabitants of Gibeah who asked to be able to carry out unnatural acts on the couple of foreigners, wants to highlight, in particular, that the Benjamites of Gibeah shared the same "values" of the sodomites and wanted to carry out a homosexual relationship with the Levite of Jdc. 19.[165]

It should be noted that, as V. Hamilton points out, the old Ephraimite offers his daughter and the Levite's concubine to the perverse people of Gibeah so that they can "sexually mistreat" them, that is, rape them and do to them what they want while Lot, in Gen. 19,8 , offers his daughters to the sodomites simply so that they can do to them what is good in their eyes, that is, what they like.[166]

The very serious sin that the Ephraimite wants to avoid at all costs is therefore in particular the nebalà as lust against nature[167], therefore he proposes to the attackers to vent their impure passion on his daughter and on the host's wife.

In the end the sexual desire of the attackers is discharged on the latter who remains at the mercy of their perverse desires for the entire night and therefore dies.

What emerges in Gdc. 19 in the attack of the wicked of Gibeah against the Levite and his concubine is the sexual desire of the former, this desire is underlined by the words of the elder.

Contrary to what the PCB says in n. 188, the biblical data indicates that the perverse people of Gibeah are eager to unite carnally with the Levite and his concubine!

Furthermore, according to the PCB, the sexual abuse of the woman by the wicked men of Gibeah shows that they were not sexually attracted to the male but were only eager to impose themselves on the stranger; what the PCB says presupposes, says Professor M. Healy, that only those with exclusively homosexual inclinations would engage in homosexual acts, a hypothesis not supported by evidence either in the Bible or in ancient Near Eastern literature generally; furthermore, according to the same professor, the Old Testament does not deal with sexual inclinations but with sexual acts and it is precisely the act of the wicked of Gibeah that is censored.[168]

Hostility towards a stranger, Healy adds, is certainly a despicable aspect of the behavior of the evildoers of Gibeah but, here too, one factor that the PCB does not fully explain is that the old man of Gibeah (like Lot) clearly considered the homosexual nature of the acts envisaged as part of the crime [169], that is, the sin in question was clearly also of a homosexual nature.

Contrary to what the PCB says, the sin of the wicked of Gibeah was, therefore, also of a homosexual nature.

Professor Healy then underlines that, after briefly analyzing Gen. 19 and Jdc. 19, the PCB concludes thus: "We do not find in the narrative traditions of the Bible indications concerning homosexual practices, neither as behaviors to be blamed, nor as attitudes tolerated or welcomed". (PCB n.188) This too, explains Heally, seems to be an exaggeration, since in both accounts the homosexual nature of the evil acts is part of the overall portrait of depravity. [170]

The acts indicated in Gn. 19,5 and Gdc. 19,21-24 clearly imply homosexual lust, both for the terms used (the term yada indicates sexual union), and for the characteristics of the acts themselves (sodomy), which imply sexual attraction and therefore abandonment to the pleasure of perverse sex.

The biblical data is very clear on this matter.

The PCB appears to follow a line that is not precisely based on the data of Holy Scripture.

 

 

d,4,1) The inhabitants of Sodom, like the wicked people of Judges 19,22, were "sons of satan".

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Seeing the sins of Sodom in the light of all Scripture we must affirm that its men did not allow themselves to be guided by the Spirit of God, who makes them live according to the divine Law, but were guided by another spirit, that is, ultimately, by the "serpent ” of Gen. 3, from Satan who, as the Liturgy of Baptism says, is “… origin and cause of every sin”[171] ... and guided by this spirit they went against the entire divine Law ... therefore they certainly also went against Leviticus 18, 22, which is part of the Divine Law ... indeed, as seen, they went in a particular way against Leviticus 18,22.

I remember that in Lv. 18 and 20 God claims to condemn the Canaanites even for the sins of homosexuality without them having a written divine law commanding them to abstain from such acts; the prohibition of such acts is evidently a rule of natural law that everyone can know and for which God demands an account from everyone; sodomites go against this rule in particular.

We can say that the men of Sodom, like the wicked people of Judges 19, 22 and 20,13, are "sons of Belial", the Nova Vulgata and the King James Version translate this expression of Judges 19, 22 and 20,13 precisely with “sons of Belial”, which we can translate as: sons of satan; in 1 Jn. 3,8 we read: “Whoever commits sin comes from the devil, because from the beginning the devil is a sinner. This is why the Son of God manifested himself: to destroy the works of the devil.”, in the “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” prof. Zorell under the entry Βελιάρ explains that this name or the Hebrew correspondent indicates a power opposed to Christ and therefore Satan; the statement “sons of Belial”, sons of Satan, recalls Christ's words to his opponents: “Why do you not understand my language? Because you cannot listen to my words, you who have the devil for your father, and want to fulfill the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not persevere in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of himself, because he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8,43f.)

The father of all these is Satan, that is, they obey him, in a certain way, and imitate him...

St. Anthony of Padua says along these lines: “The daughters of Moab, a name which is interpreted “from the father”, are gluttony, lust and the other vices whose father is the devil: with these “daughters of Moab” the people of the world give themselves over to fornication.”[172] The lust of Sodom has Satan as its father... therefore the sodomites were sons of Satan.

The same s. Doctor further says: “Who then can accuse him of sin, whose law

Was it the will of the Father? (cf. Ps 1,2). Who obeyed not only his heavenly Father, but also his poor Mother? “Who among you then can accuse me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don't you believe me?”. They did not believe the truth because they were children of the devil (cf. John 8,46), "who is a liar, or rather the father of lies" (John 8,44), because he is the inventor of it."[173]

Yes again. Anthony states, commenting on Luke 16: "The rich man's father was the devil, because he lived in imitation of him."[174]

The children of Satan obey him, in a certain way, and imitate him...

The result of the following of Satan was for Adam and Eve the just punishment set by God in Gen. 3, the result of the "following" of Satan by the wicked of Gibeah (Judges 19) was their destruction, the result of the " "following" of Satan by the sodomites was obviously the terrible punishment mentioned in Genesis 19... the result of the following of Satan for the rich man in the evangelical parable (Luke 16) and for anyone who dies in grave sin, therefore also those who die in impure sin , is eternal damnation.

Explain s. Thomas Aquinas: the children of Satan are such not because they were created by Satan but because they imitate him (Super Io., chapter 8 l. 6).

He says yes again. Thomas "... sola caritas est, quae distinguit inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli" (Only through charity are the children of God distinguished from the children of Satan) (Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chapter 7 l. 2. ) That is, whoever has charity is a child of God, whoever does not have it is a child of Satan.

Obviously the sodomites didn't have charity, they were children of Satan!

Explain further s. Thomas that the devil is the occasional and indirect cause of all our sins: because it was he who pushed the first man to sin, from whose sin a certain tendency towards every type of sin arose in the entire human race; instead Satan is the direct cause of the sins committed at his own instigation (I, q. 114 a. 3).

All serious sins make men children of the devil, both those committed through diabolical temptation and others, because through all sins men imitate Satan who was the first to sin.[175]

This is further confirmed by these words of the s. Angelic Doctor: "... qui non exeunt a voluntate carnis et mundi, non sunt filii Dei, sed filii Diaboli ..." (Super Mt. [rep. Petri de Andria], chapter 4 l. 1.)

Those who do not leave the will of the flesh and the world are children of Satan; that is, those who are not guided by God but by the temptations of the flesh and the world into grave sin are not children of God but children of Satan and the sodomites, like the wicked of Gibeah, are significant representatives of such children.

The satanic wickedness of the sodomites stands out when it is kept in mind that they are proud, various biblical passages highlight their pride (Ezek. 16, Sir. 10, Sir. 16,9) pride is properly diabolical, as explained by Mgr. Zenti in his speech in which he reports the statements of s. Augustine: “Augustine is convinced that the head and origin of all evil is pride, of which Satan is the personification. He therefore feels the need to clarify what it means to live according to Satan or, on the contrary, according to God: "When therefore man lives according to man, not according to God, he is similar to the devil... When man lives according to truth he does not live according to himself himself but according to God... If instead man lives according to himself, he lives according to a lie... Not living according to the norm with which one is ordered to live, this is a lie... not in vain every sin can be called a lie. ... the two cities originate from living in humility according to God or from living in pride according to Satan, the city of God and the earthly city.”[176],

  1. Augustine speaks of Satan's sin as a sin of pride: “I invite you to consider the devil: adultery and fornication cannot be attributed to him, in God's judgement, because he cannot commit them, not having the flesh. It will be pride alone, combined with envy, that will send him into eternal fire.”[177]

According to Holy Scripture, pride is an exaggerated self-esteem with haughtiness and contempt towards others.[178]

The supreme punishment to which Sodom is subjected is linked to a supreme sin which assimilates it supremely to Satan. The pride of Sodom assimilates it in a special way to Satan but this pride appears strongly marked by lust and in particular by unnatural lust or rather the supreme pride of Sodom is manifested in particular in the performance of acts supremely abominable for God: homosexual acts.

Satan pushes us to lust in a particular way, in fact he says s. Alfonso regarding this sin: “After all, St. Thomas says that the devil takes so much pleasure in no sin as in dishonest sin: Diabolus codicil maxime gaudere de sin luxuriae, quod difficile ab eo homo potest eripi. The devil takes great pleasure in this vice, because those who have it can hardly free themselves from it. And why?

-For 1., because this vice blinds the sinner and no longer makes him see the offense he does to God, nor the miserable state of damnation in which he lives and sleeps. The prophet Hosea says that these people also lose the desire to return to God. Non dabunt cogitationes suas ut revertantur ad Deum suum; (and why?) “quia spiritus fornicationum in medio eorum”.

-For 2., because this vice hardens the heart and makes it obstinate.

-For 3., because from it come a hundred other types of sins, thefts, hatreds, murders, perjuries, murmurings.” [179]

St. Thomas states precisely: “Diabolus codicil maxime gaudere de sin luxuriae, quia est maximae adhaerentiae, et difficile ab eo homo potest eripi, insatiabilis est enim delectabilis appetitus ut philosophus codicil, in III Ethic.” (I-II, q. 73 a. 5 ad 2) The devil delights most in this vice, because it is most closely linked to the human soul and those who have it can hardly free themselves from it, the delightful appetite of man in fact, it is insatiable.

Satan therefore guides his children especially to lust and, I add, above all to the most serious forms of lust, such as that against nature, which manifests itself precisely in Gen. 19,5.

 

 

d,5) Impure sins and their punishment in the first books of the Bible.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

It should be noted that, contrary to the way of thinking of many today, which justifies, exalts and legalizes even very serious sins of a sexual nature, the first books of the Bible place great emphasis on the sins relating to sex and the terrible punishments connected to them, as we have seen above what Leviticus states in chapters. 18 and 20, we have seen and will see the cycle of Sodom even better, we have seen the case of Gibeah, we will see other cases in the next pages.

 

 

d,5,1) Lust as the cause of the flood and other punishments, in Genesis.

 

 

1) The flood as caused by lust.

We must now highlight that another terrible divine punishment, belonging to the first chapters of the first book of the Bible, the one relating to the universal flood, was sent, according to various commentators, due to sins having to do, in particular, with sexuality .

Some biblical passages that we find in the chapter reveal this. 6 of the book of Genesis in which we read: “When men began to multiply on the earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and took them as wives of their own choosing. Then the Lord said: "My spirit will not always remain in man, because he is flesh and his life will be one hundred and twenty years."

There were giants on earth in those times - and even after - when the sons of God united with the daughters of men and the latter bore them children: these are the heroes of antiquity, famous men.

The Lord saw that the wickedness of men was great on the earth and that every inner intent of their hearts was nothing but evil, always. And the Lord regretted having made man on the earth and it grieved him to his heart. The Lord said, “I will wipe out from the face of the earth man whom I have created, and with man also the cattle, and the reptiles, and the birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them.””

In the Gospel, Jesus underlines that "in the days before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day Noah entered the ark." (Matthew 24, 38; cf. Luke 17,27) The underlining is evident , in the line of the biblical statements of Gen. 6, regarding the disordered sexual life that is punished with the flood.

In this line s. Athanasius wrote in his work on the titles of the Psalms that those who committed adultery died in the flood (PL 27 col. 1186)

St. Augustine equally underlines how a perverse sexuality is the cause of the punishment of the flood[180];

Procopius states the same thing [181] and the Syriac fathers say the same[182], Bede also follows this line[183] and with him Rupert [184].

St. Thomas stated: “Diluvium autem et poena Sodomorum sunt inducta propter peccata luxuriae praecedentia, ex gula occasionata.” (II-II, q. 148 a. 3 ad 1) The flood and the punishment of the sodomites were caused because of the previous sins of lust, which gluttony had given rise to.

The sin that leads to the punishment of the flood, the supreme divine punishment, is of a sexual nature, noted the famous biblical scholar Spadafora: “In a short introductory pericope (6, 1-8), the reason for the flood is described. The wickedness of men was such that God regretted having created them. The main cause is placed in the carnal relationship between the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” (ibid. 6, 2).” [185]

Von Rad equally states that the sins of the men of the time of the flood were of lust, in particular. [186]

Also in the Commentary on the Bible created by the University of Pamplona we read: the sins that caused the flood were in particular of a sexual nature, and this is also said by St. Augustine, s. John Chrysostom and s. Cyril of Alexandria.[187]

N. Peterson states that the flood narrative is prepared by brief accounts of people transgressing God's order of creation through sins of a sexual nature.[188]

Some biblical scholars have seen this link between the flood and sins of a sexual nature, such as Bergsma and Hahn[189]. The first sin presented in such flood accounts is one of the causes of the flood and certainly indicates a sin of a sexual nature.

Bergsma and Hahn clearly noted the similarity between the biblical passage that deals with the flood and its causes and the passage that deals with the punishment of Sodom and its causes " The similarities between the two pericopes are numerous: in the aftermath of a calamitous divine judgment, instigated by the wickedness of men—particularly sexual wickedness (cf. Gen 6:4; 19:5), which destroys the earth or a large part of it…” [190], in both passages we have sins of lust that produce a catastrophic punishment.

Jewish tradition also sees lust as the cause of the flood.

The Targum highlights lust as the sin of the men of the flood.[191]

In the text called “Bereshit Rabba” we read that “… said R. Abbâ b. Kahanà: For I regret having made them (Gen. 6, 7-8). And Noah...: even Noah, the survivor of them, would not have deserved it: But he found grace. And Noah found grace: because they were immersed in lust and theft, they were blotted out from the world.”[192]

In the same text we read: “Said R. Ajbû: Why do they press the grapes at the winepress and are thirsty? Because the curse was on the toil of the wicked. Because they were immersed in lust and theft they were erased from the world: The end of every creature has come before Me.” [193]

And again in the same text we read: “ R. Hunah in the name of R. Josef said: The flood generation was not erased from the world until they wrote marriage contracts to the male and the animal. R. Simlaj said: Where there is lust, plague comes to the world and kills the good and the bad. R. Azarjah, R. Jehudah b. R. Shimon in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: The Holy One, blessed be He, endures everything patiently except lust.” [194]

In the Testament of Naphtali we read a significant condemnation of unnatural sexual sin regarding the period preceding the flood: “(Do not do so), lest you become like Sodom, which changed the order of its nature. [5] Likewise the Watchers also changed the order of their nature, and the Lord cursed them at the time of the flood. So because of them he made the earth empty of inhabitants and fruits."[195]

Even some Jewish texts, therefore, present the sins that led to the flood as sins of sexuality.

The divine punishment in both the case of the flood and that of Sodom was imposed directly by God (Gen. 19,24) without the mediation of any intelligent creature (angels or men), which also means that the act goes against the Law of God and God himself takes it upon himself to punish him!

2) Other cases of lust in the book of Genesis.

In Genesis we also find the sexual sins of the sons of Noah (Gen. 9) and the daughters of Lot (Gen. 19).

I also remember the emblematic case of Onan who was punished by God with death for a sin relating to sexuality. In Genesis 38, 9-10 we read: “But Onan knew that the offspring would not be considered as his; every time he married his brother's wife, he scattered it on the ground, so as not to give a posterity to his brother. What he did was not pleasing to the Lord, who also put him to death."

I add the case of sexual violence against Dinah by Shechem, violence which was terribly punished with the extermination of all the males of his tribe (Gen. 34) and then the cases indicated in Gen 20 and 26, in which Abimelech makes clear that whoever marries another man's wife brings upon himself the divine curse.

The thought of the first books of Holy Scripture that we are seeing seems to me to agree with what Plato says about lust, which highlights the powerful governing influence and even, at times, the absolute sovereignty that the pursuit of sexual pleasure can have on a person's actions and life. One can become a slave to the passions in this line and this is evidently not according to virtue; any sexuality is less valuable than the pursuit of virtue. [196]

Lust takes man out of virtue, can dominate him completely and attracts terrible divine punishments upon him.

The two Catholic letters (Jude and 2 Peter) which indicate the sin of Sodom as unnatural lust and which underline how divine punishment affects this sin in particular are therefore fully in line with what the Genesis texts seen in this paragraph.

I point out that in Gn. 19,7-8 Lot underlines the wickedness of the act of the sodomites and highlights the violation, by the sodomites themselves, of his hospitality towards the two man-angels but this does not mean that before God the lack towards hospitality were the most serious sin, Lot is not a prophet nor does he speak in the name of God, he clearly defends his honor as a host, but the divine condemnation of Sodom, as explained by the two Catholic letters (Jude and 2 Peter, 2) and in the line of the other Genesis texts seen in this paragraph, as well as in the line of Lv. 18 and 20, appears rather as a punishment for the sin of unnatural lust which is the basis of the violation of hospitality.

God enlighten us better and better.

 

 

d,5,2) Leviticus 18 and Genesis 19 present what happens to a society that tramples on divine commands regarding sexuality: chaos, death and family destruction.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Chapter 18 of Leviticus, after listing all the sexual crimes that the Law of God condemns, including unclean sin against nature, makes an extremely significant statement: “…Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these practices, for with all these things the nations that I am about to drive out before you have become impure. The earth was made impure by it; therefore I punished her fault and the earth vomited its inhabitants. You will therefore observe my laws and my ordinances and will not commit any of these abominable practices: neither he who is native to the earth, nor the stranger who dwells among you. For the people who were before you have committed all these abominable things, and the land has become unclean. May the earth not vomit you also, for having made it impure, as it vomited those who inhabited it before you, because whoever practices any of these abominations, every person who commits them, will be eliminated from his people." (Lev. 18,24ff)

Note how many times words are used that indicate God's supreme repugnance for such practices: "the earth has vomited", "abominable practices" etc. the Italian translation reports the Jewish statements very directly.

In Lev. 20 we read: “If anyone has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they will have to be put to death: their blood will be on them. … You will therefore observe all my laws and all my prescriptions and put them into practice, so that the land where I am leading you to live does not vomit you. You will not follow the customs of the nations that I am about to drive out before you; they have done all those things, therefore I am disgusted with them and I have said to you: You will possess their land; I will give it to you as your property. It is a land flowing with milk and honey. I, the Lord your God, have separated you from other peoples.” (Lev. 20,13 . 22-24)

Also in this text we find terms indicating supreme divine repugnance for the sins just indicated by God: "the earth... do not vomit in it" and "I have disgust" with the use of a term that means having a profound hatred, horror, true disgust... which links well with "vomit"... Among the sins that God hates and for which the earth "vomits up" there is in particular the impure sin against nature.

In both texts we find the impure sin against nature condemned and indicated as abominable... I am not aware that due to the lack of hospitality, so highlighted in the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the Bible also speaks of an abomination and it is said that the earth vomits those who implement this lack.

As can be clearly seen therefore: for the sins indicated in Lev. 18 and 20, including unnatural lust, the "land vomited out" its inhabitants, for them God expelled the nations from the land which he then gave to Israel... therefore it is not strange or absurd to affirm, on the basis of these statements , that Sodom was terribly punished by God and destroyed for sins relating to sexuality and in particular for impure sins against nature, the words of the second letter of s. Peter (2,6) and the letter of Judas (5-7) and others that fall within Tradition go precisely along this line, stating that this punishment is connected in particular to such sins.

As Peterson, an American exegete, explained: the central problem of the men of Sodom was their lack of divine Law; the commands violated by Sodom are nowhere clearer than in Leviticus 18 and 20 and in Genesis 1 and 2.[197]

More precisely: the central problem of the men of Sodom was their lack of natural divine Law, since they did not have a revealed Law.

I remember that in Lv. 18 and 20 God claims to condemn the Canaanites even for the sins of homosexuality without them having a written divine law commanding them to abstain from such acts; the prohibition of such acts was evidently a rule of natural law that everyone could know and for which God demands an account from everyone; the sodomites act against this rule.

According to Peterson, when the sin of Sodom is viewed in both immediate and broader contexts (Gen.4-20), sexual depravity better defines the reason for its destruction.

I repeat: When the sin of Sodom is viewed in both immediate and broader contexts (Gen. 4-20), sexual depravity better defines the reason for its destruction.

In the same way that sexual depravity was an important impetus for the destruction of the Canaanites and their expulsion from the land (Lev 18. 3, 26–30; 20,23), so too the Sodomites lost their land and their lives for a variety of sins, particularly sexual ones, and homosexual acts are at the center of that variety.[198]

As part of the Torah, Genesis presents in chap. 19 a narrative that indicates what happens to a society that tramples on these divine laws: chaos, death and family destruction. [199]

 

 

d,6) Gen. 13 and the many sins of Sodom; Gen. 18,20 the cry against Sodom is too great.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

To properly and thoroughly outline the situation of Sodom on the basis of the biblical stories, it is necessary to point out that even before the arrival of the two angels Sodom sinned gravely, we read in Genesis: "Now the men of Sodom were perverse and sinned greatly against the Lord." (Gen. 13,13) .. and again: “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is too great and their sin is very serious. I want to go down and see if they really have done all the evil that the cry has reached me; I want to know!” (Gen. 18,20s)

St. Thomas believed that when Gen. 13,13 states that the sodomites were evil and sinned greatly against God, he was referring in particular to the impure sin against nature that they committed.[200]

For our part, we note first of all that the text of Genesis 13,13 uses two very significant adjectives which we will examine below.

1)The first adjective is ra', we also find it in Gen. 2, 9.17; 3, 5.22 etc.; in Gen. 6,5, speaking of men before the flood, whose lust is evident, this adjective with the noun corresponding to it is used twice; with the names corresponding to it it is used about 2 times in the Bible and more generally has the meaning of bad, wicked; in Gn. 650 and Judges 19,7.9 the verb having the same root as this adjective is used; Lot and the Ephraimite of Judges 19,23 use the verb ra'a' (to be wicked) to tell the sodomites and men of Gibeah not to do certain wicked things; in these 19 cases therefore the verb ra'a' is used which has the same root as ra'; these verbs and adjectives, more precisely, all have the root r“ according to the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament and indicate wickedness[201]. The connection between the adjective (ra') of Gen. 6,5 and Gen. 13,13 and the corresponding verb of Gen. 19,7.9 and Judges 19,23 leads us to think that, probably, the sodomites sin a lot referred in particular to unnatural lust, this thought is strengthened by what we will see below.

2) The second adjective is chatta and is strengthened by the adverb meod which means excessively.

The term chatta means sinner or sinful and is used about 20 times in the Bible. In Gen. 13 the adjective chatta is specified in the sense that the sodomites sinned against God, the adverb meod specifies the act of the sodomites in the sense that they sinned excessively against God.

The professor. Peterson pointed out how in Genesis the word chat united to God in the sense of sin against the Lord enters a context that concerns a disorder in sexual matters.[202]

In Gen. 20, 6 we talk about sin against God and it is of a sexual nature.

Peterson himself, after having highlighted that even in Genesis 39, with reference to the case of Joseph with Potiphar's wife, there is talk of sin against God, points out that: “Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud draws the same connections between the wickedness of Sodom and that eschewed by Joseph (see b. Sanh. 109a).”[203] The Talmud, therefore, also makes the same connection between the wickedness of Sodom and that avoided by Joseph in the sense that they are sins concerning sexuality.

There are quite significant reasons, therefore, to believe that Gen. 13,13 states “Now the men of Sodom were perverse and sinned greatly against the Lord.” refers in particular to the fact that sins of lust were committed in Sodom.

Furthermore, the words of Gen. 13,13, compared with other similar expressions (Gen. 39 and Gen. 20,6), indicate that the sin of Sodom was of special gravity in the sexual sphere.

The impure sin against nature that emerges in the story of Gen. 19 is precisely an impure sin of special gravity; in Lev. 18 and 20 it is stated that some sins, including the impure sin against nature, are abominable (toebah) and that the earth "vomits out" (qo) those who commit them.

The term toebah (abomination) is used approximately 120 times in the Bible and occurs 5 times in chapter 18 of Leviticus, once it is used to indicate the evil of the impure sin against nature and another 4 times to underline that this sin together with other considered there it is abominable. Among the sins indicated in Lev. 18, therefore, the unclean sin against nature is especially abominable.

In chapter 20 of Leviticus the term toebah (abomination) is found only once and refers again and only to the impure sin against nature.

The impure sin against nature is therefore particularly abominable.

I specify that the term toebah (abomination) indicates a particularly serious violation of the Law of God and is not necessarily connected to pagan practices.[204]

The verb vomit (qo) is used only eight times in the Bible and 4 times it indicates the punishment that follows for the sins indicated in Lev. 18 and Lev. 20, among which there is, in both chapters, the impure sin against nature.

The impure sin against nature is therefore particularly abominable, produces a particularly serious punishment and from the various indications seen it is probable that it is particularly the sin for which in Gen. 13,13 we read: "... the men of Sodom were perverse and sinned greatly against the Lord.”

The professor. Giuntoli in a 2013 text stated that Gen. 19,5 makes it clear that the sin of the inhabitants of Sodom indicated in Gen. 13,13, within this episode (Gen. 19), manifests itself as a sin linked to the exercise of homosexuality.[205]

What we have said is further confirmed if we examine better other indications that the Bible offers us in Gen. 14 about Sodom and the nearby cities. The sodomites and their neighbors are in fact defeated in the war, they flee and all their goods are taken away from them, even Lot, with his goods, is presumably deported with the population of these cities.

Abraham's intervention, who defeats the enemies of Sodom and brings the stolen goods and deported people back to the cities, resolves the situation.

As the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself says in the document we are examining "Throughout the Ancient Near East (and therefore also in Israel), war was generally conceived as an ordeal, that is, as an event through which the just judgment of God towards two contenders (two kings, two armies), each claiming their own right: the divinity - from his celestial throne, seat of the supreme tribunal (Ps 9,5.8; 11,4) - grants victory to those who are right and determines the defeat of those who are wrong. Impartiality is the hallmark of this praiseworthy justice (Dt 10,17; Sir 35,15).” (n. 250)

In Abraham's victory in Gen. 14 we must therefore see the just judgment of God who gives victory to those who are right.

Abraham is a saint, a man of God who is right.

In the action of Abraham and his followers we must see the victorious action of God through those who belong to him, Abraham's victory anticipates the great victories of Joshua, David etc. ; God gives Abraham and his men, who were probably few compared to the number of fighters in the enemy armies, an important victory. Abraham, evidently guided by God, wins.

Instead Sodom, immersed in sin and not guided by God, loses and its inhabitants are deported. The fact that the inhabitants of Sodom were driven out of their homes reminds us of chapter 18 of Leviticus: “Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these practices, for by all these the nations that I am about to drive out before you have made themselves unclean. you. The earth was made impure by it; therefore I punished her fault and the earth vomited its inhabitants. You will therefore observe my laws and my ordinances and will not commit any of these abominable practices: neither he who is native to the earth, nor the stranger who dwells among you. For the people who were before you have committed all these abominable things, and the land has become unclean. May the earth not vomit you also, for having made it impure, as it vomited those who inhabited it before you, because whoever practices any of these abominations, every person who commits them, will be eliminated from his people." (Lev. 18,24ff)

The sodomites for their sexual sins, which God supremely detests, already with the lost war in Gen. 14 appear "vomited" from the earth and punished by God... But this punishment is not yet definitive... Sodom and the other cities are saved and return in their homes because Lot, Abraham's nephew, lives there and was deported with the inhabitants of those cities; Sodom and the nearby cities are saved thanks, in particular, to Abraham, man of God... God gives Sodom and the other nearby cities, thanks to Abraham, salvation and another chance at life...

With this sign, God certainly wants to call these cities to conversion... but they do not listen to this call, they continue in their evil...

Of its sins it is not known that Sodom has repented or changed its path, so what I have just said seems to me to also connect very well with what is stated in Gen. 18,20: "The cry against Sodom and Gomorrah is too much great and their sin is very serious. I want to go down and see if they really have done all the evil that the cry has reached me; I want to know it!"

The sin, probably of unnatural lust, of Sodom is very serious, it is abominable (toebah) and causes the earth to "vomit" (qo) whoever commits it; therefore it is not strange that God, who appears here as King and Judge, receives a colossal protest, a colossal cry (zeaqah) against Sodom and Gomorrah, a protest, a great cry, their sin is grave (rab) in an excessive way .

This protest against Sodom is also spoken of in Gen. 19,13 using the same Hebrew term zeaqah, after the sodomites attempted to sexually abuse the two guests.

Even of Cain's sin against Abel it is stated that he cries out to God (Gen. 4,10).

St. Gregory the Great states: sin cries out to God when it is committed publicly, freely, without fear[206]; actually, as we will see better, Sodom appears as a pleasure-loving city that has no problem sinning publicly, freely and without fear (see Is. 3; Gen. 19,5ff.).

In this cry caused by sin we must see a metaphor that wants to highlight that divine Justice is itself called to intervene and cannot tolerate the impunity of sin especially when it is done in a particularly vile way, publicly and brazenly.

Just as a king is obliged to intervene when the people cry out in the face of an unjust act, so God is called to intervene by his own Justice to punish sin, especially when it is done in a foul way, publicly and without restraint.

We can also see in this cry the prayers of those who suffer or are disgusted by such sins and who ask God to intervene, therefore also the prayers of Lot who grieved for them (2 Pt. 2) and, we can think, also to the prayers of the angels who watch over men and preside over the destinies of the nations (Tb. 3,17;12,12; Ps.91,11; Dan. 3,49; 10.13-21).

The professor. Cortese seemed to refer the statements of Gen. 18,20 according to which "... the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is too great and their sin is very serious" to the unnatural impure sin of Sodom itself.[207]

What we are saying is intended to make us understand in particular that Sodom had already been sinning for a long time; this is also confirmed by some texts of the Jewish tradition.

The Hebrew text Bĕrēšît Rabbâ states: “ 7. And they said to him: Stand aside, go away, and they said: Does someone who has come as a stranger want to judge? (Gen. 19, 9). Do you want to change the sentence that the ancients gave? R. Menahemah in the name of R. Bebaj: Thus the men of Sodom established among themselves. They said, Every man that cometh hither, we will know him carnally, and we will take his money; and also he for whom it is written: And observe the way of the Lord to act with charity and justice (Gen. 18, 19), even that we will know carnally, and we will take his money."[208]

Further this text states: “Said R. Jirmejah b. Eleazar: The prosperity of Sodom lasted only fifty-two years, and in twenty-five years of these the Holy One, blessed be He, made the mountains tremble and cause earthquakes so that they would do penance, and they did not do it, as it is written: Move the mountains and do not they realize it, and in the end he shocks them with his anger (Job 9, 5).”[209]

So for a long time God warned Sodom to convert but this did not happen and in the end they were shocked by divine wrath.

The texts of the letter of Jude (Jude 5-7) and the second letter of Peter clearly reveal that the "perversion" of Sodom, its "sin greatly against the Lord" and its "very serious" sin of Gen. 13 concerns in particular sexuality, especially unnatural sexuality, which was practiced there; they also help to understand that this sin had already been taking place in these areas for some time.

Peter's letter is quite clear in this line when it states: "God in fact... instead freed the righteous Lot, distressed by the immoral behavior of those wicked people. In fact, that righteous man, because of what he saw and heard while he lived among them, was tormented every day in his righteous soul by such ignominies. The Lord knows how to free the godly from trial and keep the wicked for punishment on the day of judgment, especially those who in their impure passions pursue the flesh and despise the Lord.” (2 Pt. 2, 6-10)

Keating explains that people sometimes limit the sin of the citizens of Sodom to their gross violation of hospitality, but here the Scriptures tell us that it was their sexual immorality that tormented Lot. Day after day, says Peter, that righteous man who lived among them was tormented in his righteous soul by the immoral actions that he saw and heard.[210]

The text of 2 Pt. 2,6s specifies that Lot was distressed by the sexually depraved behavior of his fellow citizens which they engaged in not just once but every day, ( ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας )… here the connection with what we said above is evident: the Lord presents us with Sodom as immersed in lust and therefore as a great sinner against God precisely because she had abandoned herself to sexual depravity not just once but for some time; the attempt to have unnatural relationships with the two guest-angels is the culmination of the immorality of the sodomites, already abundantly accustomed to this sin.

The famous historian and exegete Giuseppe Ricciotti in his “History of Israel”[211] it clearly states that God was preparing to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah due to the impure vice that raged there and when those vicious people tried to have sexual relations even with the men-angels the punishment fell on them.

Ricciotti's words indicate that this vice had already been raging in Sodom for some time.

Also in Rabbi Eliezer's Pirkei it is highlighted how unnatural lust was usual for sodomites.[212]

Gen. 18 therefore presents us with Abraham engaging in an intense dialogue with God precisely regarding the punishment of Sodom... and it is significant that God concludes the dialogue in question with these words: "I will not destroy it out of consideration for those ten." (Gen. 18,32). God would not have destroyed Sodom if there had been ten righteous people... unfortunately there were not even 10 righteous people in Sodom... immorality had contaminated practically everyone... in fact young and old wanted to unite carnally against nature with the two guests and the desire was so ardent who were forcing the blockade imposed by Lot (Gen. 19).

Remembering what the PCB stated in a 2014 document that: “… to evaluate the truth of ancient biblical stories, it is necessary to read them as they were written and were read by Paul himself: “All these things happened to them [the Israelites] as an example , and they were written as a warning to us, for whom the end times have come” (1 Cor 10,11:XNUMX).”[213] It seems to me that the teaching that, in this line, came from this story (Gen.13-19) for the Jews and which comes for us is obvious: we must not sin and if we sin we must not repeat such evil actions but convert, in fact, if God does not definitively punish us for our first sins, he does so so that we convert, but if we persevere in evil, the definitive punishment will arrive...

 

 

d,7) Clarifications regarding the passages from the Hebrew Bible cited by the Pontifical Commission.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission states that in other passages of the Hebrew Bible that deal with the guilt of Sodom alludes to: betrayal towards the Lord (Is. 1,10), generic sinful conduct perpetrated in a brazen way (Is. 3,9), adultery (Jer. 23,14), it is indicated as: pride and pleasure-loving carefreeness (Ezek. 16,49); the Commission therefore specifies that in these passages "there is never any allusion to a sexual transgression practiced against people of the same sex." (n. 186)

I respond by pointing out first of all that the Jewish people ordinarily did not have a particular tendency to give in to homosexual acts: the Bible only in exceptional cases speaks of such a sin in the Jewish people, "Israel", says the Talmud, "is above the suspicion of sodomy or bestiality” (Kid. 82a), and therefore preventive precautions against these perversions were not deemed necessary (Yad, cit. Cit., 22:2 and Sh. Ar., EH 24:1).”[214], the same is stated in the letter of Aristeas from the 2nd century BC. C.[215] therefore the comparisons could not concern non-existent sodomitic sins of the time of the prophets and unnatural sins of Sodom, but concerned sins of various types of the time of the prophets with the sins of Sodom.

Sodom appears in the Bible as the maximum of moral perversion supremely punished by God, as the text of the Commission also makes clear when it states that Sodom is "...a paradigm of the curse in the form of catastrophic punishment (see Dt 29,22; Is 1,9, 13,19; 49,18; Jer 16,56; Ez 4,6; Lam 17,29; Lk 186; etc.)” (n.XNUMX), so it is not strange that the prophets and even Christ compared it groups of people so as to open their eyes to their wickedness.

The comparison was not made on the basis of the strict correspondence of the typology of sin but on the basis of the wickedness found in Sodom and in the communities compared to it, therefore we have statements of this type: "they are all like Sodom" (Jer. 24,14 ), “Great was the iniquity of the daughter of my people, greater than the sin of Sodom” (Lam. 4,6) “… on the day of judgment, the land of Sodom will be treated less harshly than you!” (Mt. 11,24) and other similar ones.

Sodom appears to be compared by the prophets with the communities of their times not because in the two realities the sins were precisely identical but because the wickedness was similar and the punishment was believed to be similar.

Furthermore, it should be underlined that the statement that the "sin of Sodom" was particularly sexual does not mean that it was only sexual also because very serious sins such as impure sins against nature are normally accompanied by other sins because lust is considered the mother of all the vices as explained by s. Alfonso: “Incontinence is called by s. Basil living plague, from s. Bernardino of Siena is the most harmful vice of all: Vermis quo nullus nocentior; because, according to says s. Bonaventure, immodesty destroys the shoots of all virtues: Luxuria omnium virtutum eradicat germinat. Therefore she is on her own. Ambrose called the seminary and the mother of all vices: Luxuria seminarium est, et origo omnium vitiorum; while this vice also brings with it the others, hatred, theft, sacrilege and the like.”[216]

St. Ambrose stated: “Luxuria ergo nec fidem habet, nec observantiam disciplinae: luxuria seminarium et origo vitiorum est. Nec arbitremini me adversus Apostolum dixisse (I Tim. VI, 1) , quia ille ait avaritiam rootem esse vitiorum omnium, quoniam luxuria ipsius est mater avaritiae. Etenim cum lui exhauserit quis luxuriando proprios facultates, quaerit postea avara compendia.”[217]

Lust has no faith nor observance of discipline, lust is the seminary and origin of vices; lust is the mother of greed, so don't think that I go against s. Paul who states that greed is the origin of all vices (1 Tim. 6,1) and in fact when someone exhausts his goods through lust, he tries to move forward with greed.

Pride is also the mother of all vices (II-II q. 162 a.8) and the pride of Sodom is underlined by Ez. 16.

In this line, the various vices spoken of in the biblical passages that present comparisons with Sodom can also be considered not as something that excludes pride and unnatural lust from the sins of Sodom but as a fruit of the pride and unnatural lust that had already been practicing in that city for some time.

Bearing in mind what has just been said, let's see what emerges most immediately from the texts of the Hebrew Bible indicated by the PCB.

1) First of all, these texts do not directly deny that the sin of Sodom is of a primarily sexual nature and in particular of a homosexual nature: none of them clearly states that the sin of Sodom was not primarily of a sexual nature and of a homosexual nature. The text of Gn. 19,5 is too clear in talking about the homosexual act that the sodomites wanted to perpetrate, no hagiographer has ever dared to deny something so clear and evident!

2) These biblical passages, on the basis of the more general indications of the sins they present, and which are presented by the PCB in n. 186, allow us to conclude that the sin of Sodom is, in particular, a sin of a homosexual nature;

a) when Is. 1,10 links Sodom with the great sinners and traitors of God of the time of the prophet (Is. 1-6) it allows us to conclude that the sin of this city was mainly of sexual perversion because this sin is very serious and implies a betrayal of God and his law, therefore just as Sodom had been a traitor to God with its unnatural lust and with other sins connected to it, in a similar way were the men of the prophet's time;

b) when Is. 3,9 compares Sodom with the men of the prophet's time for the generic sinful conduct perpetrated in a brazen way, it allows us to infer that the sin of this city was of sexual perversion because this sin, as appears in Gn. 19, falls within the genre of sinful conduct and appears to be carried out in a brazen manner;

c) when 23,14 compares Sodom to the wicked and lustful people of the prophet's time it allows one to think that the sin of that city was in particular homosexuality because homosexual activity is greatly detested by God and is considered a great sin and a serious act of lust;

d) when Ez. 16,49 states that the sin of Sodom consists in pride and carefree pleasure-seeking, allows us to infer that the sin of this city was, in particular, sexual perversion against nature because it implies pride and because the pleasure-loving life and gluttony favor the sins of lust.

3) The aforementioned passages even offer more direct indications to affirm that the sin of Sodom was truly a sin relating first and foremost to sexuality and in particular to unnatural sexuality; as we will see below.

  1. a) We note first of all that in chap. 1 of Isaiah Sodom is cited 3 times, in Isa. 1,7 we read:

“Your countryside, before your eyes,

foreigners devour it;

it is a desert like the devastation of Sodom.”

In Is. 1.9-10 we read: “If the Lord of hosts

there hadn't been any survivors,

we would already be like Sodom,

we would resemble Gomorrah.

Hear the word of the Lord,

leaders of Sodom, give ear to the teaching of our God,

people of Gomorrah!”

The divine words make a comparison between the people of God and Sodom, between the punishment of Sodom and the punishment of the people of God.

Please note: chaps. 1-6 of Isaiah form a single block and concern the years 750-735 BC. C. therefore this whole block must be used to understand the statements by which the people of God and in particular Jerusalem are referred to with the name of Sodom (Is. 1,7-10; 3,9) and precisely in this block we have that in Isaiah 1,21 there is talk of prostitution (zanah) regarding Jerusalem which Isaiah previously indicated as Sodom, here the reference to the lust of Sodom appears direct: Jerusalem is compared to Sodom and prostitution and therefore the spiritual and material lust of Jerusalem is compared to the unnatural lust of Sodom[218]; this reference to the lust of Sodom becomes particularly strong in Is. 3,7-10 because in this text the prostitute Jerusalem is compared to Sodom for the shamelessness with which she commits sin, in Gn. 19 precisely the sodomites wanted to join carnally with the two angel men in a brazen way and without any reserve.

Furthermore, Isaiah's words to the daughters of Zion (Isaiah 3,16:4ff) are presumably related to Amos' words to the "cows of Bashan" (Am. XNUMX).[219] that is, to the women of Bashan whose pleasure-loving and impure behavior arouses the condemnation of the prophet; in both cases we find ourselves faced with situations of lust combined with a pleasure-loving life, this explains the strong statements relating to the punishment regarding the sexual dimension that awaits these women (see Is. 3,16-17), the language used here is very raw and strong and says that those women will have to uncover their private parts, presumably due to the sexual violence they will receive from the enemies of Israel in the punishment that God will send them; all this reinforces the statement that when Isaiah assimilates Jerusalem to Sodom he does so by offering various allusions to the latter's unnatural sin. [220]

Another significant similarity between the Jerusalem of Isaiah and Sodom as an operator of lustful acts against nature can be seen in Isa. 1,13, which states that offerings of incense are an abomination, the word used is toebah, but we know that this word has a special relationship with the impure sin against nature, it is found in various texts connected to this sin and in particular to the sin of Sodom (Lev. 18 and 20), one can see in these statements of Isaiah a certain I refer to this sin: to the abomination carried out by the sodomites with the attempted rape of the two angel men, Isaiah assimilates the abominations carried out by the Jerusalemites through the practice of a sinful cult.

According to some exegetes, chap. 1 of Isaiah would summarize the teaching of the whole book so the whole book could be used to understand the statements for which Jerusalem is indicated with the name of Sodom, obviously also in this case the texts we have just seen can be used to explain the references to Sodom as linked more directly to its unclean sin against nature.[221]

I conclude by noting that in the texts in question a comparison is made between the punishment of Sodom and that of the people of God but it must be specified that the divine wrath and fury fell on Sodom in a much stronger way than what happened to people of God and it is probably significant to explain the lack of such a supreme divine punishment on the people of God that, unlike Sodom, they were not totally immersed in sexual practices against nature, as can be seen in the statements of Isaiah himself.

b) The text of Jeremiah 23 also offers significant indications that seem to connect the sins of the prophet's time with the unnatural sins of Sodom.

In Jeremiah 23, in fact, we read:

“ The earth is full of adulterers;

because of the curse all the earth mourns,

the steppe pastures have dried up.

Their race is directed towards evil

and their strength is injustice.

… But among the prophets of Jerusalem

I have seen nefarious things:

they commit adultery and practice lying,

they give help to evildoers,

and no one turns from his wickedness;

to me they are all like Sodom

and its inhabitants like Gomorrah”. (Jer. 23,10-14)

Notice how Sodom and Gomorrah are mentioned in the context of sexual depravity.[222]

The holiness and purity of God is opposed by the impurity of Sodom, Samaria and Jerusalem and the context in which Sodom is mentioned is a context of sexual depravity which seems to refer, in particular, to the unnatural depravity of which the text speaks of Gen. 19,5ff.

c) The text of Ezekiel 16 also offers significant indications that seem to connect the sins of the prophet's time with the unnatural sins of Sodom.

First of all the chapter. 16 of Ezekiel has an explicit sexual nature and strongly highlights sins of a sexual nature[223], in it the term zanah (prostitute) and related words are used 12 times, the term Sodom is repeated 6 times!

Particularly Ezek. 16, 44-50 states: “Behold, all those who use proverbs will say of you: “Like a mother, like a daughter”. You are a worthy daughter of your mother, who abandoned her husband and her children: you are the sister of your sisters, who abandoned their husbands and their children. Your mother was a Hittite and your father an Amorite. Your older sister is Samaria, who with her daughters lives on your left. Your youngest sister is Sodom, who lives on your right with her daughters. You not only followed their conduct and acted according to their abominable customs, but as if this were too little, you behaved worse than them in all your conduct. As I live - oracle of the Lord God -, your sister Sodom and her daughters did not do what you did together with your daughters! Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were full of pride, greed, indolent idleness. However, they did not stretch out their hand against the poor and destitute. They became proud and committed what is abominable before me. I eliminated them as soon as I noticed it.”

The sexual context is obvious!

As you can see, this text speaks of Sodom and the surrounding cities as full of pride, greed and gluttony so that they did not help the needy and committed what is abominable before God. Now the Hebrew term toebah (abomination) used in Ezekiel 16,50 referring to Gen. 19, it appears clearly linked to the impure sin against nature indicated in Gen. 19,5, in fact this term is used regarding this sin, directly or indirectly, 5 times in Lev. 18 and then in Lev. 20,13pm; therefore the statement that Sodom and "her daughters": "... committed what is abominable before me" (Ezek. 16) indicates the attempt at sodomy carried out by Sodom, as M. Greenberg points out.[224]

I underline that in chapter 16 of Ezekiel the term toebah and similar terms are used 9 times.

The unnatural abominations of Sodom seem clearly related to the abominations of the people Ezekiel addresses. [225]

Peterson states, along these lines: Ch. 16 of Ezekiel has an explicit sexual nature, those who only highlight the lack of hospitality as the sin of Sodom in Ezekiel. 16 does not present the entire picture of the chapter in question.[226]

Ezekiel underlines in a particular way the pride of Sodom, the book of Sirach will take up this emphasis and reiterate the pride of Sodom (Sir. 10 and 16,9).

According to Holy Scripture, pride is an exaggerated self-esteem with haughtiness and contempt towards others.[227]

Sodom therefore had an exaggerated estimate of itself, with haughtiness and contempt for others and it is precisely pride that pushes it to do what is abominable.

According to s. Thomas: the sin of pride is a special sin, that is, specifically distinct from the others, since it has as its special, that is, specifically distinct object, the disordered desire for one's own excellence, but this sin can have a certain universal causality on the other sins because precisely because the disordered desire of one's own excellence can also commit other sins; this means that all vices can sometimes derive from it, but it does not mean that all vices always derive from it. (see IIª-IIae, q. 162 a. 2)

On the other hand, as s. Thomas quoting St. Gregory, pride is to be considered as the queen of vices, in fact as soon as it has conquered the heart of man, it immediately delivers him to the seven capital vices, from which all the multitude of vices derives. (IIª-IIae, q. 162 a. 8 co)

We have seen above how pride is Satan's sin, according to s. Augustine[228], and how it assimilates in particular to Satan.

Sodom's pride is combined in particular with unnatural lust and assimilates Sodom so strongly to Satan that it deserves a supreme divine punishment.

Ezekiel also indicates gluttony as the sin of Sodom, and this sin is also significantly connected to the sin of lust, St. Thomas states: "Diluvium autem et poena Sodomorum sunt inducta propter peccata luxuriae praecedentia, ex gula occasionata." (II-II, q. 148 a. 3 ad 1) The flood and the punishment of the sodomites were caused because of the previous sins of lust, which gluttony had given rise to.

St. Thomas specifies that among the daughters of gluttony there is lust, that is, gluttony produces lust (IIª-IIae, q. 148 a. 6 co)

The relationship between gluttony and lust is also highlighted by s. Anthony of Padua.

St. Anthony states: “The fiery lust of demons tends to destroy the chastity of the saints; the demons attack them especially if they see them abandoning themselves to the pleasures of gluttony, which manages to set fire to even the rigors of chastity. And they attack the eyes above all, because they know that the eyes are the first arrows of lust."[229]

Adds the s. Evangelical Doctor: "Likewise when the fool gorges himself excessively on food, he is guilty of fornication, as we read in the book of Numbers: Israel fornicated with the daughters of Moab, who called the Israelites to participate in their sacrificial rites and then ate the meat offerings to idols. The Lord became angry and in a single day twenty-three thousand died (cf. Nm 25,1-2.4.9). Here it is therefore demonstrated that from gluttony we pass to fornication, and from fornication we arrive at death and damnation."[230]

He says yes again. Anthony: “The daughters of Moab, a name that is interpreted as “from the father”, are gluttony, lust and the other vices whose father is the devil: with these “daughters of Moab” the people of the world give themselves over to fornication . They eat and worship their gods, because they are addicted to gluttony and lust: for this reason "the leaders of the people" must be hung on gallows. The leaders of the people are the five senses of the body, which because of the sins committed must be hung on the scaffold of penance.”[231]

Many other texts of Tradition highlight how the vice of gluttony leads to that of lust[232].

It should be added that gluttony can also be the effect of lust as it is the mother of all vices, [233] as we said.

The fact that Ezekiel 16 speaks about gluttony in Sodom does not exclude lust but rather implies it, as seen.

Furthermore, the statements of the prophet Ezekiel, according to which the sin of Sodom consisted in pride, greed, indolent idleness, and lack of help to the needy, make Sodom emerge as a pleasure-loving and selfish city which obviously combines well with the practice of the most extreme lust and therefore with the practice of unnatural sexuality.

Philo of Alexandria in this line points out that the men of Sodom were very wealthy and, being incapable of living righteously in their wealth, they began to trample on the laws of nature, immersed themselves in disorder in eating and drinking and carried out sexual relations contrary to the divine law. Not only did they go crazy for women and defile the marriage beds of others, but they practiced unnatural sex, so that men lusted after each other to do unworthy things and without respecting their common nature. Along these lines, Philo continues, Sodom was punished with sterility but this, due to the terrible force of lust that dominated them, did not upset them. The men took up the role of women and were burdened by a terrible disease typical of women. They not only perverted their bodies but also degenerated their souls and God punished them terribly.

Philo's text that we have just briefly summarized is found in his book on Abraham[234] but similar texts are found in other works by the same author.[235]

In conclusion, the text of Ezekiel 16 therefore offers significant data that allow us to consider the sin of Sodom as linked to deviant sexuality as well as pride, gluttony, idleness and a lack of mercy towards the needy.

d) Even from these texts just seen taken from the books of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel it emerges that Sodom is considered an example of the supreme sin supremely punished by God, as the Commission's text also makes clear when it states that Sodom is "... a paradigm of the curse in the form of catastrophic punishment..." (n.186); in the divine Law homosexuality, indicated in Gen. 5, is considered a supreme sin that attracts great divine abomination and terrible divine punishments, as Lev says. 18pm and 20pm; therefore these texts and the Commission's own statements, seen in the light of Gen. 19, offer significant indications in the sense that the sin of Sodom was one of unnatural impurity and precisely therefore terribly punished by God.

In conclusion, the texts of the Hebrew Bible cited by the Pontifical Biblical Commission do not exclude, as the Commission itself would like, that the sin of Sodom is of a sexual nature. In fact, these texts not only do not deny this sin but allow and in a certain way lead to thinking precisely that perverse sexual activity is an important part of the evil committed by Sodom, the letter of Judas and the second of Peter, in the fullness of the light of Christ, will specify this sin by underlining the unnatural lust; It is therefore not strange that many Christian exegetes and various authors of the Jewish tradition, who knew the Jewish Bible well, have, as we have seen and as we will see later, underlined the sexual nature of Sodom's perversion.

In this regard it should be noted that it is not entirely clear when these biblical texts and Genesis were completed and definitively published but according to the indications of the PCB Genesis should be from the Persian period (5th-6th century) [236], and according to some Catholic exegetes the book of Isaiah should contain prophecies of Isaiah from the 1th century in chapters 6-XNUMX[237], the texts of Jeremiah of chapter 23 should be from the XNUMXth century early XNUMXth century while the book of Ezekiel should contain texts from the XNUMXth century published in the same XNUMXth century[238] ... all this must also make us consider the possibility that the text of Genesis on Sodom is the last writing that intervenes on Sodom and makes the definitive point on this topic and clarifies what the prophets said based on unwritten traditions; in this sense the text of Gen. 19 definitively clarifies the fact that the sin of Sodom is essentially inherent to homosexual activity.

In this line, therefore, the text of Genesis comes last, definitively specifies the question of Sodom and radically resolves all the questions that could arise based only on the prophetic statements.

 

 

d,8) Some other significant texts from the Hebrew Bible about Sodom.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Below we will see some other significant texts on Sodom which leads to reiterating what was said in the previous paragraph.

1) In Deuteronomy in chap. 29 we read that if the people of God do not put God's Law into practice, the Lord will punish them terribly precisely for this reason, the text adds regarding this punishment: "All their land will be brimstone, salt, drought, it will not be sown and it will not sprout, nor any grass will grow there, as after the upheaval of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Seboim, destroyed by his wrath and fury.” (Deut. 29,23) The text then underlines that God's punishing wrath and anger will be caused precisely by the sin of the people and concludes "The Lord tore them from their land with wrath, with fury and with great indignation and has thrown into another land, as happens today."

For us it is important to note that in the text in question a comparison is made between the punishment of Sodom and that of the people of God but the divine wrath and fury fell on Sodom in a much stronger way than what happened to people of God and it is also significant to explain the lack of such a supreme divine punishment on the people of God that, unlike Sodom, they were not totally immersed in sodomitical practices, as can be seen in particular in the books of Jeremiah and Ezekiel…

Again in Deuteronomy we read: "Their vine is from the stock of Sodom, from the plantations of Gomorrah." (Dt. 32, 32)

The text refers to the wicked Israelites who do not obey God and who are destined for punishment, just like Sodom and Gomorrah; these Israelites have the same spirit as Sodom and Gomorrah, a proud spirit (Ez. 16, 49s), rebellious against God, that is, they have the fundamental characteristics (the "stock" and the "plantations") equal to those of Sodom.

It should be noted that this chapter. 32 of the book of Deuteronomy highlights a particular relationship between Sodom and the people of God when he states:

“Jeshurun ​​grew fat and resisted,

– yes, you got fat, fattened, gorged –

and rejected the God who made him,

he despised the Rock, his salvation.” (Dt. 32,15)

We saw above and we will see better later how Ezekiel and other authors have highlighted how the pleasure-loving life of Sodom led that city to perdition; in this passage of Dt. 32 it is highlighted how even for the people of God, riches can become a trap and lead the hearts of the Israelites away from God.

2) In the book of Isaiah we read: “I will punish wickedness in the world

and in the wicked their iniquity.

I will put an end to the pride of those who are protracted

and I will humble the pride of tyrants. …

Babylon, pearl of kingdoms,

proud splendor of the Chaldeans,

it will be overturned by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.” (Is. 13,11.19)

Babylon for her wickedness and iniquity will be punished by God in a similar way to Sodom.

For us it is important to note that in the text in question a comparison is therefore made between the punishment of Sodom and that of Babylon; divine wrath and fury fell on Sodom, in a similar way they will fall on Babylon. The pride of Sodom (Ez. 16,49f) is also similar to that of which Isaiah speaks here (Isaiah 13,11).

Indeed, divine punishment also fell on Babylon; but the divine wrath and fury fell on Sodom much more strongly than what happened on Babylon; and it is also significant to explain the lack of such a supreme punishment that, unlike Sodom, Babylon, according to biblical indications, was not totally immersed in sodomitical practices.

3) In the book of the prophet Jeremiah we read: “As in the upheaval of Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities – says the Lord -, no person will live there nor will any human being dwell there.” (Jer. 49, 18), in the same book we read: “As when God overthrew Sodom, Gomorrah and the neighboring cities – oracle of the Lord -, no person will live there nor will any human being dwell there.” (Jer. 50, 40)

They are two prophecies about the divine punishment that will fall on Edom and Babylon.

Edom is punished for pride (Jer. 49,16) and Babylon for arrogance (Jer. 50,29), something similar with the pride of Sodom (Ezek. 16,49f) but the divine wrath and fury they hit Sodom much harder than what happened to Babylon and Edom; and to explain this difference in punishment, it is also significant that, unlike Sodom, Babylon and Edom were not totally immersed in sodomitical practices... in fact, in the Law, homosexuality practiced is considered the supreme sin which attracts terrible divine punishments, as Lev says. 18 and 20, consistent with the terrible punishment of Sodom.

4) In the book of Lamentations we read:

“Great was the iniquity of the daughter of my people,

more than the sin of Sodom,

which was destroyed in an instant,

without hand fatigue.” (Lam. 4, 6)

The sin of God's people is here compared to that of Sodom.

It is even stated that the sin of this people is greater than that of Sodom.

Yet the punishment of Sodom was much more terrible than that of the people of God and the fact that, unlike Sodom, the people of God did not totally immerse themselves in sodomitical practices, as we read in particular in the books of the prophets Jeremiah and Ezekiel... in the Law, in fact, homosexuality is considered a supreme sin that attracts terrible divine punishments, as Lev says. 18 and 20, consistent with the terrible punishment of Sodom.

5) In the book of Amos we read: “Hear this word,

O cows of Bashan,

who are on the mountain of Samaria,

who oppress the weak, crush the poor

and say to your husbands: “Bring here, let us drink!”. …

I overwhelmed you

as God had overwhelmed Sodom and Gomorrah,

you were like a firebrand

torn by fire;

but you have not returned to me." Oracle of the Lord.” (Amos. 4,1. 11)

The prophecies of Amos date back to the eighth century BC. C. and, as we can see, they compare the punishment of Sodom to the punishment of the women of Samaria and more generally of the population of Samaria.

In the text, women are significantly defined as "cows", underlining with this term the lust that manifested itself in them and which God wanted to punish along with other atrocities; the lust of women was presumably supported by the lust of men to whom they indulged; Furthermore, Amos highlights how the man-woman relationship appears subverted, so that it is women who rule over men[239].

The comparison is very significant for us: the lust of the women and men of Samaria is evidently compared to that of Sodom.

So here too Sodom appears to be an example of a supreme sin supremely punished by God and precisely in the Law homosexuality practiced is considered a supreme sin which attracts terrible divine punishments, as Lev says. 18pm and 20pm; furthermore, here the lust of the women and men of Samaria is clearly linked to Sodom, thus offering a good basis for underlining how Sodom's sin was of an impure and sexual nature.

6) In the book of the prophet Zephaniah we read:

“Therefore, as surely as I live

– oracle of the Lord of hosts, God of Israel -,

Moab will become like Sodom

and the Ammonites as Gomorrah:

a place invaded by thistles, a salt mine,

a desert forever.” (Zeph. 2, 9)

Moab and the Ammonites will be punished for outrages and insults against God's people, not for sexual perversion.

Clearly the sin of Moab and the Ammonites is less serious than that of Sodom, so the divine punishment will certainly not be so terrible.

Sodom was punished in the most horrendous way, the humanity of Noah's time was equally punished in a horrendous way... and significantly both sins have to do with lust, as chapters 18 and 20 of Leviticus explain, impure sins attract particular and terrible punishments on those who carry them out.

Here it should be noted that the reference to Sodom and Gomorrah regarding the Moabites and the Ammonites seems to recall what is stated in Gen 19: "So Lot's two daughters became pregnant by their father. The eldest gave birth to a son and named him Moab. This is the father of the Moabites, who still exist today. The youngest also gave birth to a son and called him “Son of my people”. This is the father of the Ammonites, who still exist today.”

Moab and Ammon come from an incest carried out by Lot's two daughters, women who lived in Sodom, who were virgins but who had presumably drawn a bad example from their life experiences in Sodom.

In conclusion, in the texts of the Hebrew Bible the sin of Sodom remains unique, characterized by homosexual practices (Gen. 19,5), and its terrifying punishment is unique, this too appears very significant especially if we consider that another terrifying punishment like that of the flood was meted out for sins involving sexuality.

 

 

d,9) Some texts from Sirach on the sin of Sodom.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

Let us now look at some texts from Sirach that deal with Sodom.

I would like to point out first of all that the book of Sirach is a book belonging to the Jewish tradition which is considered inspired by us Catholics and is part of our biblical canon; Jews, on the other hand, do not consider it part of the Holy Scripture and therefore it is not part of the Tanach but it is undoubtedly part of the Jewish tradition.

I would like to point out immediately that even Sirach, like every other book of the Bible, does not praise the impure sin against nature and indeed, as mentioned, radically condemns it because also in Sirach the Word of God speaks which, as seen, radically condemns the impure sin against nature.

It should also be noted that among the Greek manuscripts that report this book of the Bible: "some retain a shorter textual form (short text), while others insert additions and amplifications here and there (long text). At the current state of studies, the short Greek text of Sirach is considered more authoritative from a critical point of view and for this reason it had been preferred in the previous editions of the Italian translation of the Bible for liturgical use (1971 and 1974). The Latin Church, however, has constantly favored the long text of Sirach: thus in the Vetus Latina, in the Vulgate and today in the Vulgate (1979, 1986).”[240] Below you will find the long text quoted.

 

 

d,9,1) Sir. 10,12-18

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

This is the text in Italian, in the 2008 CEI version:

“The principle of human pride is to distance oneself from the Lord,

keep your heart away from those who created it.

In fact, the principle of pride is sin;

whoever abandons himself to it spreads the abomination around him.

This is why the Lord makes his punishments incredible

and scourges him until he finishes him off.

The Lord has overthrown the throne of the mighty,

he made the humble sit in their place.

The Lord has uprooted the roots of the nations,

in their place he planted the humble.

The Lord has shaken the regions of the nations,

and has destroyed them from the foundations of the earth.

He uprooted and annihilated them,

he made their memory disappear from the earth.

Pride is not made for men,

nor arrogance for those born of women.”(Sir. 10,12-18)

Let's say straight away that the long text and the short text of Sirach in this passage are almost identical, from what I see in the Jerusalem Bible.

Then we note that the text in question does not deny that Sodom's sin was in particular sexual and against nature.

Furthermore, it states that the principle of human pride is distancing oneself from the Lord and that the principle of pride is sin, then the text speaks of incredible punishments, speaks of devastated regions... and obviously here we cannot hide the fact that sodomites must be included among those who have suffered such punishments nor can we hide the fact that the term that is translated as abomination (10,13) is, in the LXX version, βδέλυγμα, this term is the same that the LXX version uses to translate the Hebrew term toebah, a term used very specifically several times to indicate the unclean sin against nature in Lev. 18pm and 20,13pm.[241] More precisely, the Hebrew term toebah which means abomination, translated into Greek as βδέλυγμα, is present in an extraordinary way in chapter 18 of Leviticus: 5 times! In fact toebah is present in verse 22 and in verses 26, 27, 29, 30 and in all these cases it is translated into Greek, in the LXX with βδέλυγμα and with the verb βδελύσσομαι which means abomination and in all these cases it refers to the impure sin against nature; Lev 18,22 is the verse in which sins against nature are particularly condemned.

Lev 20, 13 is another verse in which impure sins against nature are condemned; in it the divine abomination for such sins is indicated again with the Hebrew term toebah and in the Greek of the LXX with the verb βδελύσσομαι.

The scope of these words (βδέλυγμα and related terms) translated as abomination (see Sir.10,13) therefore particularly includes sexual sins against nature, which are particularly abominated by God.

To understand more deeply what this biblical passage is saying we must note that the verse just seen (Sir. 10,13) is closely linked to the one that precedes it and the one that follows it therefore it is appropriate to read them together:

“The principle of human pride is to distance oneself from the Lord,

keep your heart away from those who created it.

In fact, the principle of pride is sin;

whoever abandons himself to it spreads the abomination around him.

This is why the Lord makes his punishments incredible

and scourges him until he finishes him off.” (Sir. 10,12-14)

In summary: pride begins with sin, whoever indulges in it produces abomination and therefore divine punishment and this punishment is incredible, that is, terribly strong, and lethal.

It seems clear to me that the message that emerges from this text concerns Sodom in a very direct way, and the following verses confirm this indication.

Sodom is particularly among those peoples who have been incredibly punished and annihilated by God and whose regions have been devastated by Him because of their particularly serious and particularly abominated sins by God and therefore because of their pride; the sin of lust against nature is particularly detested by God, as mentioned, it is capable of attracting the most terrible abomination (βδέλυγμα) and divine punishment on those who commit it and causes the earth to "vomit up" those who practice it (see Lev. 18 and 20).

The text in question must therefore be referred in particular to Sodom as the city which, due to pride and especially due to unnatural lust, was supremely abominated by God and supremely punished by Him until it was finished.

 

 

d,9,2) Sir. 16,7-9

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The second text of the book of Sirach is the following:

“God did not forgive the ancient giants,

who had rebelled by their strength.

He did not spare Lot's fellow citizens,

that he had a horror of their pride.

He had no mercy on nations of perdition,

who were exalted for their sins.” (Sir. 16,7-9)

The text of the shorter and longer Greek editions match here, from what I see in the “Jerusalem Bible” in the 2011 EDB edition.

Let's say straight away that the text in question does not deny that Sodom's sin was in particular sexual and against nature.

If we read the Greek text of Sir. 16,8 which refers directly to Sodom we discover that the Italian term horror translates the verb βδελύσσομαι which means to abominate and is clearly connected with βδέλυγμα. The Greek text of Sir. 16,8, more precisely, is the following:

οὐκ ἐφείσατο περὶ τῆς παροικίας Λωτ οὓς ἐβδελύξατο διὰ τὴν ὑπερη φανίαν αὐτῶν.

As we have seen, βδέλυγμα is the word that the LXX version uses to translate the Hebrew term toebah indicating in particular the abomination that God has for the unclean sin against nature in Lev. 18,22pm and 20,13pm.[242]

However in Sir. 16,7-9 it is stated that the divine abomination in relation to Sodom was caused by her pride; we know, however, that pride is the mother of all vices, in fact, as St. Thomas, s. Gregory the Great in the “Moralia in Iob” in chap. 31, noting the evil influence of pride on the lives of men, he considered it as "the queen and mother of all vices", so that as soon as pride has conquered a person's heart it delivers it to the seven deadly vices (II-II q . 162 a.8).

Lust is one of the seven deadly sins and is precisely the unnatural lust which is clearly manifested in Genesis 19,5.

The words of the text of Sirach in question (Sir. 16,8) which cite Sodom certainly focus on its pride as an abominable reality before God, but do not cancel or exclude what clearly emerges from Genesis 19,5, i.e. lust against nature, just as they do not cancel or exclude what Ezek says. 16, 49-50 and that is gluttony, which is one of the capital vices, and idleness, which is also a vice, like the sins of Sodom, they are in fact all "children" of lust.

On the other hand we know that lust can in turn be the mother of all vices and therefore the mother of pride itself[243], so the statements in question can also mean that God, in addition to abominating the unnatural lust of Sodom, clearly evident in Gen. 19,5, also abominated its pride, the fruit of this lust.

 

 

d,9,3) Focus on the pride of Sodom.

 

 

The texts we have just seen underline the pride of Sodom, in this they clearly connect to Eze. 16.

Note in Ez. 16 we read: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were full of pride, greed, indolent idleness. However, they did not stretch out their hand against the poor and destitute. They became proud and committed what is abominable before me. I eliminated them as soon as I noticed it.” (Ez. 16,49-50)

Let's focus on the terms translated as “pride” and “they were proud”.

In the Greek text the terms used are ὑπερηφανία (pride) and ἐμεγαλαύχουν (they were proud) in the Hebrew text the terms used are ḡā·'ō·wn (pride) and wat·tiḡ·bə·he·nāh (they were proud).

In the Greek text of Sirach, pride in the two passages seen in the previous paragraphs is also indicated with ὑπερηφανία.

The Hebrew, Greek and Italian terms just seen essentially mean to indicate a sin or vice consisting in disordered self-exaltation; according to Holy Scripture, in fact, pride is an exaggerated self-esteem with haughtiness and contempt towards others.[244]

Sodom therefore had an exaggerated estimate of itself, with haughtiness and contempt for others, in this line it is understood that Sodom did not help the needy, and it is precisely pride that pushed it to do what is abominable before God (Ezek. 16,49-50).

I underline that pride causes man to exalt himself in a disorderly way, leading him not to submit to God and therefore leading him to sin.

The satanic wickedness of sodomites stands out precisely when it is kept in mind that they are proud and that pride is properly diabolical, as explained by Mgr. Zenti in his speech in which he reports the statements of s. Augustine: “Augustine is convinced that the head and origin of all evil is pride, of which Satan is the personification. He therefore feels the need to clarify what it means to live according to Satan or, on the contrary, according to God: "When therefore man lives according to man, not according to God, he is similar to the devil... When man lives according to truth he does not live according to himself himself but according to God... If instead man lives according to himself, he lives according to a lie... Not living according to the norm with which one is ordered to live, this is the lie... He wants to be blessed even by living in such a way that he cannot be so. What is more deceitful than this will? Accordingly, not in vain every sin can be called a lie. Sin is not committed except by that will through which we want or do not want good to come to us” (De civ. Dei, XIV, 4.1). Precisely from living in humility according to God or from living in pride according to Satan, the two cities originate, the city of God and the earthly city."[245]

St. Augustine speaks of Satan's sin as a sin of pride: “I invite you to consider the devil: adultery and fornication cannot be attributed to him in the judgment of God, because he cannot commit them, not having the flesh. It will be pride alone, combined with envy, that will send him into eternal fire.”[246]

According to s. Thomas: the sin of pride is a special sin, that is, specifically distinct from the others, since it has as its special, that is, specifically distinct object: the disordered desire for one's own excellence, but this sin can have a certain universal causality on the other sins because precisely because the disordered desire of one's own excellence can also commit other sins; this means that all vices can sometimes derive from it, but it does not mean that all vices always derive from it. (see IIª-IIae, q. 162 a. 2)

On the other hand, as s. Thomas quoting St. Gregory, pride is to be considered the queen of vices because as soon as it has conquered the heart of man, it immediately delivers him to the seven capital vices, from which all the multitude of vices derives. (IIª-IIae, q. 162 a . 8 co).

Man's first sin was pride. (II-II q. 163 a.1) and the sin of the angels was equally of pride, for s. Thomas (63st q. 2 a. XNUMX co).

The terrible punishment with which God punished the angels, condemning them to eternal damnation, therefore appears similar to the terrible punishment of Sodom.

The proud demons, being angels, did not take pleasure in the obscenities of carnal sins (Iª q. 63 a. 2 co) but the proud sodomites as men took pleasure in such obscenities and immersed themselves in unnatural lust, the sin of Sodom is therefore similar and not the same as that of the angels.

As we said above: the men of Sodom, like the wicked of Judges 19, 22 and 20,13, are ḇə·nê- ḇə·lî·ya·'al, “sons of Belial”, the Nova Vulgata and the King James Version translate this expression of Judges 19, 22 and 20,13 precisely with "sons of Belial", which we can translate as: sons of satan; in the “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” prof. Zorell under the entry Βελιάρ explains that this name or the Hebrew correspondent indicates a power opposed to Christ and therefore Satan; the statement “sons of Belial”, sons of Satan, recalls Christ's words to his opponents: “Why do you not understand my language? Because you cannot listen to my words, you who have the devil for your father, and want to fulfill the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not persevere in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks of himself, because he is a liar and the father of lies." (John 8,43f.)

The father of all these, even of the sodomites, is Satan, that is, they obey him, in a certain way, and imitate him...

St. Anthony of Padua says along these lines: “The daughters of Moab, a name which is interpreted “from the father”, are gluttony, lust and the other vices whose father is the devil: with these “daughters of Moab” the people of the world give themselves over to fornication.”[247] The lust and pride of Sodom has Satan as its father... therefore the Sodomites were sons of Satan.

The same s. Doctor further says: “Who then can accuse him of sin, whose law

Was it the will of the Father? (cf. Ps 1,2). Who obeyed not only his heavenly Father, but also his poor Mother? “Who among you then can accuse me of sin? If I tell the truth, why don't you believe me?”. They did not believe the truth because they were children of the devil (cf. John 8,46), "who is a liar, or rather the father of lies" (John 8,44), because he is the inventor of it."[248]

Yes again. Anthony states, commenting on Luke 16: "The rich man's father was the devil, because he lived in imitation of him."[249]

The children of Satan obey him, in a certain way, and imitate him...

The result of the following of Satan was for Adam and Eve the just punishment set by God in Gen. 3, the result of the "following" of Satan by the wicked of Gibeah was their destruction, the result of the "following" of Satan by part of the sodomites was obviously the terrible punishment mentioned in Genesis 19... the result of following Satan for the rich man in the evangelical parable (Luke 16) and for anyone who dies in grave sin, therefore even those who die in impure sin, is eternal damnation .

Explain s. Thomas Aquinas: the children of Satan are such not because they were created by Satan but because they imitate him (Super Io., chapter 8 l. 6).

He says yes again. Thomas "... sola caritas est, quae distinguit inter filios Dei et filios Diaboli" (Only through charity are the children of God distinguished from the children of Satan) (Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chapter 7 l. 2. ) That is, whoever has charity is a child of God, whoever does not have it is a child of Satan.

Obviously the sodomites did not have charity, but they had great pride, lust, gluttony etc. ... in short they were children of Satan, they followed him and imitated him.

Satan actually pushes us to commit every sin, especially if serious, and in a particular way pushes us to commit the sins of lust because with it, above all, man distances himself from God, as explained by St. Alfonso and s. Thomas; the S. Neapolitan doctor, reports a significant statement by St. Thomas Aquinas in this regard: “Says St. Thomas (In Iob. c. 31) that for every vice man distances himself from God; he especially goes away due to the dishonest vice: Per luxuriam maxime recedit a Deo.”[250]

The text of s. Thomas states precisely: "... per peccatum luxuriae homo maxime videtur a Deo discedere". (In Iob c. 31)

The same s. Thomas also said: “Diabolus codicil maxime gaudere de sin luxuriae, quia est maximae adhaerentiae, et difficile ab eo homo potest eripi, insatiabilis est enim delectabilis appetitus ut philosophus codicil, in III Ethic.” (I-II, q. 73 a. 5 ad 2) The devil takes great pleasure in this vice, because it is mainly linked to the human soul and those who have it can hardly free themselves from it, the delightful appetite of man, in fact, is insatiable.

Satan wants to distance man and above all he wants to distance him supremely from God, therefore he pushes man in a particular way to lust and above all, if possible, to lust against nature because for it, which is the most serious form of lust between men, in a special way man distances himself the most from God.

 

 

d,9,4) An illuminating text on the case of Sodom: Sir. 23, 16.

 

 

Particularly significant in this line is the following text: “Two types of people multiply sins,

and a third provokes anger:

a burning passion like a lit fire

it will not go out until it is consumed;

an immodest man in his body

he will not desist until the fire devours him;

for the immodest man every bread is appetizing,

he will not tire until he dies.” (Sir. 23, 16s)

The Greek text is as follows:

" μὴ ὡς πῦρ καιόμενον οὐ μὴ σβεσθῇ ἕως ἂν καταποθῇ ἄνθρωπος πόρνος ἐν σώματι σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ οὐ μὴ παύσηται ἕως ἂν ἐκκαύσῃ πῦρ ἀνθρώπῳ πόρν "

The text does not directly mention Sodom but illustrates very well a mechanism that seems enlightening to understand what happened in Sodom: a man who is immodest in his body will not desist until the fire devours him. Sodom truly did not desist in his lust until the fire devoured her!

The text in question also offers further light on lust and sodomites: for the immodest man every bread is appetizing, he will not get tired until he dies, that is, the lustful man is sexually attracted, in a certain way, to everything with which he can have sexual intercourse, such a man does not stop himself from sinning except by death.

The sodomites in their extraordinary lust came to be sexually attracted to the two men who were actually angels; they found no respite from this sexual appetite except with death and death in fire precisely as the text in question says!

 

 

d,10) Authors of the Jewish tradition, who knew the Hebrew Bible well, and who stated that the sin of Sodom is of a sexual nature.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, as seen, refers to the Hebrew Bible to state that its texts do not directly speak of the sexual sin of Sodom but the Jews themselves understood that the sin of Sodom was certainly a sin of lust, as we will see here following.

The Jewish rabbis, states Peterson, who obviously knew the Hebrew text well and relied on it, writing before and after the coming of Christ, in various cases interpreted the sin of Sodom as sexual depravity: “Rabbinic literature from the Intertestamental period and onward also shows evidence that writers interpreted Sodom's sin as deviant sexual acts.”[251]

The Commission states regarding those who believe that the sin of Sodom is in particular of a sexual nature: "There is, however, a different interpretation, which emerges from some texts of the New Testament (such as 2 Pt 2,6-10 and Jd 7) , and which, starting from the second century of the Christian era, established itself by becoming a habitual reading of the biblical story."

We will see in the next pages that this interpretation emerges and is therefore established well before the 2nd century AD in the Jewish tradition and that Philo and Josephus follow it.

 

 

d,10,1) Jewish authors before the XNUMXnd century BC. C.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Some very ancient pseudepigrapha texts speak of the sin of Sodom as a sin that concerns sexuality: “Several passages in the Pseudepigrapha address the sin of Sodom as being sexual in nature. In particular, the Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs and Jubilees draw these connections.”[252]

In the Apocrypha of the Old Testament (prior to 70 BC), in particular, which are documents of Jewish thought and are “a part of Jewish literature, alongside that accepted by the great church and/or the synagogue.”[253] we read various statements regarding the sexual sin of Sodom which we will see below. In the Book of Jubilees, which according to some should be dated to the 2nd century. to. C., we read in chapter. XVI:

“And in this month the Lord condemned Sodom and Gomorrah and Sebuem and all the regions of the Jordan: he burned them with fire and brimstone and has, to this day, destroyed them according to how I have now announced everything to you their way of acting: how (they were) wicked and great sinners, [6] and (how) they were impure, fornicators and did shameful things on the earth. Thus the Lord, wherever there is action in accordance with the corruption of the Sodomites and their condemnation, brings justice everywhere.”[254]

In the same book we also read, in chapter. XX: “And he told them the condemnation of the giants and that of Sodom and how they were condemned for their wickedness and for fornication, impurity and corruption among them. And you also beware of all fornication, impurity and all defilement of sin, so that you do not give our name to a curse and your whole life to vainglory and your children to loss in turpitude; (otherwise) you will be cursed like Sodom and those who remain among you (will be) like the children of Gomorrah. I say to you: «my children, love the God of heaven and submit to all his orders. Do not go after their impurity and their idols..."[255]

In the Testament of Naphtali (written between 170 BC and the 6nd century AD) we read: “But you do not do so, because you know, in the foundation (of heaven), in the earth and in the sea, and in all the works of creation, the Lord, who created all things. (Do not do this), so as not to become like Sodom, which changed the order of his nature. (Editor's note: so as not to become like Sodom: cf. II Peter, II, 7 and Jude, I, XNUMX)"[256]

In the Testament of Benjamin (written between 170 BC and the XNUMXnd century AD) we read “Interpreting the speeches of Enoch the righteous, I say that among you there will also be actions that are not beautiful. For you will commit the immodesty of Sodom until you are reduced to very few; but then you will turn your passion to women again.”[257]

In an article in an important biblical dictionary MJ Mulder states that in Jewish apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature Sodom appears characterized by violation of the law of hospitality, fornication and perversion of the order of nature.[258]

As Peterson points out, Philo (Alexandria 20 BC - approximately 45 AD) highlights homosexuality in particular among the various sins of the sodomites: “The Sodomites were certainly guilty of more than homosexual acts, aggressive or otherwise; according to Philo, they were also guilty of adultery and general depravity, which led to men becoming like women! And based upon the last line of the above quotation, homosexuality is certainly the focus.”[259]

Philo points out[260]  that the men of Sodom were very rich and, being incapable of living righteously in their wealth, they began to trample on the laws of nature, immersed themselves in disorder in eating and drinking and carried out sexual relations contrary to the divine Law; not only did they go crazy for women and defile the marriage beds of others, but they practiced unnatural sex, so that men were eager for each other to do unworthy things and without respecting their common nature; in this line, Philo continues, Sodom was punished with sterility but this, due to the terrible force of lust that dominated them, did not upset them; the men took up the role of women and were burdened by a terrible disease typical of women; they not only perverted their bodies but also degenerated their souls and God punished them terribly.

Philo's text that we have just briefly summarized is found in his book on Abraham[261] but similar texts are found in other works by the same author.[262]

Flavius ​​Josephus (37 AD – after 100 AD) underlines the lust in sodomites and states that they did not even remember the benefits received from God, they hated foreigners and abused them with sodomitic practices; therefore God had decided to exterminate them and sent angels to destroy Sodom [263]

The same author adds that the Sodomites, when they saw those marvelously and extraordinarily beautiful young men who had gone to Lot, decided to enjoy them through force and violence; Lot adjured them to curb their passion, not to carry out such sexual perversion towards foreigners, to keep in mind the duties of hospitality; Lot promised that if they could not calm down, he would abandon his daughters to their lust but even then they did not repent of the evil they wanted to do; their lust unleashed God's wrath: first he blinded them, then condemned them to extermination by fire.[264]

The homosexual desire of the sodomites led them to violate hospitality and brought upon them terrible divine punishment.

A very significant testimony seems to me to come from the letter of Aristeas from the 2nd century BC. C. who states that most other men contaminate themselves with impure homosexual relations, thus committing a great crime, and entire countries, entire cities boast of it; he adds that the Jews have stayed away from these vices. [265]

The text does not speak of Sodom but presents people who boast of homosexual acts and who live in great sexual depravity and states that the Jews keep away from these sins.

The passage makes us understand that in those times there were peoples who boasted of such perversions while the "orthodox" Jews stayed away from them.

Genesis was written, in its final version, a few centuries earlier, if even then there were people who boasted of such perversions it seems clear to me that the Sodom passage in Gen. 19 was also written to keep the Jews away from certain perversions and to give readers a clear light on the punishment that God has set for these peoples so radically immersed in such abominations.

May God arise and his enemies be scattered.

 

 

d,10,2) Jewish authors after the XNUMXnd century BC. C.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

In the Talmud (written between 200 and 400 AD) we read: “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly. “And sinners” implies that they were guilty of illegal unions; “before the Lord” implies that they were guilty of desecration of the Holy name; “and exceedingly,” that they sinned wilfully.”[266]

Therefore the statement that the sodomites were "very sinners before God" (see Gen. 13) implies that they were guilty of unions against the Law, that is, evidently, of homosexual unions, which desecrated the name of God and which sinned with full compliance with the will.

Again in the Talmud we read: “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the Lord exceedingly.” “Wicked”–one with another; “sinners”–in consanguinity; “before the Lord” – much as they desecrated the name of God; “exceedingly”–they did all that intentionally. ..."[267]

So the text we just looked at states that the sodomites were “wicked” to one another; “sinners”: in consanguinity; “before the Lord” – as they profaned the name of God; “excessively” – they did this intentionally. And he adds that it is written [Ps. 1, 5]: “Therefore the wicked will not be able to stand the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous.” The first part of the text, continues the passage we are examining, concerns the generation of the flood, and the second the men of Sodom.

The references, made with discretion so as not to scandalize readers, to homosexual practice appear clear.

In one text, taken from Bĕrēšît Rabbâ (written around 300-500 AD), we read: “Abraham resided in the land of Canaan, etc. R. Meir says: Among cities there is not one as bad as Sodom: when a man is wicked, they call him a Sodomite. … Said R. Jose: Among the cities there was not one more beautiful than Sodom, since Lot passed through all the cities of the valley and did not find a place as beautiful as Sodom, and the Sodomites were the most important among them (the inhabitants of the city of the valley), and the men of Sodom were wicked men and very sinful towards the Lord. Wicked: towards each other; sinners, incestuous; towards the Lord: with idolatry; a lot: with murder.”[268]

Peterson, after having highlighted that even in Genesis 39, with reference to the case of Joseph with Potiphar's wife, there is talk of sin against God, points out that: “Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud draws the same connections between the wickedness of Sodom and that eschewed by Joseph (see b. Sanh. 109a).” [269]The Talmud, therefore, also makes the same connection between the wickedness of Sodom indicated in Gen. 13,13 and that avoided by Joseph in Gen. 39 in the sense that these are sins concerning sexuality...

The Hebrew text Bĕrēšît Rabbâ also teaches: “7. And they said to him: Stand aside, go away, and they said: Does someone who has come as a stranger want to judge? (Gen. 19, 9). Do you want to change the sentence that the ancients gave? R. Menahemah in the name of R. Bebaj: Thus the men of Sodom established among themselves. They said, Every man that cometh hither, we will know him carnally, and we will take his money; and he also for whom it is written: And observe the way of the Lord to act with charity and justice (Gen. 18, 19), even that we will know carnally, and we will take his money."[270]

Therefore, according to this Jewish text, the rule that the sodomites had already given themselves for a long time was this: every man who comes here, we will know him carnally, that is, we will join him in an unnatural relationship, and we will take his money.

Again in the same text we read: “R. Jehoshua b. Levi in ​​the name of R. Pedajah said: All that night Lot asked for mercy for the Sodomites and the angels were well disposed. When they said: Send them out, for we want to know them (carnally), (the angels) said to him: Are there any of your people still here? (Gen. 19, 12). Until now you could defend them, from now on you no longer have the right to defend them."[271]

As we saw above, this same commentary on Genesis underlines how sexual sins were the cause of the universal flood: "... said R. Abbâ b. Kahanà: For I regret having made them (Gen. 6, 7-8). And Noah...: even Noah, the survivor of them, would not have deserved it: But he found grace. And Noah found grace: because they were immersed in lust and theft, they were blotted out from the world.”[272]

In the same text we read: “Said R. Ajbû: Why do they press the grapes at the winepress and are thirsty? Because the curse was on the toil of the wicked. Because they were immersed in lust and theft they were erased from the world: The end of every creature has come before Me.” [273]

And again in the same text we read: “ R. Hunah in the name of R. Josef said: The flood generation was not erased from the world until they wrote marriage contracts to the male and the animal. R. Simlaj said: Where there is lust, plague comes to the world and kills the good and the bad. R. Azarjah, R. Jehudah b. R. Shimon in the name of R. Jehoshua b. Levi said: The Holy One, blessed be He, endures everything patiently except lust.” [274] These words are very significant on the great punishments that lust can cause and therefore also on the punishment caused by the impure sins of Sodom.

The lust of Sodom is also highlighted in the Midrash Rabba of the book of Numbers 20,22.[275]

Conclusion: Many Jewish texts before and after the coming of Christ, written by authors who knew and studied the Hebrew Bible well, believed that the sin of Sodom included in particular lust.

 

 

d,11) New Testament statements regarding the sin of Sodom.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The name of Sodom appears nine times in New Testament texts: Matthew 10,15; 11,23–24; Luke 10,12; 17,28–30; Romans 9,29; 2 Peter 2,4–8; Jude 6–7; Revelation 11,8.

From these nine texts emerges the sexual nature of the sin of Sodom and the radical condemnation of it: none of them denies them, two of them affirm them (2 Peter and Jude) the text of Jude clearly highlights the homosexual dimension of this sin .

The Apocalypse symbolically uses the name of Sodom (Revelation 11,8) without particularly specifying its sin but evidently indicating this city as a place where very serious iniquities were committed, and we know that among these very serious iniquities the Bible includes impure sins against nature spoken of in Gn. 19 and provides for terrible punishments for them, consistent with the punishment received by Sodom.

The other texts indicate more directly the extraordinary gravity of this sin, the rapidity with which its punishment arrived (see Matthew 10,15; 11,23–24; Luke 10,12; 17,28–30) and the total destruction of Sodom (see Romans 9,29) and we know that among the most serious iniquities the Bible includes the impure sins against nature spoken of in Genesis. 19 and provides for terrible punishments for them, consistent with the punishment received by Sodom.

Therefore we can say that the New Testament affirms the essentially sexual and in particular homosexual nature of the sin of Sodom and the radical condemnation of it.

I remember that, as the Pontifical Biblical Commission itself stated in the document on biblical interpretation in the Church: “Intertextual relationships acquire an extreme density in the writings of the New Testament, full of allusions to the Old Testament and explicit quotations. The authors of the New Testament recognize the value of divine revelation in the Old Testament. They proclaim that this revelation found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus… In light of the Easter events the authors of the New Testament reread the Old Testament.”[276]

In the light of this full revelation which found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus and in the light of the full Truth that Jesus gave us, the authors of the New Testament reread the cycle of Sodom.

In the next pages we will examine some texts of the New Testament, we will focus in particular on two of them: one that emerges from the second Letter of Peter and one that emerges from the Letter of Judas.

To introduce us to the study of these texts it is important to remember that:

1) as the Gospel says, Christ speaks through his followers (Luke 10,16:XNUMX) and therefore in the words of the Apostles we must recognize Christ who speaks and teaches;

2) the terms, seen better above, used in the Bible (Lev. 18 and 20) to express the divine punishments and condemnation for homosexual activity are very strong and indicate a true and supreme divine hatred for such practices; the texts of the New Testament, in particular 2 Peter 2,6 and Jude 5-7, clearly follow this line of Lev. 18 and 20 and they clarify it by showing the sins of Sodom as sins carried forward in time and which in themselves lead to hell fire; the fire of Sodom, unlike the fire that raised Elijah to Heaven (2 Kings 2), is also a sign of the hellish fire towards which those who immerse themselves in such abominations walk.

The professor. Peterson states: “In this regard, the NT authors use the Sodom narrative no differently than the OT writers … Peter and Jude highlight the sexual nature of their sin (cf. Isa 3:9–16; Ezek 16:50; Jer 23: 14).[277] According to Peterson, then, the NT authors use the texts concerning Sodom in the line of the Old Testament authors; in particular, in the line of Isa. 3,9-16, Ezek. 16,50pm, Jer. 23,14, Peter and Jude in their letters underline the sexual nature of Sodom's sin.

Professor Healy also highlights the importance of the statements in the letter of Judas and the second letter of Peter regarding the sin of Sodom, in fact she states: “Moreover, two references to Sodom in the later New Testament letters (2 Pet 2:6– 10 and Jude 7) interprets the sin of Sodom as erotic relations with persons of the same sex, a fact of importance to canonical biblical interpretation and to later Christian tradition.” [278]

Two references to Sodom in the New Testament letters indicate that Sodom's sin is erotic and homosexual, an important fact for canonical biblical interpretation and subsequent Christian tradition.

 

 

d,11,1) Examination of Mt 10,14-15 and Luke 10,10-12

 

 

The PCB explains that in: "Mt 10,14-15 and Luke 10,10-12 ... it speaks of the punishment for rejecting those sent by the Lord, a punishment that will be more severe than that which fell on the city of Sodom." (n. 187)

These passages state the following:

“If anyone does not welcome you and does not listen to your words, leave that house or that city and shake off the dust of your feet. Truly I say to you: on the day of judgment the land of Sodom and Gomorrah will be treated less harshly than that city." (Mt 10,14-15)

“But when you enter a city and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say: 'Even the dust of your city, which clings to our feet, we shake off against you; but know that the kingdom of God is near." I tell you that on that day Sodom will be treated less harshly than that city." (Lk 10,10-12)

The passages just seen underline the terrible condemnation of Sodom to which they compare the condemnation of those who will not welcome the messengers of the Lord Jesus.

We saw above that Sodom, in the Old Testament, appears as an example of the supreme sin supremely punished by God.

Jesus does not directly connect the failure to welcome God's messengers to the punishment of Sodom but simply compares the terrifying punishment of Sodom to that which awaits those who will not welcome or listen to his messengers; the punishment of Sodom, in fact, does not appear primarily connected to this lack of welcome, but to the impure act against nature that the sodomites wanted to carry out against Lot's two guests: in the passage of Gen. 19 the terrifying punishment is decreed at the moment in which the sodomites forcefully try to reach Lot's two guests to abuse them.

Sodom had already committed many sins but "the straw that broke the camel's back" was the situation I have just specified and the terrifying punishment is consistent with the punishment set in Lev. 18 and 20 for impure sins especially those against nature.

The sin of Sodom in this sense appears essentially to be a sin of lust and in particular of lust against nature; the Christ who speaks in the Gospel is the same one who speaks through his Apostles, therefore he is the same one who speaks through the letters of Judas and Peter which clearly highlight the sin of Sodom as a sin of sexuality, as we will see better in the next paragraphs .

The terrifying punishment of Sodom is consistent with the terrible punishment foreseen for those who commit the abominable impure sins against nature (Lev. 18 and 20).

These passages from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke must therefore be understood not in opposition but in profound unity with the aforementioned letters and wish to underline in this line that for the many sins, especially impure ones and especially of unnatural lust, Sodom was terribly punished and that those who do not welcome and do not allow themselves to be guided by Christ's messengers will be punished more terribly.

In Christ and in his true heralds God manifests himself more clearly than he manifested himself in Sodom and therefore whoever does not welcome this manifestation will be more terribly condemned.

The teacher. Healy stated: “In the eyes of the biblical narrator, the sin of Sodom consists neither in hostility to foreigners alone nor in sexual immorality alone. Rather, it consists of a depraved mélange of homosexual sex, violence toward strangers, and contempt for the messengers of the Lord.” [279]

That is, the sin of Sodom consists of a depraved mixture of homosexual sex, violence toward foreigners, and contempt toward God's messengers.

We must ask ourselves: could the sodomites recognize the two angels who had come in the form of men? Did the sodomites have to recognize these two divine messengers?

The Bible does not explicitly state it and the two messengers do not perform acts before the sodomites that could reveal their ministry, Lot does not recognize them as angels as soon as they present themselves nor does he ever indicate them as angels, they do not show themselves but to him in order to make him believe they are angels but trusts them even if he hesitates to follow their order to flee from Sodom.

I remember that in the book of Tobit the angel Raphael is not recognized by anyone until he himself presents himself as such and this lack of recognition is not considered a fault to be attributed to Tobit and his son.

The sodomites therefore do not seem to have been required to recognize the two angels, but they were certainly required to recognize and observe the Law of God which, instead, they trampled on; This is the sin of Sodom: in not observing the Law of God.

The words of the Gospel that we are studying and which compare the punishment of Sodom to that of those who do not receive Christ's messengers indicate, in this line, that in Christ and in his true heralds God manifests himself more clearly than he manifested himself in Sodom the Divine Law and therefore whoever does not accept this manifestation and does not follow this teaching will be more terribly condemned.

 

 

d,11,2) In-depth examination of Judas 5-7 regarding the impure sin of Sodom and its condemnation.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

We already examined Jude 5-7 above, now let's go back and reconsider it in direct relation to the episode of Sodom which we talked about at length in the previous pages.

Let's review the Italian text of Jude 5-7: “Now I want to remind you, who already know all these things, that the Lord, after having saved the people from the land of Egypt, later caused those who did not want to believe to perish, and that the angels who did not retain their dignity but left their abode, he holds in eternal chains, in darkness, for the judgment of the great day. Thus Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities, which have abandoned themselves to immodesty in the same way and have followed unnatural vices, are as an example suffering the punishments of eternal fire." (Jude 5-7)

The Greek text is as follows: “Ὑπομνῆσαι δὲ ὑμᾶς βούλομαι, εἰδότας ⸂ὑμᾶς ἅπαξ⸃ ⸀πάντα, ὅτι ⸀ Ἰησοῦς λαὸν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου σώσας τὸ δεύτερον τοὺς μὴ πιστεύσαντας ἀπώλεσεν, ἀγγέλους τε τοὺς μὴ τηρήσαντας τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀρχὴν ἀλλὰ ἀπ ολιπόντας τὸ ἴδιον οἰκητήριον εἰς κρίσιν μεγάλης ἡμέρας δεσμοῖς ἀϊδίοις ὑπὸ ζόφον τετήρηκεν· ὡς Σόδο μα καὶ Γόμορρα καὶ αἱ περὶ αὐτὰς πόλεις, τὸν ὅμοιον ⸂τρόπον τούτοις⸃ ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, πρόκεινται δεῖγμα πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην ὑπέχουσαι.”

As is evident, in the letter of Judas the author first speaks of the sin of the angels which determines their condemnation to eternal damnation and then deals with the sin of the sodomites which equally led them to hell.

The angels did not retain their pre-eminence but, rebelling against their Creator, were excluded from the glory of Heaven and precipitated into hell.

Similarly, Sodom and Gomorrah and the nearby cities, which abandoned themselves to immodesty and followed unnatural vices, were severely condemned by God to eternal hell, the fire of which began already with the punishment imposed on them by God in this world.

Regarding the words of Judas just seen, the “Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains” specifies that “ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας” essentially means practicing homosexuality.[280] The 1966 Revised Standard Edition translates these words equally in the sense just seen: they concern sins against nature; the “New Jerusalem Bible” equally translates “who with the same sexual immorality pursued unnatural lusts” that is, with equal sexual immorality they went after unnatural vices, the CEI Bible of 2008 equally translates in the sense just indicated: “they went after vices against nature” that is, homosexual vices.

The text of Judas with a euphemism simply wants to indicate that the sin of Sodom was against nature, it was a sin of homosexuality, as many biblical scholars affirm and Gn clearly indicates. 19.

Literally the words “ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας” mean going after different meat but they are in fact a euphemism that wants to indicate the practice of homosexuality which clearly emerges in the chapter. 19 of Genesis, especially verse 5.

Zorell, a great expert in Greek and Biblical Hebrew, author of two Lexicons, one concerning Biblical Hebrew and one concerning Biblical Greek, in his famous “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti.” [281] equally he believes that the statement in the letter of Judas that we are seeing means: following unnatural vices, that is, homosexuals.

Another great expert on the Greek language, M. Zerwick, states in the same way that the statement in question means following unnatural vices, that is, homosexuals.[282]

The commentary on the Letter of Judas made in "The Anchor Bible" in 1993 underlines how the sin of Sodom indicated by Judas is the sin of homosexuality.[283]

In the New Great Biblical Commentary when it comes to the letter of Judas and verses 5-7 it is clearly said that Judas indicates the sins of homosexuality of Sodom with those words: "they have followed vices against nature", these words are connected with what we read in Genesis (Gen. 19,4-8)[284].

Also the commentary of the prof. G. Marconi highlights in these verses that the sin of pederasty and sodomy is condemned in them, Marconi presents in this line the link between the text of Judas and the Jewish traditions which precisely indicate the sin of Sodom as the sin of homosexuality[285]. The rabbinical traditions that indicate the sin of Sodom as a sin of homosexuality are collected in an important text by Billerbeck and Strack[286].

GL Green also highlights that the Judean text refers to the sin of Sodom as a homosexual sin[287].

According to Professor M. Healy the text of Jude 7 which states that Sodom and Gomorrah indulged in sexual immorality and followed other flesh (Σόδομα καὶ Γόμορρα… ἐκπορνεύσασαι καὶ ἀπελθοῦσ αι ὀπίσ ω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας), means that “in their desire for sexual intercourse with other men, the men of Sodom inadvertently placed themselves in the sacrilegious position of pursuing sexual intercourse with angels.”[288]

There are therefore obvious reasons that indicate that the letter of Judas contains a direct condemnation of homosexual acts and these reasons are not undermined by what we will see below.

The professor. Vanni remains in doubt in the interpretation of this passage between two possibilities:

1) that the text in question condemns homosexual activity;

2) that the text in question condemns sexual union with angels.

However, for Professor Vanni the text condemns lust therefore this condemnation implies at least indirectly first and foremost the condemnation of homosexual acts which determine the most seriously sinful lust between men. [289]

The doubts of the prof. Vanni are certainly linked to the fact that some authors, in the wake of the Bible de Jerusalem, have developed other translations of this text of the letter of Judas and have held that what is condemned is not the homosexual act but the sexual union with angels and they believed that in this way Judas would in a certain way follow the book of Enoch which speaks of sexual unions between angels and men. I underline that the sodomites in Gen. 19 do not show that they know that the two men that Lot welcomes are angels, in fact they say to Lot: "Where are those men who came to you this night?" (Gen. 19,5) so it appears it is absurd to say that they wanted to unite with angels. The book of the Testaments of the Patriarchs specifies that the sodomites did not recognize the angels who came to Sodom (Testament of Asher VII). I would like to point out that the book of Enoch does not directly mention Sodom and I am not aware that it speaks of union between male men and angels, instead it speaks of unions between women and angels. The book of Jubilees talks about the sins of the angels and the sins of Sodom[290] but it does not speak of unions between men and angels, therefore the idea of ​​men of Sodom wanting to unite carnally with angels does not correspond to these traditional Jewish texts.

The text of Jude does not want to condemn hypothetical unions of men with angels but rather wants to condemn the unnatural sexual activity that emerges in Gen. 19,5.

The famous exegete Sales stated regarding the passage of the letter of Judas in question that it explains what was: "... the sin committed by the Sodomites, showing with a euphemism that it is the sin against nature (Cf. Gen. XIX,5; Rom I, 27).”[291]

Along these lines, the commentary of the University of Navarra states regarding this biblical text that the perversions of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18,16 ff.) are a prototype of lust. The V. 7 of the letter of Jude is an explicit condemnation of homosexuality (see Rom 1,24 – 27; 1 Cor 6,9; 1 Tim 1,10). Based on these and other texts of the Scriptures, “Tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (Cong. Doctrine of the Faith, Human Person, n. 8), such acts are contrary to natural law, close the sexual act to the gift of life and do not come from true affective and sexual complementarity. However, they cannot receive approval. (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2357). [292]

It should further be noted that in the verses of 2 Pet. 2,9-10 we find a statement similar to the one we are examining; in the text of s. Peter, in fact, we read: "The Lord therefore knows how to free from trials those who are devoted to him, while he reserves the wicked for punishment on the day of judgment, especially those who follow the flesh with impious passions and despise the Lord." Going after the flesh (ὀπίσω σαρκὸς … πορευομένους) is a statement that essentially means looking for people with whom you can satisfy your lust, this statement is strengthened by the impious passions spoken of in the text with the expression: “ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμο ῦ”, which indicates immersion in the desire to commit impure sin.

In the letter of Judas, as seen, we find the expression "they followed vices against nature" (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς ἑτέρας).

In both biblical passages (Jd and 2 Pet) we find the same words ὀπίσω σαρκο͂ς but the letter of Peter in this passage speaks more generally of lust, whereas the letter of Judas specifies these words with other terms which more directly indicate the impure sin against nature that emerges in Gen. 19, 4-10.

Sodom and the surrounding cities, as the text of Jude explains, ἐκπορνεύσασαι, that is, they abandoned themselves to lust; the verb ἐκπορνεύω, linked to πορνεῖα (fornication) from which the word pornography derives, is used 47 times in the Septuagint version of the Bible, 1 time in the New Testament and means committing fornication, prostitution, and more generally committing impure acts, in various cases this verb translates the Hebrew verb zanah which in turn means to prostitute oneself, commit fornication, be unfaithful to God; the prefix ἐκ of this verb indicates a lust that is filled, completely satisfied.[293]

As F. Zorell explains[294], in this line, the term πορνεῖα (fornication) with the words connected to it indicates more generally every impure sin, therefore also the impure sin against nature, in fact, as explained by F. Hauck and S. Schulz[295]; although originally this group of terms referred more directly to prostitution, already in late Judaism the terms connected to “πóρνηῖα” took on a broader meaning that more generally indicates any impure sin and which also includes impure sin against nature. Along these lines, Ap. 21,8 uses one of these terms to indicate how all those who are guilty of impure sins, i.e. the "immoral", are destined for eternal damnation; obviously these include those who practice homosexuality.

The verb ἐκπορνεύω therefore includes all impure sins and in particular the most serious among men, that is, homosexual acts.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, which believes that the sin of Sodom concerns the disrespectful and humiliating welcome for the stranger, had to state that: "There is, however, a different interpretation, which emerges from some texts of the New Testament (such as 2 Pt 2,6-10 and Jd 7), and which, starting from the second century of the Christian era, has established itself by becoming a habitual reading of the biblical story. The city of Sodom is then blamed for an unseemly sexual practice, called “sodomy”” (n. 186)

Jude's letter clearly points out, as we have seen throughout this paragraph, that Sodom's punishment was caused in particular by lust and especially by Sodom's unnatural sins.

These grave sins that Sodom has committed mean that it is "undergoing the punishment of eternal fire."

The same Spanish commentary cited previously adds: “«The castigo de un fuego eterno» (v. 7) manifests the irrevocable character of the juicio divino. The faith of the Church has an echo of this expression to illustrate the punishments that the condemned suffer in hell (see note on Rev 20,7-10).”[296]

“The punishment of eternal fire” (v. 7 of the letter of Jude) manifests the irrevocable character of divine judgment. The faith of the Church has echoed this expression by illustrating the punishments that the condemned suffer in hell.

This obviously also means the gravity of impure sins and their condemnation, in fact they are objectively serious, and, as committed with full awareness and deliberate consent, they exclude man from the kingdom of God and lead him towards the fire of eternal damnation.

Considering the words of Judas' letter we can see how this fire began in a certain way with the earthly punishment of Sodom: the sodomites passed from the fire of the earthly punishment of Sodom to that of eternal punishment.

Sales stated that Sodom and the nearby cities: “… stand before the eyes, as an example to sinners. Such an example consists in this, that they suffer the punishment of an eternal fire. The Apostle considers the punishment inflicted on the perverse cities as if it would always last, because the effects of it still remain visible (Cf. Sap. X, 6 et seq.).” [297]

Sodom, which appears in the Old Testament and in various texts of the Jewish tradition as the pleasure-loving and perverse city and therefore supremely sinful and terribly punished by God, appears as such much more strongly in the letter of Judas, in fact here this punishment is not only temporal but eternal.

The letter of Judas appears in this line as the full manifestation, in the light of Christ, of the sin of Sodom as the sin of unnatural sexuality and its terrible punishment in the wake of Gen. 19,5 of the Old Testament and Jewish tradition .

I underline that the letter in question and the second letter of Peter are closely related to each other[298]; the letter of Jude, like the second letter of Peter, is written to counter some who opposed sound doctrine.

Like the second letter of Peter, the letter of Judas also opposes in particular the false teachers who wanted to question the validity of God's moral law and promote sexually immoral practices among the faithful; Judas sees these as a grave danger to the Church and speaks against them in very strong terms [299] and precisely to show what happened in biblical history to those who followed false doctrines in the moral field and acted in serious sin, especially in the sexual sphere, the Apostle cites, as mentioned, the case of Sodom and its terrible condemnation.

The letter of Judas invites us to fight for the sound doctrine of the faith[300], especially in the moral field, and invites us to oppose false teachers who spread errors in this matter.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, which practically rejected, in its examination of the sin of Sodom, the statements of Gd. 5-7 therefore rejected:

1) a biblical passage, therefore belonging to divine Revelation;

2) a passage written in the light of the fullness of the Revelation brought about in Christ and through which Christ speaks (Lk. 10,16);

3) a passage that sheds light and clarifies Gen. 13-14 and Gen. 19 in depth, on the basis of what Gen. 19 clearly presents, stating precisely the opposite of what the PCB says;

4) a passage whose teaching on Sodom is in line with sound Jewish biblical tradition and whose statements are confirmed and strengthened by 2 Pt. 2, as we will see.

The PCB, more precisely, not only rejected Judas' clear indications but radically opposed them by stating with total certainty that the sin of Sodom was a sin of failure to welcome the needy stranger and an attempt to humiliate him.

God intervene!

 

 

d,11,3) In-depth examination of 2 Peter 2,6-10 regarding the impure sin of Sodom and its condemnation.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

We already examined 2 Pt. 2, 6-10 above, now let's go back to reconsider it in direct relation to the episode of Sodom which we talked about at length in the previous pages.

The Greek text is as follows: ὑπόδειγμα μελλόντων ⸀ἀσεβέσιν τεθεικώς, 7 καὶ δίκαιον Λὼτ καταπονούμενον ὑπὸ τῆς τῶν ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ ἀ ναστροφῆς ἐρρύσατο—8 αὐτοῖς ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας ψυχὴν δικαίαν ἀνόμοις ἔργοις ἐβασάνιζεν— 9 οἶδεν κύριος εὐσεβεῖς ἐκ πειρασμοῦ ῥύεσθαι, ἀδίκους δὲ εἰς ἡμέρα ν κρίσεως κολαζομένους τηρεῖν, 10 μάλιστα δὲ τοὺς ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἐν ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμοῦ πορευομένους καὶ κ υριότητος καταφρονοῦντας.”

The Italian text is the following: “So he also condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes, leaving a warning sign to those who would live without God. Instead he freed Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by his immoral conduct of lawless men. In fact, that righteous man, from what he saw and heard while he lived among them, was tormented day after day because of evil works. The Lord therefore knows how to free from trials those who are devoted to him, while he reserves, for punishment on the day of judgment, the wicked, especially those who follow the flesh with impious passions and despise the Lord." (2 Peter 2,6-10)

Let us immediately say that the text in question and more generally the entire second letter of Peter is in close relation with the letter of Judas and from both emerges the sin of Sodom as a sin of lust against nature, the Pontifical Biblical Commission had to affirm, therefore, that the interpretation that Sodom's sin was sodomy emerges from 2 Pt. 2: "There is, however, a different interpretation, which emerges from some texts of the New Testament (such as 2 Pt 2,6-10 and Jd 7) , and which, starting from the second century of the Christian era, established itself by becoming a habitual reading of the biblical story. The city of Sodom is then blamed for an unseemly sexual practice, called “sodomy”” (n. 186)

I underline that for the Commission, therefore, the text of 2 Pt.2 highlights that the sin of Sodom is, in particular, a sin of unnatural lust.

In the commentary of the University of Navarra we read that the most widespread sin among false teachers, and which most overwhelmed the faithful, at the time of the creation of the letter of Peter that we are seeing, seems to have been that of lust (v. 10), as it was happened in Sodom and Gomorrah and as the letter of Judas also states. This vice clouds the mind so that anyone immersed in it despises “the authority of the Lord” (see Jude 8-10). On the other hand, chastity "is a virtue that honors the human being and allows him to have true, disinterested, generous and respectful love for others"[301]

So Sodom's sin was mainly sexual and what happened to Sodom, Peter sees repeating itself, in a certain way, in his time.

M. Sales in his famous commentary stated that in the text in question the Author presents: "Sodom and Gomorrah... who, having abandoned themselves to vice, experienced the effects of the wrath of God (Cf. Gen. XIV, 2; Deut. XXIX, 23, etc.).” [302]

Sales himself further explains that even in the book of Wisdom Lot is called righteous and that the Greek biblical terms used in the verses in question indicate that Lot himself was: "... greatly afflicted. The reason

of his affliction was the unchaste conduct of infamous men, that is, of men without laws... who violated the precepts of God and nature.” [303]

Precisely because he was righteous, Sales continues, Lot was saddened by what he saw and heard in Sodom.[304]

The text of 2 Pt. 2,6s specifies that Lot was distressed by the sexually depraved behavior of his fellow citizens which they engaged in not just once but every day (ἡμέραν ἐξ ἡμέρας); the Lord presents us here with Sodom as having been immersed in the most perverse lust and more generally in the most abominable sin for a long time; the attempt to have unnatural relationships with the two guest-angels is the culmination of the immorality of the sodomites, who are probably already abundantly accustomed to this sin.

I repeat and underline: Sodom was immersed in the most perverse lust and more generally in the most abominable sin for some time; the attempt to have unnatural relationships with the two guest-angels is the culmination of the immorality of the sodomites, who are probably already abundantly accustomed to this sin.

So Sodom's sin was mainly sexual, against nature, it lasted a long time and in particular for this sin God punished it.

Keating writes that Peter fights the influence of false teachers because he knows that many will follow their licentious ways and, because of them, the way of truth will be despised. The text of 2 Peter speaks of "disorderly sexual activity" or "dissolute behavior" this is one of the main accusations that Peter makes to these false teachers (2 Peter 2, 2. 7. 18) and on the other hand this is what the apostle sees in Sodom.[305]

Keating adds that the Lord will judge and punish the unjust in his judgment; just as there was judgment and punishment for the angels, for the men of the time of the flood and for Sodom, so there will be judgment and punishment for the immoral of all times.

Peter emphasizes this truth because this appears to be precisely what the false teachers denied. As Keating says: the false teachers were rejecting sound moral doctrine, they were also rejecting a final judgment of God and were spreading a doctrine in radical contrast with sound doctrine in the moral and eschatological fields.[306]

Keating goes on in his commentary to state that Peter states that divine judgment falls especially upon those who follow the flesh with its depraved desires and show contempt for the lordship of God.

The condemnation of "disordered desire" marks the entire letter (1, 4; 2,10.18; 3, 3) and is one of the most serious errors of false teachers. The disordered and unnatural desire of the sodomites was justly and terribly punished by God; equally the impure desire to which false teachers guide their followers will be punished.[307]

Keating further explains in this line that just like the Christians in Peter's time, Lot lived among the wicked and was distressed by their immoral conduct. People sometimes limit the sin of the citizens of Sodom to their gross violation of hospitality, but here the Scriptures tell us that it was their sexual immorality that tormented Lot. Day after day Peter was tormented by the perversions he saw.[308]

So also for Keating the sin of Sodom reported by s. Peter was a sin of lust and especially a sin of impure desire. The act specified in Gn. 19,5 indicates that this impure desire was particularly of a homosexual nature.

In the verses in question (2 Peter 2,6-10) we find the word ἀσελγείᾳ which means in particular "disordered sexual activity" i.e. lust... which obviously also includes sins against nature.

The statement ἀθέσμων ἐν ἀσελγείᾳ (2 Peter 2,7) indicates lack of restriction, total unbridledness in lust… which of course especially includes sins against nature.

The CEI Bible translates 2 Peter 2, 7 as “But he delivered Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the immoral conduct of lawless men.” (2 Peter 2,6-10) but the more precise translation seems to me to be: "He instead freed Lot, a righteous man, who was distressed by the conduct of men without restraint in lust." That is, these men were abandoned to the most radical sexual wantonness... as can be seen from Gen. 19,5.

In verses 9-10 we read: “The Lord therefore knows how to deliver from trials those who are devoted to him, while he reserves, for punishment on the day of judgment, the wicked, especially those who follow the flesh with wicked passions and despise the Lord.”

Going after the flesh (ὀπίσω σαρκὸς … πορευομένους) is a statement that essentially means looking for people with whom you can satisfy your lust, this statement is strengthened by the impious passions spoken of in the text with the expression: “ἐπιθυμίᾳ μιασμο ῦ”, which indicates immersion in the desire to commit impure sins (Zorell“Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Rome 1990, col. 844)

St. Peter therefore uses very strong terms to indicate great sexual perversion and therefore the unnatural sins of Sodom, which emerge from Genesis. 19,5 and from the letter of Judas to which the second letter of Peter is profoundly united. The perverse desires of Sodom are particularly emphasized here.

The terrible punishment that awaits those who indulge in such sins is then highlighted

The general sentence that Peter's letter enunciates is, therefore, that God helps and saves the righteous but terribly punishes the wicked, especially some of them, namely: "... those who walk after the flesh with impious passions and despise the Lord." (2 Peter 2,6-10)

The early chapters of the Bible that highlight the terrible punishments for impure sins offer Peter the opportunity to particularly highlight the terrible punishments that await those who immerse themselves in such perversions.

Let's repeat what we said for the letter of Jude: the PCB which fundamentally rejected the statements of 2 Pt.2 about Sodom has, therefore, rejected the strong statements of:

1) a passage belonging to divine Revelation, which states precisely the opposite of what the Commission says;

2) a passage written in the light of the fullness of the Revelation brought about in Christ and through which Christ speaks (Lk. 10,16);

3) a passage that clarifies in depth, in the light of Christ, Gen. 13-14 and Gen. 19, on the basis of what clearly emerges in Gen. 19;

4) a passage whose teaching on Sodom is confirmed and strengthened by Gd. 5-7;

5) a passage whose teaching on Sodom is in line with sound Jewish biblical tradition, as we will see better in the next paragraph.

The PCB also radically opposes the statements of this passage by stating with total certainty that the sin of Sodom was a sin of failure to welcome the needy stranger and an attempt to humiliate him.

It seems to me that the PCB's position is completely untenable.

I conclude by noting that the second letter of Peter, like the letter of Jude, as the Word of God which has value for men of all times and which attacks false teachers who spread false doctrines especially regarding sexual morality and faith, attacks also Pope Francis and his collaborators who, as seen, are subverting Catholic doctrine in particular regarding sexual morality, therefore it is not strange that the Commission, which is among the Pope's collaborators, practically puts this text aside.

God intervene!

 

 

d,11,4) Clarifications regarding the fact that the texts of 2 Peter 2,6-10 and Jude 5-7 are in line with various texts of the Jewish tradition.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The texts of the letter of Jude (Jude 5-7) and the second letter of Peter, following the Jewish tradition[309], make it clear that the "perversion" (see Genesis 13,13; 18,20; 19.5) of Sodom, its "sin greatly against the Lord" and its "very grave" sin, consists in particular in sexual sins , especially against nature, which had already been practiced there for some time and therefore the punishment sent by God particularly affects these sins.

Dunnett, who wrote an article on the use of Jewish and Christian traditions in the two letters we are examining, is very clear in this sense, in fact he states that summarizing the hermeneutic procedures of Judas we can say that:

1) Jude asserted a certain degree of continuity between the generally recognized Hebrew Scriptures, some intertestamental writings, and Christian writings;

2) Judas is more concerned with the message than the source and therefore has shown flexibility in his use of materials;

3) Jude allows a distinction between “Scripture” and “canon.” [310]

The letter of Judas is placed in the biblical and traditional Jewish line and precisely links this line to Christian writings.

Judas is not simply a repeater of Jewish tradition[311], he in the light of Christ takes what he deems right in it and processes it under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Also the commentary of the prof. In these verses (Jude 5-7) Marconi highlights that in them the sin of pederasty and sodomy is condemned and highlights, in this line, the link between the text of Judas and the Jewish traditions[312] collected in an important text by Billerbeck and Strack[313].

For Keating too, the letter of Judas takes up Jewish traditions.[314]

The same, regarding the relationship with Jewish traditions, can be said of the second letter of St. Peter, writes Dunnett, because the two texts are clearly in close relation to each other so that what is said about one also refers to the other. [315]

Keating also explains in this line that just like the Christians in Peter's time, Lot lived among the wicked and was distressed by their immoral conduct. People sometimes limit the sin of the citizens of Sodom to their gross violation of hospitality, but here the Scriptures tell us that it was their sexual immorality that tormented Lot. Day after day, says Peter, that righteous man who lived among them was tormented in his righteous soul by the immoral actions that he saw and heard. These details about Lot's experience are not found in the Bible, they are probably drawn from the broader Jewish tradition of Peter's time. The identification of Lot's neighbors as “lawless” also anticipates Peter's charges against the false teachers as “lawless.”[316]

The second letter of Peter, like the first, is clearly situated in relation to the Jewish tradition which it takes up and specifies. [317]

Schreiner in the commentary on the letter of Judas and the two letters of Peter demonstrates in great detail the link between 2 Peter 2 and the Jewish tradition, in particular on pages. 342 ff.[318] and in note 54 on p. 344 lets us know that according to Makujina it is necessary to resort to Jewish tradition and to a textual variant represented by the LXX in Gen 19,16 {which reads "and they were troubled" instead of "he hesitated") to explain the origin of the statement that Lot he was troubled every day by the immorality of the sodomites[319].

As the Catholic Encyclopedia says regarding the LXX: “The Apostles and Evangelists used it also and borrowed Old Testament quotations from it, especially in regard to the prophecies.”[320]

The Apostles and Evangelists knew and quoted the LXX so it is very possible that the statement of s. Peter has as a source the text of the Septuagint indicated above. For us, however, it is important simply to underline the close connection that these authors note between Jewish traditions and the statements of the second letter of st. Peter. The statements of s. Peter are, therefore, in the line of the Jewish tradition, therefore of those who knew well, directly, the Jewish texts indicated by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, indeed they are in the line of those who perhaps knew Jewish texts even closer to the original, at least in some case, compared to those found in the current Hebrew Bible.

Professor M. Healy states that the interpretation offered by the letter of Jude and the letter of Peter regarding the sin of Sodom is the standard interpretation of that sin in the Jewish literature of the intertestamental period and the New Testament period, see Philo, “Abraham”135; Josephus, “Jewish Antiquities” 1.11.3; see also “Book of Jubilees” 16:5–6; 20:5–6; “Testament of Levi” 14:6; “Testament of Benjamin” 9.1; “Testament of Naphtali” 3.4; “Second Book of Enoch” 34,1–2. [321]

The authors of the second letter of Peter and of the letter of Judas therefore reread the episode of Sodom under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, also taking up Jewish traditions.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission stated in the document on biblical interpretation in the Church: “Intertextual relationships acquire an extreme density in the writings of the New Testament, full of allusions to the Old Testament and explicit quotations. The authors of the New Testament recognize the value of divine revelation in the Old Testament. They proclaim that this revelation found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus… In light of the Easter events the authors of the New Testament reread the Old Testament.”[322]

In the light of this full revelation which found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus and taking into account other writings of the Jewish tradition, as seen, s. Peter and s. Judas have offered us a fundamental "rereading" of the Sodom cycle.

 

 

d,12)Important clarifications.

 

 

d,12,1) Clarifications on the ancient authors who saw the sin of Sodom as a homosexual act.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The PCB writes "There is, however, a different interpretation, which emerges from some texts of the New Testament (such as 2 Pt 2,6-10 and Jd 7), and which, starting from the second century of the Christian era, has become established becoming a habitual reading of the biblical story. The city of Sodom is then blamed for an unseemly sexual practice, called "sodomy", consisting in erotic intercourse with people of the same sex." (n. 186)

The Commission's claims are significantly inaccurate. They do not say that this interpretation is found in important Jewish texts prior to the New Testament, therefore prior to the second century of the Christian era, as we have seen above, they do not specify that this interpretation was the standard one in the intertestamental period[323] and they do not say that the two Catholic letters that speak of Sodom most directly and condemn in particular unnatural lust (2 Peter 2 and Jd) follow this tradition, as we have seen.

This interpretative tradition is based first of all on Gn.19 and in some way also on the texts of the XNUMXst Testament of the Hebrew and Greek Bible which were meditated on by the Jewish authors and then by the Christian authors who spread this tradition.

 

 

d,12,2) Israel was not a community of equals and the homosexual act was in itself condemned; the teacher. Dolansky is off base in claiming otherwise.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

A Jewish professor, Shawna Dolansky, says[324], citing numerous important studies, that examination of ancient Middle Eastern cultures finds that male homosexual relationships were illegal only if they involved the sexual treatment of a male social superior or peer as a female[325]; thus it was the sexual penetration of a superior by an inferior or a man of the same rank that was considered so shameful that it was often punishable by death. It was believed that this activity degraded man, robbed him of his social status by "feminizing" him. However, sexual penetration of a male of lower social status by one of higher social status was not considered problematic behavior and was permitted.[326]

According to the aforementioned professor, in Holy Scripture, unlike other ancient Middle Eastern texts, homosexual acts are always and everywhere condemned because no other collection of ancient laws[327] he conceived of all men in a community as socially equal. Unlike other ancient cultures, the author of Leviticus 18 and 20 declares: “You will have one law for the foreigner and for the citizen” (Lev 24,22).

Therefore, according to the Jewish scholar, homosexuality would be condemned because it would socially degrade the person and not for the sexual practice itself[328].

Let's say straight away that the foreigner mentioned by Lv. 24 is the ger, not any foreigner but a particular foreigner who had particular ties to the Jewish community, that is, the proselyte; this rule did not apply to other subjects other than the ger such as the nokri, according to some, or the tsar[329]. The Jewish community was not a community of socially equals! In fact: “You may lend interest to a foreigner, but not to your brother, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you set your hand to, in the land you are about to enter to take possession of it.” (Deut. 23,21, XNUMX)

And again: "... you cannot appoint a foreigner over you who is not your brother." (Dt. 17,15) etc.

The professor. Penna states regarding love of neighbor in the Old Testament: “In any case, this concept certainly does not include one's enemy (Other documentation in Nissen, Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum, 285-308). Indeed, commenting on Ex 21,35, where the case of a man's ox butting and killing "his neighbor's ox" is made, the Mekilta midrash explains verbatim: "This excludes the ox of a subordinate, the ox of a Samaritan , the ox of a foreigner, and the ox of a foreign resident." For his part, Moses Maimonides will only mean «the co-religionist»….”[330] Therefore the foreigner who was not a co-religionist was not included in the group of people to be loved.

However, the command prohibiting homosexual activity concerns absolutely all men, homosexual activity was considered something abominable. In fact, even non-ger foreigners and even enemies belonging to other communities and captured in war were not expected to be subjected to unnatural sexual intercourse.

This radical ban on homosexual acts, which always makes them illicit, is based on the fact that they are contrary to God's plan which provides for sexual union only between man and woman, they are contrary to the sanctity that man must have according to the will of God, are contrary to human nature. God teaches man great respect for sexuality and, as seen, radically condemns impure acts, especially those against nature; this condemnation is radical and absolute, Sacred Scripture clearly states it and with it Tradition.

Alongside the condemnation of homosexual acts there is the condemnation of incest, bestiality, adultery and not for questions of social degradation of the person receiving the virile member but for the opposition to the divine law of the act itself.

Professor Dolansky is therefore radically wrong on several fronts. In particular, you are wrong in thinking that the sexual act is condemned by the Bible as humiliating and degrading on a social level and not as intrinsically evil.

The Jews, in Scripture, never subjected anyone, not even their enemies, to this act to humiliate them, precisely because it was forbidden always and with anyone regardless of belonging to the community.

The Commission itself clearly confirms what I have just said when it states that: “The anthropological perspective that the Bible promotes is in fact that which recognizes in the loving relationship between man and woman the realization of the project intended for the human being by the Creator (Gen 1– 2). The constant and unanimous appreciation of the spousal relationship, with its culmination in the procreation and education of children, becomes a basic element in the ethical and religious framework of the inspired text. Scripture does not directly explain the reasons for such a conception, but provides important insights, which have been developed doctrinally and disciplinarily by the Jewish and Christian interpretative tradition." (n. 171)

The Commission adds that the legislation in Leviticus intends to protect and promote an exercise of sexuality open to procreation, in accordance with the Creator's command to human beings (Gen 1,28), naturally taking care that this act is registered within the framework of a marriage legitimate. (n. 190)

The homosexual act, in this line, is intrinsically evil and disordered and in itself deserves capital punishment, as we see in Lev. 18 and 20, and more generally deserves strong condemnation, regardless of whether it is degrading to the person's social status.

 

 

d,12,3) The act indicated with yada desired by the sodomites was evil in itself and was an act of sodomy, therefore of lust, and not of humiliation.

 

 

According to the Commission, in Gn. 19 "denounces the conduct of a political and social entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect and seeks to humiliate him by forcibly forcing him to undergo submissive treatment" (p. 163)

Already in 1998 the exegete M. Nissinen stated[331] that the act of the sodomites tended to humiliate the two guests, was an ancient custom of humiliating men to show dominance and therefore was not precisely an act of lust[332].

The PCB follows Nissinen in this line.

As we saw above, however, the context of the chapter. 19 leads us to understand that the message this chapter offers concerns sexuality; the narrative of Sodom intentionally places itself between the promise and the fulfillment of the birth of the promised child, Isaac (see Genesis 18 and 21), to highlight the problem of "sterile" sex, which homosexual relationships embody.

Professor Healy, presenting the PCB document, also points out that the position of chapter 19 and its context as well as two texts of the New Testament (Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10) make understand that the message offered through the chapter concerns sexuality.[333]

The professor. Peterson further states: The sexual nature of Sodom's sins finds support not only in the immediate context of chapters 13-19 but the broader context of Genesis 4–20 also points in this direction.[334]

Peterson also points out that the entire chap. 19 of Genesis is focused on the violation of the Divine Law on sexuality, first with the act of the sodomites and then with that of Lot's daughters, in both cases we have a clearly manifested perverse sexual desire and, in the case of Lot's daughters, also implemented. [335]

In the previous paragraph, we saw that in itself the desire of sodomites to unite sexually, according to biblical morality, was perverse, and contrary to divine law, and deserved a heavy punishment.

More precisely we can state that this act went against the natural law, in fact it is an act that God condemns and punishes in the Canaanites (see Lev. 18 and 20), that is, even in those who did not have a written revealed law that condemned this sin; it was therefore an act condemned by natural law that everyone could and should know about.

The Bible speaks precisely in Gen. 19 of the act itself and does not underline the aspect of humiliation.

I remember that the unnatural union produces a pleasure to which some people are particularly attracted, the theologian Reck states: "homosexual desire means for the people involved a significant delectatio ..." [336]!

In the line that the verb yada used by the sodomites directly offers us, they are eager for carnal union and the relative pleasure and not precisely the humiliation connected to it, in fact Lot proposes them to unite with his daughters and therefore find sexual pleasure with them, wanting absolutely to prevent them from venting their sexual desire on the two guests; in the words of Lot and the sodomites there is no direct reference to humiliation but rather to carnal union.

The Hebrew word (yada) used by the sodomites in Genesis 19,5 to indicate sexual union against nature is a euphemism which ordinarily means to know but also means to know carnally, that is, to unite sexually with a person. In the Bible it is used various times with this meaning especially in Genesis (Gen 4,1.17.25; 24,16; 38,26; 1 Sam. 1,19; Jdc. 19,22.25; 1 Kings 1,4 etc.); translating this term the LXX uses the verb συγγίνομαι (to unite sexually), the same verb that it will use to indicate the sin that Potiphar's wife wanted to commit with Joseph even if in the latter case the Hebrew verb used is not yada; the same verb συγγίνομαι is used in other cases in the Septuagint to indicate a sinful sexual relationship (Gen 39,10, Jdt 12,16, Dan. 13, 11.39).

Refuting J. Boswell's claims, Lynne C. Boughton highlights how yada really means sexual activity. [337]

The professor. Hamilton in his commentary on Genesis very effectively underlines that the terms used (in particular yada) in Gen. 19 by the sodomites and by Lot are not those of violence or abuse but are simply those indicating an unnatural sexual relationship[338], with him Richard also states that it is misleading to conclude that yada' means rape in Genesis 19. [339]

The exegete Davidson also underlines that the verb yada simply indicates an unnatural sexual act, not sexual violence. [340]

To the request of the sodomites who through the word "yada" indicate that they want to sexually unite with the two guests, Lot responds by offering his two daughters and again using the verb "yada" with which he specifies that his daughters had not yet been sexually known, this clarification also makes it clear that he was offering the sodomites a pleasure similar to that of unnatural intercourse with men, who presumably had never been sodomized.

I also remember that to have sodomy the subject who penetrates must be sexually excited and attracted by this unnatural relationship otherwise he will not be able to penetrate, therefore even if the sodomites had wanted to humiliate the two angel men they would have had to be sexually attracted to them.

The act indicated in Genesis 19,5 is, therefore, sodomy, both due to the characteristics of the act and because it is an abandonment to the pleasure of perverse sex; the object of the act, the "finis operis", is the "carnal knowledge" of the two men, according to the biblical text, knowledge which implies sexual attraction; it should be noted that the act that the sodomites wanted to perform is not simple penetration but intimate intercourse with seminal effusion and therefore with orgasmic pleasure, in fact the term yada does not indicate simple penetration but a true sexual intercourse with orgasmic pleasure; the sodomites appear captured by the desire to sexually unite with the two guests, theirs does not appear to be a public act of the sodomite community, carried out by the rulers with the collaboration of the soldiers, it appears as an act carried out under the pressure of impure passion in the night.

This act does not appear to be a religious act, no priest or person linked to a religion intervenes.

The entire population, however, presents itself before Lot's house, to carry out impure acts against nature with the two man-angels.

Two texts from the New Testament (Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10) confirm that the message offered through the chapter concerns sexuality.[341]

Please note: the sodomites do not appear to be bloodthirsty people who want to enjoy massacring or humiliating the two angels, the sodomites do not appear to be barbarously inhospitable men who want to enjoy driving the two angels out of their city, perhaps taking away all their possessions, the sodomites they want to enjoy sexually and unnaturally the two men-angels who probably had an extraordinarily beautiful appearance, as Josephus says.[342]

When the sodomites saw the two young men of extraordinary beauty, Lot's guests, they decided to enjoy them.

All this seems to me to nullify the statements of the PCB and Nissinen[343], according to which the act of the sodomites with which they wanted to penetrate the two man-angels would only be an act of humiliation and not of lust.

Conclusion: There are serious reasons that thoroughly refute the PCB's claims that the act of sodomites is not one of lust and that rather highlight the extraneousness of such claims to biblical data. The PCB's statements seem rather ideological than biblical, they seem to be implemented in order to decriminalize and legitimize homosexuality that Pope Francis is pursuing.

 

 

d,12,4) The lust that generates violence in Tradition and in the Bible, in particular in the episodes concerning Sodom and Gibeah.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

We have seen that the sin of Sodom essentially consists of pride and lust.

We have also seen how pride is the mother of all vices, here we want to examine better how lust which is the mother of all vices in particular is the mother of the violence mentioned in Gen.19 referring to sodomites.

Scripture gives us various examples of the power of lust to distance man from the law of God:

– think of what is stated in Genesis regarding the men of Noah's time;

– think of the case of the Egyptian woman, Potiphar's wife, who first lures Joseph into sin and then, seeing that he does not consent, falsely accuses him and has him put in prison (Gen.39);

– think of the case of the perverse judges, in Daniel 13, of them it is said that precisely because of the desire of lust towards Susanna "they lost the light of reason, they turned away their eyes so as not to see Heaven and not remember the righteous judgments. ” so after trying to corrupt Susanna, since she did not give in, they sentenced her to death by falsely declaring her;

– think of the case of the young man caught in the snares of lust in Proverbs 7,6ff.;

– think of the case of David who sinned with Bathsheba… etc.

St. Ambrose states:“Quid sibi autem vult quod illi qui ad Abraham simul cum Domino venerant, Sodomam petierunt viri, nisi ut acerbaretur crimen eorum, si quos justus honoraverat, his majore sacrilegio impii vim conarentur inferre? Nam quod viros dixit, evidens est ratio; quia speciem praeferebant virorum.”(“De Abraham” PL hospitality, which even among barbarians is recognized as inviolable; the impure vice brought the sodomites to Lot. (see “De Abraham” PL XIV col 439.)

At the basis of the violence of the sodomites there is lust, according to s. Ambrose!

St. Alphonsus, in the line of biblical teaching, reports a significant statement of s. Thomas Aquinas in this regard: “Says St. Thomas (In Iob. c. 31) that for every vice man distances himself from God; he especially goes away due to the dishonest vice: Per luxuriam maxime recedit a Deo.”[344]

The text of s. Thomas states precisely: "... per peccatum luxuriae homo maxime videtur a Deo discedere". (In Iob c. 31)

The same s. Thomas also said: “Diabolus codicil maxime gaudere de sin luxuriae, quia est maximae adhaerentiae, et difficile ab eo homo potest eripi, insatiabilis est enim delectabilis appetitus ut philosophus codicil, in III Ethic.” (I-II, q. 73 a. 5 ad 2)

The devil takes great pleasure in this vice, because it binds itself to the human soul and those who have it can hardly free themselves from it, since man's appetite for pleasure is insatiable.

We read in another work by S. Alfonso: “The devil takes great pleasure in this vice (of lust), because those who have it can hardly free themselves from it. And why? for 1., because this vice blinds the sinner and no longer makes him see the offense he does to God, nor the miserable state of damnation in which he lives and sleeps. The prophet Hosea says that these people also lose the desire to return to God. Non dabunt cogitationes suas ut revertantur ad Deum suum; (and why?) quia spiritus fornicationum in medio eorum7. For 2., because this vice hardens the heart and makes it obstinate. For 3., the devil takes great pleasure in this vice, because from it comes a hundred other types of sins, thefts, hatreds, murders, perjuries, murmurings."[345]

I underline: from the sin of lust comes a hundred other types of sins.

In this line the same s. Alfonso M. de Liguori, following s. Ambrose states that lust is the mother of all vices[346].

Explain s. Thomas (De Malo q. 15 a. 4) that sexual pleasure, which is the goal of lust, is the strongest among bodily pleasures and has eight daughters, that is, eight very bad fruits that are produced by it, namely: blindness of the mind, lack of reflection, inconstancy, haste, love for oneself, hatred towards God, attachment to the current world and desperation for the future world, as shown in the Moralia of Saint Gregory (see XXXI, 45). When the soul's intention is vehemently applied to the action of a lower power, the higher powers are weakened and disordered in their act. And this is why when, in the act of lust, the entire intention of the soul is guided by the vehemence of pleasure towards the lower forces (the concupiscible and the sense of touch) it is necessary that the higher powers, namely reason and the will, suffer damage. Now there are four acts of reason to direct human acts: the first is a certain act of intelligence with which the end is rightly judged, which is like the principle in operations, and to the extent that this act is prevented, it is considered as daughter of lust is the blindness of the spirit, according to this word of Daniel (13, 56): “Beauty has led you astray and desire has perverted your heart”.

The second act is deliberation about what to do, which desire suppresses. Speaking of sensual love s. Thomas reports a passage from Terence according to which sensual love does not admit in itself any deliberation or any measure, it is not possible to regulate it through reflection; from this point of view, we have lack of reflection as the fruit of lust.

The third act is the judgment on what to do; and lust hinders him. In fact, it is said in the book of Daniel (13, 9) that the two wicked elders "lost the light of reason, they turned away their eyes so as not to see Heaven and not remember the righteous judgments." and from this point of view we have, as the fruit of lust, haste, when man, attracted by impure pleasure, hastens to give his consent without waiting and observing the judgment of reason. The fourth act is the order to act, which is also prevented by lust as man does not persist in what he has decided so that despite having made the decision not to sin he then gives in and from this point of view we have the fruit of lust called inconstancy.

On the other hand, on the side of affect disorder, two things must be considered. The first is the desire for pleasure, towards which the will tends as an end and from this point of view we have the love of ourselves as the fruit of lust, when we desire pleasure for ourselves in a disordered way and, on the contrary, we have, as a fruit of lust, hatred towards God, to the extent that we oppose God who prohibits the pleasure we desire.

The other thing to consider is the desire for the things with which this goal is achieved; and from this point of view, we have, as the fruit of lust, attachment to the present world, that is to say to everything with which we arrive at the intended end, which belongs to this present world; and on the contrary, we have, as the fruit of lust, the lack of hope regarding the future world, because when we are too attached to carnal pleasures, we rather have contempt for spiritual things.[347]

St. Anthony of Padua states, along these lines: “…that the sin of fornication destroys the heart is demonstrated by the example of Solomon, who devoted himself to the adoration of idols (cf. 3Kings 11,4). The Apostle says: "With the heart one believes to obtain righteousness" (Rom 10,10:XNUMX), but fornication destroys the heart, in which faith resides. because of fornication one loses faith.”[348]

Let us reflect: "The Lord knows how to free the godly from trial and reserve the wicked for punishment on the day of judgment, especially those who in their impure passions follow the flesh and despise the Lord." (2 Pt. 2, 6-10 ) ... whoever follows impure passions despises God ... and also despises man made in the image of God, therefore he despises himself by stooping to commit such sins, and he also despises others to the point of using violence against them and killing them.

The violence that we see in the inhabitants of Sodom towards Lot and the two angels appears in this line, as emerges from the same biblical text, the worst fruit of the most extreme and widespread lust among the sodomites; the whole city, in which there were not even 10 righteous people (see Gen. 18,32), under the impulse of lust and therefore of Satan, is present for the performance of sinful acts publicly on the two men-angels, but since the two young men and Lot with them opposed them, the sodomites tried to attack the house and therefore trampled on the hospitality offered by Lot.

I repeat: the sodomites do not appear to be bloodthirsty people who want to enjoy massacring or humiliating the two angels, the sodomites do not appear to be barbarously inhospitable men who want to enjoy driving the two angels out of their city, perhaps taking away all their possessions, the sodomites want to enjoy sexually and against nature of the two man-angels who probably had an extraordinarily beautiful appearance, as Josephus says.[349]

When the sodomites saw the two young men of extraordinary beauty, guests of Lot, they decided to enjoy them but since the two young men and Lot with them opposed them, the sodomites attempted to attack the house and therefore trampled on the hospitality offered by Lot.

The act of the sodomites does not appear to be a religious act, no priest or person linked to a religion intervenes.

The entire population, however, presents itself before Lot's house, to carry out impure acts against nature with the two man-angels.

It is not known whether the entire population wanted to sexually unite with the two guests or whether they simply wanted to see this union carried out by only some.

It is not known whether a city-wide orgy was planned in which the two guests were supposed to participate.

The entire population, however, appears responsible and immersed in the sin of lust and attempted violence and the terrible punishment falls upon the entire population.

 

 

d,12,5) The mechanism of the temptation of Sodom.

 

 

Here I am interested in trying to better understand the mechanism of the temptation of Sodom on the basis of the data in our possession.

Various indications, especially through the book of the prophet Ezekiel (Ez. 16) lead us to think that it was the wealth of Sodom that made Sodom undertake a life of pleasure and therefore pride and lust.

In the book of Genesis we read: “Then Lot looked up and saw that the whole Jordan valley was a watered place on every side – before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah – like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt up to in Zoar. Lot chose the entire Jordan Valley for himself and moved the tents eastward.” (Gen. 13)

The words just quoted actually lead one to think that Sodom was in an ideal place to live: it was like the "garden of the Lord", the word translated as garden is "gan" in Hebrew and the expression refers to the garden of Eden of which there is a lot of talk in the first chapters of Genesis (Gen. 2 and 3); Sodom was a kind of earthly paradise where people lived very well, it was therefore a rich area.

Philo points out that the men of Sodom were very rich and, being incapable of living righteously in their wealth, they began to trample on the laws of nature, immersed themselves in disorder in eating and drinking and engaged in sexual relations contrary to the divine law. Not only did they go crazy for women and defile the marriage beds of others, but they practiced unnatural sex, so that men lusted after each other to do unworthy things and without respecting their common nature. Along these lines, Philo continues, Sodom was punished with sterility but this, due to the terrible force of lust that dominated them, did not upset them. The men took up the role of women and were burdened by a terrible disease typical of women. They not only perverted their bodies but also degenerated their souls and God punished them terribly.

Philo's text that we have just briefly summarized is found in his book on Abraham[350] but similar texts are found in other works by the same author.[351]

The pleasure-loving life therefore seems to have led Sodom to unnatural lust and the most extreme pride.

In this sense the story of Sodom appeared to be a significant warning for the people of Israel and a significant warning for every man: wealth, a comfortable life can lead man to the greatest perversions.

Certainly wealth is a gift from God and is not in itself evil but trusting in it is evil (Prov. 11,28; Jer, 9,22)

Wealth and therefore satiety can be an occasion for denying God: "I made them graze,

they were satisfied and their hearts were proud,

that's why they forgot me." (Hosea 13,6)

In Deuteronomy we read: “When you have eaten and are satisfied, when you have built good houses and lived in them, when you have seen your herds and herds multiply, your silver and your gold increase, and all your possessions abound, your do not let your heart become so proud that you forget the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the condition of servitude; that he has led you through this great and terrible desert, a place of poisonous snakes and scorpions, a thirsty land, without water; that he made water flow for you from the hardest rock; that in the desert he fed you with manna unknown to your fathers, to humiliate you and to test you, to make you happy in your future." (Dt. 8,12ff)

It is difficult for man to remain faithful to God in prosperity[352]: “When I have brought him into the land which I promised his fathers by oath, where milk and honey flows, and he has eaten and been satisfied and fattened and then turned to other gods to serve them and has despised me and has broken my alliance, and when numerous and distressing ailments have struck him, then this song will be a witness before him, since it will not be forgotten by his descendants. Yes, I know the thoughts he conceived already today, even before I brought him into the land that I promised with oath". (Dt. 31,20 ff.)

“Jeshurun ​​grew fat and resisted,

– yes, you got fat, fattened, gorged –

and rejected the God who made him,

he despised the Rock, his salvation.” (Deut. 32,15)

In the book of Job we read: “… he has stretched out his hand against God,

he dared to stand strong against the Almighty;

ran at him with head held high,

sheltered by the curved thickness of his shield,

for his face was covered in grease

and plumpness around his loins.” (Job 15,27)

It is wisdom to be wary of gold and silver and to repeat Agur's prayer [353] :

“I ask you two things,

do not deny it to me before I die:

keep falsehood and lies away from me,

give me neither poverty nor wealth,

but let me have my piece of bread,

because, once satisfied, I do not deny you

and say: “Who is the Lord?”,

or, reduced to poverty, you don't steal

and abuse the name of my God.” (Prov. 30,8s)

The New Testament adopts all the reservations of the Old Testament regarding wealth[354], s. Paul significantly states:

“He commands those who are rich in this world not to be proud, not to place their hope in the instability of riches, but in God, who gives us everything abundantly so that we can enjoy it. Let them do good, enrich themselves with good works, be ready to give and share: in this way they will set aside good capital for the future, to acquire a true life." (1 Tim. 6,17ff)

Christ asks for a radical, first of all internal, detachment from riches in order to love God with all the heart; the Gospel announces and offers God's total gift to man, perfect communion as it was at the beginning before original sin, but to receive this gift one must detach oneself from everything. To purchase the precious pearl and the hidden treasure it is necessary to sell everything (Mt 13,45f), and one cannot serve two masters: either one serves God or one serves Mammon, that is, money (Mt 6), attachment money is a ruthless master: “it suffocates the word of the gospel in man (Mi 24, 13); he makes us forget the essential, the sovereignty of God (Lk 22, 12-15); blocks the best disposed hearts on the path to perfection (Mt 21, 19f)” [355]. Jesus underlines this profound detachment from money to do God's will in everything: "Whoever of you does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple" (Lk. 14, 33; cf. 12, 33).

More profoundly, the Lord Jesus tells us that we are not truly owners of anything down here but simple administrators (parable of the dishonest administrator Luke 16,1-9), and when we die we will take nothing with us (Luke 12,16–21). if not the virtues or the sins and on this we will be judged (Mt 25,31-46), therefore we must relate to the goods but also to ourselves considering that everything we have belongs to God and we ourselves also belong to God and therefore in we must do everything and regarding everything what he wants (Mt 7,21).

Obviously Christ, by giving us these teachings, keeps us away from the action of the devil of the world and of the "flesh" who, even through wealth, try to distance us from the way of God.

Sodom has instead, in the line we are seeing, fallen into the coils of these powers of darkness and has come to habitually commit, as 2 Pt. 2,-10 says, many sins for a long time, in particular sins of pride, lust, impure sins against nature and many other serious sins, given that lust and pride are sources of every vice, all of this has attracted the well-known and terrible punishments on it, clearly connected to what Lv says. 18pm and 20pm.

 

 

d,12,6) Possible historical development of the biblical treatises on Sodom.

 

 

From what emerges from biblical studies it is not entirely clear when the texts of the Hebrew Bible and Genesis were completed and definitively published but according to the indications of the PCB Genesis should be from the Persian period (5th-6th century) [356], and according to some Catholic exegetes the book of Isaiah should contain prophecies of Isaiah from the 1th century in chapters 6-XNUMX[357], the texts of Jeremiah of chapter 23 should be from the 50th century or early XNUMXth century and those of chap. XNUMX should be next[358], while the book of Ezekiel should contain 6th century texts published in the same 6th century[359], the book of Amos should be from the 8th century[360], Deuteronomy should be from the 6th century[361]  ... all this must also make us consider the possibility that the text of Genesis on Sodom is the last writing that intervenes on Sodom and makes the definitive point on this topic and clarifies what the prophets said based on unwritten traditions; in this sense the text of Gen. 19 would definitively clarify the fact that the sin of Sodom is essentially inherent to homosexual activity.

In this line, therefore, the text of Genesis would arrive last, definitively clarifying the question of Sodom and radically resolving all the questions that could arise based only on prophetic statements.

After these texts of the Hebrew Bible will come other texts of the LXX which will also speak of Sodom (Wis. 19,13-17; Sir. 10,12-18; 16,7-9), with the New Testament God will definitively and radically clarify, through the letter of Judas and the II of Peter (2,6-10) the question about the "sin" of Sodom, specifying that it is mainly a sin of lust against nature based primarily on Gn. 19.

 

 

d,13) Focus on the Commission's statements which define the sin of Sodom as a lack of hospitality and an act of violence towards defenseless people.

 

 

The PCB believes that the sin of Sodom is a: "lack of hospitality with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior judged to be very serious and therefore worthy of being sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, it is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n. 188)

In the following pages we will examine these statements of the Commission more directly in relation to the biblical data regarding hospitality to verify the validity of these statements.

Already now, however, we can say that, on the basis of what we have seen in the previous pages, these statements are false to the extent that they do not highlight:

1) unnatural lust as a very important and absolutely pre-eminent part of the sin of Sodom (Gen. 19,5; Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10);

2) pride and then gluttony and idleness (see Ezek. 16,49-50; Sir. 16,9).

 

 

d,13,1) The Commission's statements are superficial and are not solidly justified.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The Commission states that Gen. 19 denounces the conduct of a people who do not welcome the stranger with respect and humiliates him terribly and adds: "This way of reading the story of Sodom is confirmed by Wisdom 19,13-17, where the exemplary punishment on sinners (first Sodom and then Egypt) is motivated by the fact that "they had shown a profound hatred towards the foreigner".

The Commission adds: “A further and stronger confirmation comes from the story of Jdc 19, in a certain sense parallel to that of Sodom.”

The text of the Commission therefore concludes that the sin of Sodom was: "a sin which consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior judged to be very serious and therefore deserving of being sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the refusal of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n. 188)

Let's say straight away that these statements appear superficial and not solidly founded, in fact the Commission does not examine the question of the many sins of Sodom, committed over a long period of time, as highlighted by chapters 13-19 of the Bible; furthermore, the Commission bases its statements essentially on this statement from Genesis said by God regarding Abraham "I will bless those who bless you, and those who curse you I will curse" (Gen. 12,3), this statement, however, concerns Abraham not every foreign, furthermore it is vague and does not directly provide for a catastrophic punishment such as that imposed in Sodom, in fact the Commission does not cite any punishment of this type for such sins.

The curse threatened by God can entail various punishments and not necessarily a catastrophic punishment.

The PCB also states that in Gen. 19: "... rather, what is denounced is the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore seeks to humiliate him, forcing him by force to suffer an infamous treatment of submission. ”

The text of Gen. 19, however, as already seen, does not indicate that the sodomites wanted to humiliate the two foreigners, they wanted to unite carnally with them, they burned with sexual desire for them in fact, as V. Hamilton points out, the old Ephraimite offers to the perverse people of Gibeah the man's daughter and concubine so that they can "mistreat them sexually" (Jdc. 19) while Lot, in Gen. 19 does not speak of sexual assault nor does he speak of humiliation but simply of a grave sin against nature through " carnal knowledge"[362], Lot offers his daughters underlining that they have never been known sexually by men precisely highlighting that the sodomites wanted to "know carnally", they were eager to unite carnally and not to humiliate.

Above I have explained in greater detail many other data which lead to affirm what I have just said.

Professor Healy significantly stated: “The PBC document concludes, however, that the interpretation given in 2 Peter and Jude lacks “clear support in the biblical account.” As evidence for this conclusion, the document states that Genesis does not intend to present “an image of an entire city dominated

by overwhelming cravings of a homosexual nature,” which would presumably be unrealistic. But it may be asked whether this observation overstates the case.” [363]

That is, Professor Healy says softly but clearly: the PCB's statements exaggerate reality when they state that the biblical text of Gn. 19 does not support the interpretation given by 2 Pt. and Gd. and where they state that Genesis does not intend to present the image of an entire city dominated by lust.

In fact, the same professor continues to explain that:

1) the words of Genesis indicate the general perversion of the sodomites;

2) the sexual perversion of the sodomites is highlighted and condemned by Lot and this annoys them;

3) the location of the chapter. 19, that is, its context clearly indicates that the sin condemned in it is of a sexual nature as well as lack of hospitality and failure to welcome God's messengers;

4) 2 passages of the New Testament (Jude 5-7 and 2 Pet. 2,6-10) clearly speak of the sin of Sodom as sexual.[364]

Professor Healy highlights in her discussion how the PCB omits something important when it states that in Gn. 19: "... rather, what is denounced is the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore seeks to humiliate him, forcibly forcing him to suffer shameful treatment of submission. This degrading practice is also threatened for Lot (v. 9), who was responsible for the stranger "who came under the shadow of his roof" (v. 8); and this reveals the moral evil of the city of Sodom, which not only refuses hospitality, but cannot tolerate the fact that, within it, there are those who, instead, open their home to the stranger."

In fact, Healy says: the PCB's description, while accurate, fails to mention in full the reason given by the men of Sodom for their resentment towards Lot: his condemnation of their planned homosexual rape as "doing harm", furthermore, as mentioned above, the location of the chapter. 19, that is, its context clearly indicates that the sin condemned in it is of a sexual nature as well as a lack of hospitality and failure to welcome God's messengers.[365]

In conclusion, the Commission presents inferences which, for various reasons, appear superficial, not solidly founded in the Bible and deviating from the integral reality of things; this will be confirmed and further clarified by examining the texts of the books of Wisdom and Judges (which the Commission itself cites in support of its thesis) and developing various reflections along this line, as we will see in the following pages.

 

 

d,13,1,1) Clarifications on the violence of sodomites towards defenseless people.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The PCB says "the story concerning the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gibeah) illustrates a sin which consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the stranger, behavior considered very serious and therefore deserving of being sanctioned with the utmost severity , because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n. 188)

Regarding violence against needy and defenseless people, it should be noted that various commentators, starting from the statements of the prophets about Sodom, have so far presented the sin of that city as social injustice.[366]

An interpretation of this type emerges in the Jewish text of the 3,11nd century AD, Tosefta Sotah (XNUMX) in which the author states that the sodomites mistreated foreigners to keep them away and not share their wealth with them.

The text of the Old Testament that most supports the interpretation that the sin of Sodom is one of social injustice is Ezek. 16,49-50 which states: “Behold, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were full of pride, greed, indolent idleness. However, they did not stretch out their hand against the poor and destitute. They became proud and committed what is abominable before me. I eliminated them as soon as I noticed it.”

Certainly the sin of Sodom as it emerges from Genesis. 19 contains violence against apparently weak people (Lot's two guests) therefore it also includes social injustice, but this injustice appears closely linked to lust: the sodomites use violence to be able to carry out their impure desires on the two guests.

The engine that drives sodomites to violence is lust.

In this regard it must be considered that chapter 16 of Ezekiel, in fact, is highly sexualised; Peterson states that it is somewhat amusing, and at the same time disconcerting, to him that scholars interpret Ezekiel 16 in defense of the “non-sexual” sin of Sodom without realizing the truly graphic nature of the context in which Ezekiel refers to Sodom.[367]

The chap. 16 of Ezekiel has an explicit sexual nature and strongly highlights sins of a sexual nature[368], in it the term zanah (prostitute) and related words are used 12 times, the term Sodom is repeated 6 times!

Jewish interpreters used allegory to tone down the sexual language of this chapter or claimed that precisely because this language was not suitable for synagogue reading; it should be noted that Ezekiel did not use that language to push his listeners to lust or to be vulgar but to shake the nation from its sinful spiritual sleep. [369]

In this sexual context Ez. 16,49 highlights social injustice but Ezek. 16,50 also speaks of an abomination committed by Sodom; this statement, implemented with the use of toebah, as we saw above, is connected in a particular way with Lev. 18 and 20 and therefore with the sin of unnatural sexuality that the sodomites attempted to implement against Lot's two guests (Gen. 19,5) and with the offering that Lot makes of his virgin daughters to the desires of the sodomites. I underline that in chapter 16 of Ezekiel the term toebah and similar terms are used 9 times.

The unnatural abominations of Sodom seem clearly related to the abominations of the people Ezekiel addresses. [370]

Ezekiel, therefore, does not restrict, as the PCB does, the sin of Sodom to the sole lack of hospitality and violence towards defenseless people, but also extends it to the "abomination" that is, unnatural sexuality which clearly emerges in Gen. 19 and which will then be underlined in a particular way in the Letter of Judas and in the second letter of Peter.

This abomination, which the sodomites wanted to carry out, also pushed them to use violence.

The PCB, by denying the sexual dimension of Sodom's sin, also denies the source from which Sodom's violence emanates, as is clearly seen in Genesis. 19.

I repeat what I said above: the sodomites do not appear to be bloodthirsty people who want to enjoy massacring or humiliating the two angels, the sodomites do not appear to be barbarously inhospitable men who want to enjoy driving the two angels out of their city, perhaps by taking away all their possessions, the sodomites want to enjoy sexually and unnaturally the two men-angels who probably had an extraordinarily beautiful appearance, as Josephus says[371] and when the two young men and Lot objected, the sodomites tried to get what they wanted with violence.

 

 

d,13,2) Wisdom. 19, 13-17, cited by the Commission in support of his thesis, actually refutes it!

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission states that its interpretation of the Sodom passage according to which the sin of the sodomites was the lack of welcome and respect towards needy and defenseless guests is also supported by a text from the book of Wisdom: "This way of reading the story of Sodom is confirmed by Wisdom 19,13-17, where the exemplary punishment on sinners (first Sodom and then Egypt) is motivated by the fact that "they had shown a profound hatred towards the foreigner"." (n. 187)

It should be noted that the book of Wisdom is not part of the Pentateuch, of which Genesis is clearly part together with Leviticus and others. The book of Wisdom was written by a Hellenized Jew and was probably created in the last decades of the 1st century. to. C., therefore it is the most recent of the books of the Old Testament.

This book too, like any other in the Bible, does not praise the impure sin against nature and indeed, as mentioned, radically condemns it because it strictly follows the Jewish tradition and because the Word of God also speaks in Wisdom which, as seen, radically condemns the impure sin against nature.

The Italian text of Sap. 19, 13-17 states: “Punishments fell on sinners, not without warning signs of thunderous lightning; they justly suffered for their wickedness, having harbored such deep hatred towards the stranger. Others did not welcome unknown guests; but they enslaved deserving guests. Not only that: there will be a judgment for the former, because they welcomed foreigners hostilely; but those, after having welcomed them joyfully, then, when they were already sharing in their rights, oppressed them with very hard work. They were therefore struck by blindness, as were the first at the door of the righteous, when enveloped in thick darkness each one sought the entrance to his own door."

The Greek text is:

τεκμηρίων τη βία των κεραυνών · δικαίως γαρ έπασχον ταις ιδίαις αυτών πονη ρίαις, και γαρ χαλεπωτέραν μισοξενίαν επετήδευσαν οι μεν γαρ τους αγνοούντας ουκ εδέχοντο παρόντας, ούτοι δε ευεργέτας ξένους εδουλούντο και ου μόν ον, αλλ ' ή τις επισκοπή έσται αυτών, επεί απεχθώς προσεδέχοντο τους αλλοτρ ίους · αίων, δεινοίς εκάκωσαν πόνοις. επλήγησαν δε και αορασία, ωσπερ εκείνοι επί ταις του δικαίου θύραις, ότε α χανεί περιβληθέντες σκότει, έκαστος των αυτού θυρών την δίοδον εζήτει.

The text, as can be seen, speaks of Sodom without naming it directly and compares it with Egypt: Sodom did not welcome foreigners, strangers; Egypt enslaved worthy guests.

Let's say straight away that the text, like others seen above, absolutely does not deny that Sodom committed sins of lust but underlines the fact that Sodom did not welcome foreigners, strangers.

The passage in question speaks first of all of punishments that fell on sinners, that is, on the Egyptians, "not without warning signs of thunderous lightning".

I underline that Sap's statements. 19,13, contrary to what the PCB states, have nothing to do with Sodom but only have to do with Egypt, in fact punishments fell on it preceded by warning signs consisting of thunderous lightning (see Ex. 9,23), no premonitory sign of lightning reached Sodom before the punishment!

It should also be noted that Sap. 19 underlines that the sin of the Egyptians was evidently greater than that committed by those who did not welcome unknown guests, i.e. the sodomites, and specifies that the latter "hostilely welcomed foreigners" finally highlights how the punishment of the former and the latter was blindness (Wis. 19,17; Gen. 19,11).

I repeat: the punishment that Sap speaks of. 19,13-17 is blindness and attributes it to hatred in welcoming strangers.

Commenting on this passage, The New Interpreter's Bible underlines that the penalty for the unworthy reception of guests is, for Egypt and Sodom, blinding.[372]

But Sodom was not only struck by blindness... it was destroyed and annihilated, with its inhabitants, by fire and brimstone, which connects well with the terrible penalties established for homosexual sin in Lev. 18pm and 20pm.

What we have just seen therefore shows that:

1) the text that the Commission itself brings as evidence to justify its statements (Wisdom 19,13-17), denies these statements;

2) the PCB clearly alters the biblical data by also mistakenly believing that Wis. 19,13 concerns Sodom.

I conclude by specifying that what this text of Wisdom states actually raises important questions about the sin of Sodom regarding hospitality which we will return to later after talking about the punishments that hit Sodom and having seen the "protocols of hospitality".

 

 

d,13,2,1) Reflections on blindness and on various penalties imposed by God on Sodom.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

What was said in the previous paragraph leads us to focus more on the punishments that God imposed on Sodom. Here we will focus in particular on the 3 penalties indicated in the previous paragraph: that of blindness and those of fire and brimstone.

In the book of Wisdom it is significantly written that one is punished through the same things with which he sins: "... with those same things by which one sins, he is then punished with them." (Wisdom 11,16)

The text just seen presents the punishment of retaliation, with this expression we mean the correspondence of the punishment to the guilt, consisting in inflicting on the offender the same injury or an injury similar to the one he caused to the offended party; the term retaliation comes from Latin and is a compound “of contra «against» and pati «to suffer»”. [373]

We will see that the penalties we are about to study can be understood as retaliation in particular for the impure sins of Sodom.

1) The penalty of blindness.

We saw in the previous paragraph that the blindness of the sodomites is a punishment linked by Scripture to the lack of hospitality manifested in them (see Wisdom 19, 13-17).

We also noted that Sodom was lustful and that lust is the mother of all sin[374], therefore we can also consider her the mother of the failure to welcome the two man-angels.

In this line it is not strange that s. Ambrose also sees this blindness as a punishment for the lust of sodomites and this seems consistent with the characteristics of impure sin, as we will see.

The S. In fact, the Milanese bishop points out that the angels blind the impure sodomites who wanted to join them carnally and specifies that lust is blind and does not see ahead (see “De Abraham” PL XIV col. 440)

The reflections of s. Ambrose are consistent with what the Bible says and with what other Doctors say.

In the book of Daniel (13, 56) we read: “Beauty has led you astray and desire has perverted your heart”. In the same book (Dan. 13, 9) we also read that the two lustful elders "lost the light of reason, they turned away their eyes so as not to see Heaven and not remember the righteous judgments."

Lust therefore produces inner blindness.

St. Thomas taking up s. Gregory the Great states precisely that lust blinds (see De Malo q.15 a.4 in c.) According to s. Alfonso, lust is a terrible vice that also determines the blindness of the spirit regarding spiritual things: "this vice blinds the sinner and no longer makes him see the offense he does to God, nor the miserable state of damnation in which he lives and he is sleeping. The prophet Hosea says that these people also lose the desire to return to God. Non dabunt cogitationes suas ut revertantur ad Deum suum; (and why?) quia spiritus fornicationum in medio eorum. ” [375]

The penalty of blindness that struck the sodomites therefore appears to be retaliation for the lust and hostile welcome of the two guests.

As mentioned, lust is the mother of all sin; blinded by lust, probably, the sodomites unworthily welcome the two strangers and violate hospitality in the way seen in Gen. 19; rightly the penalty that will hit them for this violation will be that of blindness.

2) The punishments of fire and brimstone.

Sodom was punished and destroyed with fire and brimstone (Gen. 19, 24). The punishment of fire and brimstone appears in various passages of the Bible as the supreme punishment, which is reserved for Satan and the damned (Rev. 19,20; 20,10; 21,8) and is prophesied in various cases also for the men in this world (Ps. 11,6; Ezek. 38,22).

Now it should be noted that in various biblical passages fire is connected with the passion of love:

“Love is as strong as death,

Passion is as tenacious as the kingdom of the dead:

its flames are flames of fire,

a divine flame!” (Song 8,6)

“For the beauty of a woman many have been ruined,

love for her burns like fire.” (Sir. 9, 8)

Particularly significant in this line is the following text:

“Two kinds of people multiply sins,

and a third provokes anger:

a burning passion like a lit fire

it will not go out until it is consumed;

an immodest man in his body

he will not give up until the fire devours him..." (Sir. 23, 16)

In this line it is not strange that the punishment of Sodom was carried out through fire and brimstone.

St. Gregory the Great said regarding the punishment of Sodom: “That sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh is confirmed by the history of the Holy Scripture itself, when it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured on Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish the crimes of the flesh in it, and the very type of his punishment highlighted the shame of that crime because the sulfur gives off a stench, the fire burns; it was therefore right that the sodomites, burning with sinful desires originating from the stench of the flesh, should perish at the same time by means of fire and brimstone, so that from the just punishment they would realize the evil done under the pressure of a perverse desire"[376]

The destruction of Sodom through fire and brimstone is therefore considered by s. Gregory as a kind of punishment of retaliation, analogous to the sins of lust committed by Sodom.

Taius Cesaraugustanus, stated: “In Genesi scriptum est: Pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem. » Quid in sulphure nisi fetor carnis, et quid per ignem, nisi ardor carnalis exprimitur desires? Cum ergo habitantium Sodomis vel Gomorrhæ carnis scelera punish Dominus decrevisset, in ipsa qualitate ultionis notavit maculam crimes; sulfur quippe fetorem habet, ignis ardorem. Here it is that perverse desire ex carnis burning stench, dignum fuit ut simul sulphure et igne perirent, quatenus ex justa {{? discerent ex injusto Desire quid decisissent ..” (PL LXXX, 946. 947) The punishment of Sodom indicates its crime: those who burned behind perverse desires for the stench of the flesh were right to perish in the stench of sulfur and ardor of the fire.

The destruction of Sodom through fire and brimstone is therefore also considered by Taius Cesaraugustanus as a kind of retaliation punishment, analogous to the sins of lust committed by Sodom.

Pope Innocent III stated about lust: “Hæc Pentapolim cum adjacente region subvertit, Sodomitas et Sichen cum populo interemit, raptores Dinae percussit, Her Onam filios Juda percussit, … Ammon in convivio interfecit … Uriam occidit, presbyteros lapidavit, Ruben maledixit. Samsonem seduxit, Salomonem pervertit”[377] In summary: lust upset the Pentapolis, that is, it destroyed the sodomites and caused many other punishments...

The same Pope in the same work added, regarding the punishment of Sodom, that the punishment taught what unnatural lust deserved; God wanted to personally punish the sin of Sodom and rained sulfur on the stench of lust and fire on the heat of lust so that the punishment was similar to guilt; in the text of Gen. 19 it is said that God himself took charge of imposing the punishment and made it rain fire and brimstone, that is, he punished the sodomites with extreme grandeur and abundance; no one was forgiven, everyone was punished, including Lot's wife who, despite having fled, looked back; God not only punished the cities but the entire area was transformed into a dead sea and a valley of salt: it is terrible to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10)[378]!

Even for Innocent III the punishment to which Sodom and the cities close to it were subjected (fire and brimstone) therefore appears as a punishment of retaliation to punish unnatural lust.

 

 

d, 13, 3) Hospitality in the Bible, in the Christian and Jewish Traditions.

 

 

Hospitality is something extremely rooted in the Bible, God hosts Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden and teaches more generally to be wisely hospitable with the clarifications that we will see later.

I will keep particularly in mind from here on out, regarding the A. Testament and rabbinic literature, what the Encyclopedia Judaica states in an article on hospitality[379].

The Bible contains many examples of hospitable reception. Abraham is welcomed by various populations, first of all, while he was with his father Terah, by the inhabitants of Haran (Gen. 11,31), then by the Egyptians (Gen. 12) then in Gerar (Gen. 20) Abraham welcomes the three men ( Gen. 18) Lot welcomes the two strangers (Gen. 19) Laban welcomes Abraham's servant (Gen. 24,28–32), Jethro the Midianite welcomes Moses (Ex. 2), Manoah welcomes the angel who visits him ( Jdc. 13 ), the Shunammite woman welcomes the prophet Elisha (2 Kings 4) etc.. The biblical law specifically speaks of welcoming the "ger", a particular type of foreigner, explaining that the Israelites were also "gers" on land foreign (Lev. 19,34 Ex. 12,49). It was also the duty of the elders of the cities of refuge to help, as well as protect, anyone who had killed without knowing and who was seeking shelter in their cities (Nm. 35,9–34). One of Job's statements is that "The stranger (ger) did not spend the night in the open air, and to the traveler I opened my doors." (Job 31,32). Violations of hospitality, however, were punished. Gideon chastised the elders of Succoth and Penuel for their poor reception (Judges 8,5–9 ) examples of poor reception can be found in Genesis. 19 and Jdc 19 and certainly these sins were also punished with the punishments following such acts.

Jael's killing of Sisera is the only violation of hospitality praised in the Bible (Judges 4 and 5), but Abraham does not appear to be precisely "hospitable" either when he removes Hagar from the camp, leaving her alone with her child in the middle of the desert and risking her death. (Gen. 21).

As an interesting article that I take from the “Anchor Bible Dictionary” explains[380] in the Old Testament the idea of ​​being guests of God is very clear on the part of the hagiographers, the awareness of being descendants of a "wandering Aramean", Israel recognized and treasured its identity as a pilgrim people (Dt 26,5- 22), and considered himself hosted by God, who nourished him especially during the journey of the Exodus when he received quails, water and manna from God in the desert (Ex. 16-17). Having taken possession of the promised land, the Israelites however remembered that their home belonged to Yahweh (Lev 25,23) and that they, like their ancestors, were fundamentally strangers and temporary guests in the eyes of God (Ps 39,12) . As inhabitants of the promised land, they imagined themselves led to green pastures and celebrated at the table of the divine king, the "house of the Lord" in which they hoped to dwell forever was essentially the perpetual hospitality of God (see Ps 23; Ps 104 ).

When the prophets of Israel looked forward to an era of perfect righteousness and peace, it is significant that they imagined that God, whose guests they felt, was entertaining his people in a time of

endless celebration (Am 9,13-I5; Joel 3,18; Isa 25,6-8); for Isaiah, this great banquet would be prepared for everyone “The Lord of hosts will prepare

for all peoples on this mountain,

a banquet of fat food,

a banquet of excellent wines,

of succulent foods, of refined wines.” (Is. 25, 6) [381]

In the New Testament, Jesus considers what is done for the little ones to be done to himself: “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you dressed me, sick and you visited me, imprisoned and you came to visit me.

Then the righteous will answer him: Lord, when did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you as a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and come to visit you?

Answering, the king will say to them: Truly I say to you, as you did these things to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me. Then he will say to those on his left: Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire, prepared for the devil and for his angels.

Because I was hungry and you didn't give me food; I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink;

I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me. They too will then answer: Lord, when have we ever seen you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison and we have not assisted you? But he will answer: Truly I say to you, as often as you did not do these things to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did not do it to me. And they will go away, these to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life”. (Mt. 25)

Christ considers as done to himself what is done in favor of the stranger, that is, welcome and hospitality.

Jesus appears as a guest in various passages of the Gospel (Lk. 7,36; Jn. 2,2; 12,2 etc.)

Obviously hospitality in this line was highly praised and in some cases was considered absolutely obligatory, in fact Jesus indicates among the causes of a soul's condemnation the fact that it did not host strangers (Mt. 25)

More precisely, φιλοξενία (hospitality) is spoken of on two occasions in the New Testament.

In the letter to the Romans we read: “Share the needs of the saints; be considerate in your hospitality.” (Rom. 12,13:XNUMX)

In the letter to the Hebrews we read: “Do not forget hospitality; some, by practicing it, without knowing it have welcomed angels.” (Heb. 13,2)

The adjective φιλόξενος (hospitable) is found in the New Testament in 3 texts which we will see below.

In 1 Pt. 4,9 we read: “Practice hospitality towards one another, without grumbling.”; it is a clear invitation to carry out this practice.

In 1 Tim. 3,2 we read "The bishop must therefore be irreproachable, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, dignified, hospitable, capable of teaching..."

This means that in the Christian community it is the Bishop, in particular, who must also take care of the hospitality of foreigners, as the following text also confirms, "The bishop, in fact, as God's administrator, must be irreproachable: not arrogant, not angry , not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for dishonest gain, but hospitable, a lover of good ..." (Tit. 1,7-8)

In the New Testament, in the light of divine hospitality, life with God is seen here below and then in Heaven (Luke 14,16-24, Matthew 22,1-14)

As regards the practice of hospitality, it should be noted that it was positively forbidden with regard to heretics, as explained by s. John in his second letter (2 Jn. 9-11).

The Eucharist is the supreme expression of hospitality and nourishment that God offers us, giving us Himself.

Hospitality is one of the works of mercy and therefore, to be meritorious, it must be the fruit of charity.

The primitive Church experienced hospitality in an extraordinary way, as R. Stark writes: to cities full of homeless and poor people, Christianity offered charity and hope; to cities filled with newcomers and foreigners, Christianity offered an immediate basis for connections; to cities full of orphans and widows, Christianity provided a new and broader sense of family; to cities torn by violent ethnic conflicts, Christianity offered a new basis for social solidarity, and to cities struck by epidemics, fires, and earthquakes, Christianity offered effective nursing services.[382]

The Fathers of the Church have dealt with hospitality abundantly, recommending it; an article in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité highlights many interventions by the Fathers on this theme, in particular by the Pastor of Erma, of s. Clement Romanus, s. John Chrysostom, s. Augustine etc. [383]

[384].

Yes. Justin stated that the Christian community assists people in need including strangers, the hospitality practiced by Christians attracted many to faith in Christ and the Didache offered various prudential indications for those who hosted strangers, regarding the implementation of enlightened hospitality ; a rule that guided the exercise of Christian hospitality was that according to which the reception of heretics was prohibited, as s. had already indicated. John in his second letter.[385]

St. Jerome and other Fathers cite Abraham in particular and his welcoming of God's messengers as a work that earned this Patriarch his descent and therefore the beginning and fulfillment of the divine promises.

The hermits of the first centuries and the monks distinguished themselves in the practice of hospitality, s. Basil dedicates various passages of his rule to hospitality, the Rule of Saint Benedict in chapter 53 states: "Let all guests who arrive be received like Christ, because He will say: "I have come as a guest and you have welcomed me", in In this Rule various indications are offered precisely to effectively order hospitality and prevent it from damaging the monks.[386]

The history of the Church is full of extraordinary testimonies of hospitality, the work of the Bishops and deacons, the hospitality workers, the religious hospital orders and gradually many other religious communities have carried out this apostolate of mercy in an enlightening way over the centuries

Rabbinic literature, explains the aforementioned article in the Encyclopedia Judaica[387], expanded the scope of the virtue of hospitality, considered an expression of kindness especially when extended to the poor ( Shab. 127a–b ; Maim., Yad, Evel 14:1–2). One of the virtues by which one enjoys the fruits in this world and obtains the main reward in the world to come, hospitality is, according to R. Johanan, even more important than prayer or, according to R. Judah, than receiving the divine presence . A person who offers hospitality to a rabbinical student is regarded as having offered a daily sacrifice (Ber. 10b, and see also Ber. 63b; Kid 76b).

Definition of guest and host duties:

1) the host was forbidden to make his guest uncomfortable, either by appearing unhappy (DEZ 9,6), or by observing his guest too attentively (Maim., Yad, Berakhot 7:6), or by neglecting to serve himself his host (Kid. 32b);

2) the guest was not supposed to be a parasite, he was asked to show gratitude ( Ber. 58a ), to follow the host's instructions and to recite a special blessing for his host after meals ( Ber. 46a ; Maim ., Yad, Berakhot 2:7 and 7:2; Sh. Ar., OḤ 201:1)etc. [388]

Hospitality has an expiatory effect for sins, according to rabbinic teaching. [389]

 

 

d,13,4) Clarifications on hospitality: in the OT the neighbor to be loved was the co-religionist; in the NT the neighbor is every man.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Hospitality is part of the exercise of love towards one's neighbor, however it must be clarified that one's neighbor, in the Old Testament, was not what we Christians today understand as such.

In the Old Testament, in fact, the neighbor was only the co-religionist[390], the command to love one's neighbor concerned precisely those who were part of the same religious group.

According to Spadafora, Jesus' statement, "you will hate your enemy" is not precisely biblical but effectively conveys the message of many pages of the Old Testament, where we find expressions of revenge against the pagans and against the wicked Israelites. We find ourselves faced with an attitude of hatred towards the enemies that the scribes drew from the prescriptions established for Israel, in Deuteronomy, in particular, with regard to the Gentiles (cf. Deut. 20, 13-17; 23, 4-7; 25, 17-19). This attitude was reinforced by post-biblical Jewish literature.[391]

For the Old Testament, love for one's neighbor is love for one's fellow countryman, a man of the same family or of the same tribe, for people of the same race, or in any case for those, and exclusively they, who entered with circumcision or a rite equivalent to be part of the community, according to the principle of solidarity then in force; but all others are excluded.[392]

Rabbinic literature unanimously comments on the laws regarding others, always specifying that it concerns only the Israelite and «not the Samaritan, the foreigner or the proselyte»[393]".[394]

By neighbor, explains A. Penna, in the Old Testament we do not mean every man, rather we mean the member of the people of God, compatriot and co-religionist, and the foreigner domiciled among the chosen people, that is, the ger (proselyte) and the multiple expression the command to love one's neighbor is left to the responsibility and sensitivity of the individual.[395]

The professor. Penna states that the concept of neighbor (to be loved) in the Old Testament: “... certainly does not include one's enemy (Other documentation in Nissen, Gott und der Nächste im antiken Judentum, 285-308). Indeed, commenting on Ex 21,35, where the case of a man's ox butting and killing "his neighbor's ox" is made, the Mekilta midrash explains verbatim: "This excludes the ox of a subordinate, the ox of a Samaritan , the ox of a foreigner, and the ox of a foreign resident." For his part, Moses Maimonides will only mean «the co-religionist»… ”[396] Therefore the foreigner, who was not a co-religionist, was not included in the group of people to be loved as a neighbor.

Cardinal Ravasi wrote along these lines regarding the text of Leviticus which commands love of neighbor (Lev. 19,18): “In it, first of all, it explicitly speaks of the "sons of your people", that is, of Israel. The commitment of love is, therefore, limited to a specific horizon, that of the Jewish community.”[397]

Spadafora says “Revenge and resentment are forbidden to the Israelites towards the members of the chosen people” [398]

not towards others, in fact the Scripture does not condemn Samson's revenge (Judges 15), forgiveness remains confined to racial brothers and does not extend to everyone[399]. In this line, God's command regarding the welcome of the stranger is not as absolute as the command regarding the prohibition of homosexual acts, Jael will in fact be praised for having killed Sisera, her guest (Judges 4-5).

It is true that in Scripture we read: “You shall not harass a stranger or oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Ex 22,20) “You shall not oppress the stranger: you also know the life of the stranger, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” (Ex 23,9) but these texts must be well understood, considering that they do not speak of every stranger, but of the ger[400], as we will see better in the next paragraph.

In this line, the message of Genesis 19 as a text belonging to the Old Testament was certainly not in the sense of loving every man and welcoming every stranger.

In the New Testament, in Christ, the neighbor becomes every man and the command to love one's neighbor becomes something "new" (Jn. 13,34ff).[401]

Through the New Testament, as seen in the first volume, in the chapter on charity, God perfected what the Old Testament contained, manifesting in the fullest way both charity in the intimate life of God and charity in God's relationship with others. men, both the charity that must animate our relationship with God, both the charity we must have towards ourselves, and the charity we must have towards our neighbour.

Hospitality, with the N. Testament, extends more generally to every neighbor.

Seen in the light of Christ and under divine inspiration, Gen. 19 certainly highlights shortcomings regarding hospitality but above all highlights shortcomings against chastity, in fact the letter of Judas and the second letter of Peter which reread Gen. 19 highlight these shortcomings in particular.

God enlighten us better and better.

 

 

d,13,5) The “hospitality protocols”; clarifications on categories of people who were not given hospitality.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

In an interesting article an exegete, TR Hobbs, states: “Traditional Mediterranean society was 'agonistic', life was a struggle against the elements over which humans had no control, but it was also against perceived hostile forces, who were members of groups outside one's own moral community of close kin.( … ) This is the context of various expressions of hospitality in ancient Israel/Judah.”[402]

Traditional Mediterranean society was “competitive,” life was a struggle against the elements over which humans had no control, but it was also a struggle against hostile forces that were members of groups outside one's moral community of close relatives . This is the context of various expressions of hospitality in ancient Israel/Judah.

Hospitality had particular characteristics that Hobbs carefully specifies.[403]

The “hospitality protocols” have been presented in various works[404].

The material elements of hospitality are food and shelter, for both of which the times are limited, i.e. the guest was assured of food and shelter for a limited time.[405]

Guests were traveling people, and hospitality was a custom that served to protect the host's family and to enhance his or her reputation and honor by being generous to traveling relatives or members of a larger community, often tribal[406]. The reason for the hospitality was that the guest is without immediate relatives and is, therefore, temporarily out of place.

Those being housed are far from their normal residences, but not landless. In the Old Testament those who are landless and traveling are involved in a dynamic other than hospitality. Abraham stayed in Canaan with little contact with the locals not with hospitality and where he has contacts involving gift giving (Gen. 14 and 23), he makes it clear that he will owe nothing to his “householders” i.e. he refuses hospitality.[407]

Genesis 34 is an excellent example of two residential groups negotiating the extent of land and kinship but it is not a case of hospitality.

Classic hospitality texts are in the A. Testament: Genesis 18; 19; 24; 29; Exodus 2; Joshua 2,1-21; Judges 19; 1 Kings 17.

The common characteristics found in texts about hospitality are the following:

1) the guest is ordinarily traveling (Judges 4;19; Gen. 18; 19; 29);

2) the invitation to receive hospitality is offered by males (Gen. 18; 19; 29; Exodus 2; Judges 19) and females (Gen. 24; Exodus 2; 1 Kings 12; 1 Sam. 25; 2 Kings 4);

3) one of the services provided to the guest is the washing of the feet (Gen. 18; 19; 24; 1 Kings 17);

4) further service is the offering of food to the guest (Gen. 18; 19; 24; Exodus 2; Judges 19; 1 Sam. 25; 1 Kings 17);

5) offer of refuge is mentioned in particular in some texts (Gen. 19; 24; 29; Exodus 2;

Judges 4,19; 1 Kings 17; 2 Kings 4);

6) the protection of guests is included in hospitality (Gen. 19; Joshua 2; Judges 4,19);

7) the guest is considered as a relative and his status is extremely important (especially in Gen. 18; 19; 24; Judges 19);[408]

These protocols are also very important to understand who was truly offered hospitality and who was denied it.

Consider that travel, in ancient times, was dangerous and hospitality was not offered to everyone, obviously; travel, in ancient times, as Hobbs explains, was dangerous and some travellers, such as armies and traders, took precautions by traveling in large numbers; these travelers, however, are always considered willful vagrants and intent on destruction and/or exploitation, are permanently homeless, and therefore pose a perpetual threat. These categories of people do not receive the aforementioned hospitality.  [409]

Other travellers, Hobbs continues, such as people voluntarily away from their homeland, including murderers and fugitives from the law, such as Samson (Jdg. 15), David (1 Sam. 21) and Jacob (Gen. 35) did not receive hospitality, according to Hobbs, except for threats, intimidation and promises of reciprocity.

In the case of murderers guilty of involuntary homicide (Num. 35,11-29) there was legal protection which falls into the category of sanctuary and not of the aforementioned hospitality.[410] There was no hospitality for those guilty of voluntary homicide. The separate cases were those of the prophets Elisha, Samuel and perhaps even Elijah who were regularly outside their immediate territory, and it can be assumed that, due to their social status as holy men, they enjoyed the hospitality of the well-wishers on everything a territory from village to village.[411]

Hospitality was not for everyone... otherwise enemies defeated in war could ask to be hosted and thus escape the punishment to which they had to be subjected...

Examining some particular categories of people indicated more specifically by the Bible we can say the following.

1) The case of the “ger”.

The Hebrew word ger is translated by Zorell in his Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti as “accola, advena, peregrinus”[412] therefore he is a foreigner, a pilgrim. As the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament explains, the word ger probably has etymology in the Akkadian gerù "to be hostile" and means to reside as a foreigner; ger probably has a common root with other Hebrew words meaning to assail and fear.[413] Lot was a ger (Gen. 19,9) and Abraham too (Gen. 12,10). The ger could therefore have properties (herds, male and female servants) and a house of his own, like Lot.[414]

The ger is distinguished from the nokri (foreigner) and other similar figures; in ancient Israel ger is a term that indicates people who have a position similar to the metics of Greece, subsequently the term increasingly came to indicate non-Israelite proselytes who accepted faith in the God of Israel.[415] In ancient times, more precisely, the ger was considered a countryless person and did not belong to the community with full rights.[416]

In the Old Testament, as Hobbs and Martin explain, there is no case of hospitality for the “ger” that is for the stranger: “In the Old Testament, there is no case where hospitality is extended to a stranger (ger) (Hobbs 2001 :20–21)”. [417]

As Hobbs points out, the ger was already well protected by the ancient laws of the people of Israel. The ger is not precisely a foreigner, it is not an alien to the community, that is, it is not a danger :“ The ger was already well-protected by existing ancient Israelite/Judaean laws (Exod. 22.21; 23.9; Deut. 1.16; 24.17) …. The exact nature of the ger is still a matter of considerable debate, but he is not one who is by nature an outsider to the community, that is, a threat.( …) In the classic texts of hospitality in the First Testament there are no examples of hospitality being extended to the 'stranger' or 'resident alien' (NRSV).”[418]

The ger was protected but hospitality was not extended to him, according to Hobbs.

Regarding this figure of the ger in the Bible and in the Jewish tradition, what the Jewish Encyclopedia states under the heading "proselytes" also seems interesting to me.[419]

Modern interpreters, according to this article, believe that the word ger in the Bible initially indicated a stranger (or a "client", in the technical sense of the word) resident in Palestine, who had placed himself under the protection of people ( or one of them) among whom he had taken up his abode; the post-exilic use of the same term indicates with it a conversion to the Jewish religion. However, according to the article, whatever the original implication of the Hebrew word was, it is certain that with it the biblical authors refer to proselytes, to converts to the Jewish religion although they describe them in paraphrase; in the Septuagint and New Testament the Greek equivalent, proselyte, almost invariably means conversion to Judaism, although in the Septuagint the word also implies residence in Palestine by one who had previously resided elsewhere.

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica the ger was given hospitality, in fact it states: “Biblical law specifically sanctified hospitality toward the ger (“stranger”) who was to be made particularly welcome “for you were strangers in a strange land” (Lev. 19:34 and see Ex. 12:49)”.[420]

However, the Encyclopedia Judaica does not seem to follow in its reasoning the "protocols of hospitality" like Hobbs, therefore it does not seem to me that the statements of the latter should be radically contrasted with the former, that is, the ger was given hospitality but not hospitality in the precise sense.

In another article of the Encyclopedia Judaica, signed by D. Lieber, we read that the word Ger before the exodus simply meant a foreigner, as was Abraham and others (Gen. 15,13:23; cf. Gen. 4:2; Ex. 22:14,29), with the exodus the class of the ger, i.e. the foreign resident, was determined, made up of Canaanites and immigrants, they had no land, therefore they were dependent and were in an inferior position in Israelite society, they were largely partly poor and they were allowed to scrape together in the fields according to the indications of the Biblical Law and always according to this Law there were other possibilities to help them in their need (Deut. 25,6; Lev. 17,16); they were protected in various ways by the Law. With the passage of time they were assimilated to the Israelites on a religious and social level and had to carry out some religious practices (Lev. 20,10; Ex. 5,14; Dt. XNUMX) which were not required of the nokri; some gers were treated better than others; there were, however, significant differences between the rights of the ger and those of the Israelite; in the late Second Temple period the word ger is equivalent to proselyte. [421]

The Bible refers to the ger in the passages we saw above and in which we read "You shall not harass a stranger or oppress him, because you were strangers in the land of Egypt." (Ex 22,20)
“You shall not oppress the sojourner: ye also know the life of the sojourner, because ye were sojourners in the land of Egypt.” (Ex 23,9)

In these two passages the Hebrew term translated as stranger is ger, these statements essentially concern the welcome to be offered to the ger.

According to Hobbs the cases of Judges 19 and Gen. 19 are not about ger or nokri.[422]

Therefore the man-angels who visit Abraham and then Lot would, according to Hobbs, be considered as belonging to the kinship or moral community of the host, that is, of Lot, and not of the ger.

2) The case of the “nokri”.

Another type of stranger indicated in the OT is the nokri (foreigner, foreigner).

On this figure in the Bible and in Jewish tradition I think we can usefully see what the Jewish Encyclopedia states in the Gentile voice[423] or to the voice akkum[424] under aliens[425]

According to this Encyclopedia the term nokri was another equivalent of proselyte, a convert: “Nokri” (ξένος =”stranger”) is another equivalent for “proselyte,” meaning one who, like Ruth, seeks refuge under the wings of Yhwh (Ruth II. 11-12; comp. Isa. II. 2-4, XLIV. 5; Jer. III. 17, IV. 2, XII. 16; Zeph. III. 9; I Kings VIII. 41-43; Ruth I 16).”[426]

The nokri is therefore, according to this text, another proselyte, a convert, one who, like Ruth, seeks refuge under the wings of the God of Israel. This term is translated in the Septuagint as xenos (ξένος, foreigner) (Ruth. 2,10) or other terms.

Probably in almost all of these passages where nokri are mentioned, the “converts” are assumed to be residents of Palestine. They are therefore “ger”, but circumcised.

It does not appear that the Jewish Encyclopedia's statements are accurate on this matter.

In fact, the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament explains that the root nkr is widespread in Semitic languages ​​and means foreign, foreign, hostile[427] , the meaning of this word is various:

– another person, whoever he is;

– stranger not belonging to the family;

– someone who is not of the people of Israel and as such is treated worse than the ger, indeed he is treated worse than all those with whom the Jew has contact; at the basis of the book of Ruth is the hostility of the Israelites towards foreigners clearly indicated in Ruth 2,10; the nokri were excluded from the cult and kinship system.

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica the nokri and the tsar were passing foreigners unlike the ger who was a foreign resident; the nokri maintained ties with the community of origin, some of them came as invaders (2 Sam. 22,45–46; Abd. 11). Ordinary laws did not protect them, popular traditions aimed at their defense or agreements between rulers of various peoples. [428]

The nokri, explains Hobbs, is one who can threaten the community, he is a temporary resident, a prisoner of war, whose fate is death, slavery or in rare cases, repatriation. Generally he is an invader, a seducer of women, desecrator of the temple, polluter; he is a threat to the community. He is not a ger, for the ger is permitted residence in Israel and entry into the sanctuary like other Israelites. :[429]

According to Hobbs, the Old Testament does not provide hospitality for the nokri: “The 'foreigner' (nokri) is another category of persons who would be denied hospitality (Clines 2009:274).”[430]

In the Old Testament, according to Hobbs, there are no examples of hospitality extended to the nokri. [431]

According to Hobbs, hospitality was directed only at those relatively unknown travelers who were believed to be members of a person's larger community; outsiders such as nokri and ger received no hospitality.[432]

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica the nokri was given hospitality in fact it states: “Foreign travelers, although not protected by law (Dt. 15,3; 23,21), could count on the custom of hospitality.” The nokri are precisely the subjects spoken of in Dt 15,3; 23,21pm.

It should be noted, however, that Hobbs speaks of hospitality understood in a technical sense, that is, according to the indications offered by the "hospitality protocols", so I don't think there is an absolute contrast between what the Encyclopedia Judaica says and what Hobbs states, probably the nokri he was welcomed but not exactly hosted.

3) The case of the “zhr” or tsar.

We also have the zhr which in some cases designates the foreigner, the enemy[433] and as such it certainly does not seem to receive hospitality. On this figure in the Bible and in the Jewish tradition I think we can usefully see what the Jewish Encyclopedia states under the heading "aliens"[434]

According to the Encyclopedia Judaica, as mentioned, the tsar was a foreigner passing through, he maintained ties with the community of origin, some of them came as invaders (2 Sam. 22,45–46; Abd. 11). Ordinary laws did not protect them, popular traditions or agreements between rulers of various peoples aimed at their defense. [435]

This term, according to the Great Lexicon of the Old Testament, is used in the Hebrew text of Sirach where it states: "Host a stranger, he will turn everything upside down for you and make you a stranger to your own." (Sirach 11,34); the Greek text is as follows: “ενοίκισον αλλότριον και διαστρέψει σε εν ταραχαίς, και απαλλοτριώσει σε των ιδίων σου.”  [436].

Hobbs' statements regarding the hospitality granted only to a few must certainly make us reflect carefully on a fundamental fact highlighted by the text just seen: hospitality requires prudence. In fact, there are guests who, upon entering our house, upset it and bring conflicts, sins, scandals...

 

 

d,13,6) Clarifications on hospitality in the OT to the needy: the case of Jael, praised by the Bible for having killed one of her guests.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

A particular case of "hospitality" to reflect on is certainly that of Jael who hosts Sisera, general of the army of Canaan, and then kills him (Judges 4-5). According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, as we will see, this is a true case of hospitality. In two articles this Encyclopedia speaks of the welcome given by Jael as true hospitality.

VH Matthews, an exegete, in an interesting article, points out that in the episode of Sisera and Jael various aspects of the hospitality ritual are broken.[437]

Some commentators note in Jael a powerful and erotic seduction of Sisera, some ancient sources have characterized Jael's acts as erotic others have claimed that Sisera intended to take her as a prisoner and take her to his home; Whether one criticizes or defends Jael's "hospitality/inhospitality" or reads the erotic sexuality into the relationship between Jael and Sisera inside his tent, it is clear that Jael emerges as a tool used by God. to fulfill the prophecy fulfilled by Him.[438]

Jael certainly hosted, welcomed into the house, fed and then killed Sisera who was alone, needy, defenceless, fleeing from the Israelites after being defeated by them and asking to be hidden.

I remember that the PCB stated: "the story concerning the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gibeah) illustrates a sin which consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the stranger, behavior considered very serious and therefore worthy of being sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment.”(n.188)

On the basis of these statements Jael should have been terribly punished by God, but, according to Scripture, she is not only not punished but is praised by the Bible as God's instrument for the destruction of the enemies of his people. Let's see better: Sisera was the general of the army of Jabin, king of Canaan, and, after being defeated by the Israelites, "... Sisera had fled on foot towards Jael's tent... Jael went out to meet Sisera and said to him: "Stop , my lord, stop by me: do not be afraid." He came to her in her tent and she hid him with a blanket. … She opened the milk skin, gave him to drink and then covered him again. ... Then Jael... she took a tent peg, grabbed the hammer, came slowly next to him and drove the peg into his temple, until it penetrated the ground. He was sound asleep and exhausted; so he died… So God humbled Jabin, king of Canaan, before the Israelites that day.” (Jdc. 4,15 ff.)

Here is the Bible's praise of Jael:

“Blessed be Jael among women,

... blessed among the women of the tent!

Water he asked, milk she gave,

in a prince's cup he offered cream.

She extended a hand to the picket line

and the right hand to a blacksmith's hammer,

and struck Sisera, struck him on the head,

it shattered, it pierced the temple.

At her feet he writhed, fell, lay;

at her feet he writhed and fell;

where he writhed, there he fell finished.” (Judges 5)

In Bereshit Rabba the author asks why Jael was blessed more than Sarah and other women of antiquity and the answer is the following: “They generated and preserved the world. And what good did it do them? If it weren't for her, for Jael, they would all be destroyed. R. Shemuel b. Nahman said: More than the matriarchs who created and preserved the world. And what did it benefit them? If it hadn't been for her, they would all have been destroyed."[439]

The Jewish Encyclopedia speaks of Jael's deed in these terms: The poetic account of Jael's deed although it does not provide all the details of the prose account (Judges 4) is not at all in conflict with it but is complementary. Jael's act, the article continues, praised in Judges 5, 24, is contrary to modern ideas of law and the obligations of hospitality now recognized in the East; Jael was a Kenite, who had close kinship with Israel, and the story contains much precedent to justify a breach of faith in such circumstances; though barbaric to modern sentiment, her act fell short of the morality of her day.[440]

The Encyclopedia itself adds: in one case, that of Jael and Sisera recounted in Judges 4 and 5, a breakdown in the principle of hospitality is narrated and praised in the Bible and this is probably due to the strong contrast between the oppressed Israelites and their neighbors Canaanites, otherwise such a transgression would never have been tolerated.[441]

In the Biblical Dictionary we read: “Jael belonged to a clan related to Moses (Judg. 1, 16; 4, 11) and therefore to the Israelites (cf. I Sam 15, 6); his intervention against Sisera is explained by the principle of solidarity which imposes the duty on relative tribes to intervene against the enemy in war (cf. Iudc. 8, 5-9. 15 sc. 21; I Sam.14; 21 ; 29). Therefore the praises of Deborah (Judg. 5, 24-27), while the Israelite city of Meroz (= K. Marus, close to Hasor) is cursed as it did not move to destroy the surviving Canaanites. This duty, derived from solidarity, surpasses even that of hospitality.”[442]

If Spadafora is right we can affirm that the duty of solidarity is greater than that of hospitality so that the guest can be killed as an enemy of the host's relatives; therefore the host, in this case, must not protect but rather kill the guest.

Y. Amit highlights Jael's hospitality (p. 97-8) and the very precise plan that she had concocted to kill Sisera (p. 98), perhaps even with the approval of her husband, Heber, and to make known this murder to Barach who was pursuing Sisera.[443]Probably Heber and Jael, knowing how the battle had gone and knowing about Barach's pursuit of Sisera, had decided in advance how to behave in order to deal with the difficult situation that was emerging for their family, being friends of Jabin, the leader of Sisera, but also having parental ties with the Jews.

In an article by the Jewish scholar Tikva Frymer-Kensky we read: Jael thus fulfills Deborah's prophecy, but confounds other expectations. Whatever her motivations, the story sees her action as carrying out God's will. [444] God then uses Jael to kill Sisera as Deborah prophesied.

In conclusion, the Jael cycle certainly does not want to teach that "hospitality" and the obligations connected to it were to be extended always and to all the needy insurmountably for the Old Testament, this cycle in fact states that the host can kill the guest if he is the enemy of the host's relatives and in any case if he is the enemy of the people of God.

More generally, the Jael cycle affirms what we have already said: according to the Bible we are not always required to give hospitality to needy strangers.

The words of the PCB whereby: "the story concerning the city of Sodom (as well as that of Gibeah) illustrates a sin which consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior considered very serious and therefore worthy of being sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n.188), statements appear not in line with this which the Bible precisely teaches, for such statements Jael was terribly condemned, and instead God, precisely through the Holy Scripture, praises her.

 

 

d,13,7) Clarifications on the sin of Sodom regarding hospitality.

 

 

The Bible presents Sodom as a perverse city par excellence so it is not strange that it lacked hospitality, it was proud and did not care about poor people (Ezek. 16) so its hospitality could not have been perfect but rather it was very lacking.

Let us outline more precisely Sodom's shortcomings regarding hospitality.

Let us first ask ourselves: were the sodomites required to recognize the two angels sent to them?

As angels of God they had to be welcomed, hosted, obeyed and venerated; but the two man-angels presented themselves simply as men and not as angels, therefore it does not seem to me that there was a specific obligation on the part of the sodomites to recognize them, in the book of Tobit Tobias himself and his son do not recognize the angel Raphael but this it is not considered as a sin, instead the sodomites had to recognize and implement the Law of God that everyone could understand and which they did not practice.

Let's ask ourselves again: were the two angel men needy?

From the text it is not clear that they were needy, hungry or thirsty, they were simply two strangers (Wisdom 19,13) who had arrived in Sodom, but it was probably very dangerous to stay out at night in Sodom, given the wickedness and unbridled lust of the its inhabitants; the sodomites probably had to host them to protect them.

Based on what we have said so far, were the sodomites obliged to give hospitality to the two man-angels?

I believe so because they had to prevent them from being exposed to nocturnal dangers, or at least they had to prepare a defense for them from such dangers.

Lot hosts them as Abraham had hosted them, but why does he do it?

Do you recognize them as distant relatives? Do you think there is a rule that requires this?

The answer that seems most interesting and fitting is that Lot wanted to remove them from the public square, knowing how sodomites acted; according to Skinner, Lot pushed the two men-angels to go to his house to remove them from the square and from the danger of staying out at night in Sodom.[445] Lot therefore acts, probably, to save the two strangers from the sexual perversion and wickedness of the sodomites.

Probably the wickedness and lust of the sodomites led them not to give welcome and protection to foreigners in their homes so that they could then more easily unite sexually with them while they were camped in the square.

Lot meets the two angel men and pushes them to go to his house, the angels first refuse hospitality then accept it, Lot welcomes them and hosts them, the sodomites do not oppose therefore they seem to approve, at the moment, but then we know how she's gone.

The fact that the two angels first refuse and then accept reminds us that welcome and hospitality created duties for the guests towards the host; the guest could not like these duties and not accept the hospitality, Abraham, for example, is keen to point out that he presents himself not as a guest, Hobbs writes: Abraham stayed in Canaan with little contact with the locals; where he has contact involving gift giving (Gen. 14 and 23), he makes it clear that he will not be indebted to his “guests,” i.e. he refuses hospitality.[446]

However, it seems to me that Scripture clearly highlights the sin committed by the sodomites in wanting to unjustly violate Lot's hospitality.

The sin of sodomites in this area of ​​hospitality, stated by Sap. 19, 13-17 and indicated as a hostile welcome, must be seen above all, therefore, in the fact that, under the pressure of lust and in order to implement an abominable homosexual union with the two guests, the sodomites unjustly trampled on Lot's right to protection of his guests, that is, they unjustly trampled on the common laws regarding hospitality.

Alongside this, as mentioned, we must probably include the sin of failure to welcome and protect the two guests at night.

The sin of the hostile welcome given to the two guests by Sodom is added and connected to the impure sin against nature desired by the sodomites towards the two guests, and is punished in particular with the penalty of blindness, as we saw above (Wisdom. 19).

Returning to what we said above regarding this punishment, I underline that with it, probably, God punished with blindness those who had allowed themselves to be blinded by the desire for impure sin to the point of leaving the two foreigners without night protection and violating the sacred hospitality offered by Lot to the two man-angels, in this sense it is a punishment of retaliation.

The sin regarding Sodom's hospitality is evidently secondary to the sin of lust, so the New Testament does not speak of it clearly.

 

 

d,13,8) The sin of Sodom regarding hospitality on the basis of current Catholic doctrine.

 

 

Hospitality is part of charity towards others and must be implemented well, with prudence, because it can also cause great evils, contrary to the will of God; Jesus invites us to be prudent like serpents and candid like doves (Mt. 10,16). As explained by S. Thomas speaking more generally about charity which includes hospitality: "... since the love of charity extends to everyone, charity must also extend to everyone, albeit according to times and places: in fact all virtuous actions must be limited according to the circumstances." The love of charity extends to all, must extend to all, and also charity and therefore hospitality must be extended to all but according to times and places: in fact all virtuous actions must be limited according to circumstances. Charity and beneficence and therefore hospitality must be extended to everyone, even to sinners but supporting their nature and not their guilt (see IIª-IIae q. 31 a. 2 ad 2) and in due measure (see IIª- IIae q. 31 a. 2 ad 3) Prudence is the "recta ratio agibilium"[447], that is, the virtue that teaches the right rule of what must be done; Aristotle's statement must be clarified in the sense that prudence can be acquired (imperfect) or infused (perfect), infused and perfect prudence presupposes faith and is informed by charity (I-II q.65 a.2) prudence perfect or infused advises, judges and rightly commands things in order for the purpose of all life, only this is truly and fully prudence and it cannot be in sinners but is only in those who have grace and charity (II-II q .47 to.13). Under the guidance of this prudence, man is required to see how to implement charity in his life in relation to hospitality towards people in need.

The basic rules in this regard can be drawn from what the moralists[448] they say about the giving of alms:

1) the command to give corporal alms is established by divine law and natural law, the obligation linked to this command is in itself serious;

2) the obligation to give alms arises from two elements:

a) the fact that the donor has the moral capacity or the superfluity to give alms;

b) the fact that there is real need on the part of the poor person.

Regarding the donor, it should be noted that there are three types of assets that a person can possess:

a,1) goods necessary for life;

a,2) goods necessary to maintain one's status;

a,3) superfluous goods.

Regarding the situation of the poor, it is necessary to consider three fundamental situations in which a person may find himself in relation to the obligation to give alms:

b,1) extreme necessity;

b,2) serious need;

b,3) common necessity. [449]

So…

1) In case of extreme need of the poor person it is not necessary to give what is necessary for one's life unless the poor person is a person of particular importance for the community, there is instead a serious obligation to give what is superfluous for one's life and what is necessary for one's state to remove this necessity, even if this is extremely difficult, unless this is extremely difficult and requires extraordinary means. [450] Transposing these data into the context of hospitality we can say that: in case of extreme need of the poor person it is not necessary to provide hospitality if it deprives us of the necessities for our life unless the poor person is a person of particular importance for the community, there is instead a serious obligation to give hospitality even if it deprives us of what is superfluous for our life and of what is necessary for our state to remove this need of the indigent, even if this proves greatly difficult, unless this is extremely difficult and requires extraordinary means.

2) In case of grave necessity there is the grave obligation to give what is superfluous for the state as it is necessary to remove this grave necessity, as B. Merkelbach explains: the order of charity postulates that with slight difficulty we free our neighbor from a great difficulty, and postulates that with great difficulty we free the community from a great necessity. [451]

Transposing these data into the field of hospitality we can say that: in case of serious need of the indigent there is a serious obligation to offer hospitality even if it deprives us of what is superfluous for our state as it is necessary to remove this serious need of the poor, as B. Merkelbach explains: the order of charity postulates that with slight difficulty we free our neighbor from a great difficulty, and postulates that with great difficulty we free the community from a great necessity.

3) In case of common necessity there is the obligation to give some things superfluous for one's own state sometimes to some poor person.[452]

Transposing these data into the field of hospitality we can say that: in case of common necessity there is the obligation to give some things superfluous for one's own state sometimes to some poor person, it does not seem that hospitality is obligatory, in this case .

The love of charity, therefore, extends to everyone, charity must also extend to everyone, albeit according to times and places: in fact all virtuous actions must be limited according to circumstances.

Hospitality must be done with holy charity and therefore with holy prudence if we want it to be truly a virtuous action.

It is necessary to always receive and welcome God's visit through his messengers, as Abraham and Lot did (Gen. 18 and 19) but it is necessary to be prudent in hosting men.

Going to examine the case of Sodom more directly, I think I must say that the situation of the two foreigners was of great danger and this is why Lot intervened to help them, given the wickedness of the sodomites it was very dangerous to spend the night in the square. The two foreigners were in extreme or serious need and therefore had to be welcomed, there was an obligation, disregarded by the sodomites but honored by Lot.

When Lot welcomed the two guests the Sodomites attempted to violate the hospitality offered by Lot.

Sodom's sin regarding hospitality is therefore probably at least twofold: failure to protect the two guests and unjust violation of the hospitality offered to them.

Probably both violations can be traced back to the lust of the sodomites who wanted to keep the two foreigners in the square to be able to more easily unite with them sexually and then wanted to violate Lot's hospitality to abuse the two guests.

God enlighten us better and better.

 

 

d,14) Conclusive clarifications on the sin of Sodom

 

 

We have seen so far how the sin of Sodom is not a single sin but a set of sins which took place over a considerable period of time (see Gen. 13.18.19) and which greatly embittered the soul of Lot, the spectator of the abominations of Sodom (2 Pt. 2,6-10), we have seen how this set consists in particular of:

1) unnatural lust (Gen. 19,5; Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10);

2) pride and then gluttony and idleness (see Ezek. 16,49-50; Sir. 16,9);

4) lack of protection of the two foreigners and lack of respect for Lot's welcome towards the two men, who were indeed messengers of God (Gen. 19,9-10);

5) attempted sexual violence (Gen. 19, 9-10).

Professor Healy stated: “In the eyes of the biblical narrator, the sin of Sodom consists neither in hostility to foreigners alone nor in sexual immorality alone. Rather, it consists of a depraved mélange of homosexual sex, violence toward strangers, and contempt for the messengers of the Lord.” [453]

That is, the sin of Sodom consists of a depraved mixture of homosexual sex, violence toward foreigners, and contempt toward God's messengers.

However, in this mixture, based on the data at our disposal, the impure sin against nature has a singular preeminence (Gen. 19,5; Jude 5-7; 2 Pet. 2,6-10); Sodom and the cities close to it were probably immersed in this sin for a long time and did not notice the divine signs that God had sent them for them to convert.

Finally God sent two angels in the form of men to judge those men but also, probably, to offer Sodom and the cities near it one last chance; the sodomites, however, not only did not recognize them as God's messengers but wanted to join them carnally and used violence to get what they wanted.

As said above, it does not appear that the sodomites were obliged to recognize the two foreigners as the messengers of God; they were obliged to recognize and implement the Law of God, not to recognize the two angels who presented themselves as simple men and gave no signs of their special mission.

The Ninevites recognized Jonah as a prophet who, however, presented himself to them bringing the Word of the Lord, they listened to his words, they converted and God forgave them; the sodomites did not convert but in their moral brutalization they came to want to rape two men, who in reality were messengers of God.

The coming of God's two messengers to Sodom appears as a decisive but also extremely revealing moment for Sodom; the coming of the angels is the supreme moment of judgment for Sodom, in which who it is is fully revealed. The words of God with which he states: “I want to go down to see if they really have done all the evil of which the cry has reached me; I want to know!” (Gen. 18) indicate that God wants to definitively demonstrate what Sodom really is and chap. 19 of Genesis demonstrates this clearly: it is a city blinded and brutalized by sin, in particular by impure sin against nature, it is a city inhabited by "sons of Satan", who no longer deserve to live, who can no longer expect mercy and who therefore she is horribly punished by God.

Sodomites appear as children of Satan, guided by the spirit of evil, who, like their "father", must be justly and terribly punished; the punishment that God imposes on them is precisely, in particular, the punishment of fire and brimstone, which appears in various passages of the Bible as the supreme punishment, which is reserved for Satan and the damned (Rev. 19,20; 20,10 ,21,8; XNUMX).

 

 

d,15) Conclusion on the "cycle of Sodom" (Gen. 13-19) and on the statements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission regarding this text.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

The examination carried out leads us to say that the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, according to which the text of Genesis 19: "does not intend to present the image of an entire city ​​dominated by uncontainable desires of a homosexual nature; rather, what is denounced is the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the stranger with respect, and therefore seeks to humiliate him, forcibly forcing him to undergo shameful treatment of submission.” (n. 187) Nor does it correspond to biblical teaching examined in depth and in its unity, the statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission according to which the sin of Sodom and the cities close to it: "... consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior judged very serious and worthy therefore to be sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n. 188)

The passages that the PCB takes to defend its theses do not support them and in some cases refute them.

The article by Professor Healy, an American Catholic exegete, very calmly and discreetly highlights how the PCB has practically "manipulated" the biblical data: exaggerating some aspects and omitting what concerns sexuality... and therefore homosexuality.  [454]

Peterson had already noted in 2016 that the tactic to distort biblical statements by those who wanted to erase the sexual dimension from the sin of Sodom was to neglect or minimize some biblical data[455]; the PCB followed precisely this tactic, as seen.

In the light of the full Revelation that found its fulfillment in the life, teaching and above all in the death and resurrection of Jesus and in the light of the full Truth that Jesus gave us, the authors of the New Testament, in particular Peter and Jude, have I reread the cycle of Sodom, highlighting in particular lust, especially that against nature, as the main cause of the horrendous punishment indicated in Gen. 19, as the PCB itself says in n. 186. The reading made by Peter and Judas of the events in Sodom and the cities close to it follows, under divine inspiration, a biblical and traditional Jewish line and is essentially based on Genesis 19.

The PCB has practically set aside these and other biblical and Tradition texts that speak of Sodom as a pleasure-loving city immersed in lust, especially unnatural lust, and has denied, contrary to what the Bible states, the total perversion of the sodomites, also highlighted by Professor Healy[456]; in doing so, the PCB removed the very severe divine punishment of Gen. 19 from homosexual activity and made its legitimation less difficult or easier, offering clear assistance to the action that the Pope and some of his collaborators are carrying out regarding this legitimation.

In concluding this paragraph, I cannot help but notice how the radical distortion in the interpretation of Gen. 19 by the PCB, the body that operates in the service of Pope Francis, is similar to the radical distortion of reality that can be seen in the words of Pope Francis believes that the cause of sexual abuse of minors by priests is clericalism [457]. They are two radical and absurd distortions of the reality of facts and texts which appear significantly united by the concealment of the sexual dimension, especially homosexual, in relation to the perversion of Catholic sexual morality and in particular in relation to the legitimation of homosexual activity.

God intervene.

 

 

e) Significant comments on the document which highlight that it "opens" to the revision of Catholic doctrine on homosexuality.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

They have noticed that the Pontifical Biblical Commission, with the document that I am examining and criticizing, has opened the doors to a revision of Catholic doctrine on homosexual practice and has therefore removed from this practice both the certain and clear divine condemnation and the divine punishment. various commentators, Adista wrote: “The Pontifical Biblical Commission has published a systematic study on the anthropological vision of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation – What is man? … for the types of the Vatican Publishing House – which calls into question the traditional vision of homosexuality in the Church.”[458]

Adista even believes that the PCB, while not making them its own, presents as authoritative the statements of some who disagree with the anthropological approach of the Sacred Scripture and who believe that this approach is a reflection of an archaic mentality belonging to a certain historical period: "Of course , the text does not take this point of view as its own, but presents it as authoritative and for this reason admits (and it is a relevant fact) that now faithful, theologians and biblical scholars consider LGBT unions as legitimate as heterosexual ones."

According to Adista, therefore: the Pontifical Biblical Commission calls into question the traditional vision of homosexuality in the Church and presents as authoritative the statements of some who disagree with the anthropological approach and thus admits that faithful, theologians and biblical scholars now consider LGBT unions legitimate like heterosexual ones.

Adista's comment mostly tells the truth, unfortunately. In the text of the PCB, however, it does not seem to me that there is the admission that Adista presents. It is not the PCB that admits that faithful, theologians and biblical scholars now consider LGBT unions as legitimate as heterosexual ones, it is the Pope who is opening, in various ways, the doors to the legitimization of homosexual acts and homosexual unions with relative homosexual blessing .

God intervene!

Speaking about this document p. Martin SJ states, significantly: “New Vatican study on Bible looks at, among other topics, Sodom (Gen 19) and Gibeah (Judges 19). In both cases, says the study, what is condemned is not “a sexual transgression,” but pride and aggression toward a stranger or strangers needing assistance.”[459] Therefore the new study of the Pontifical Biblical Commission examining the cases of Sodom (Gen. 19) and Gibeah (Jdc 19) says that what is condemned in them is not sexual aggression but aggression towards a foreigner etc.. P. In this regard, Martin cites an article that seems very significant to me, written by Cindy Wooden, in which it is underlined that only a few biblical texts speak of homosexual acts, that in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 what is condemned is not "a sexual transgression" , that in the OT only in Leviticus there are prohibitions regarding the exercise of sexuality and among these there is the prohibition of homosexual acts but these rules aim to "safeguard and promote an exercise of sexuality open to procreation" and furthermore the text indicates that Christians must preserve "the values ​​that the sacred text intends to promote, avoiding the literal repetition of what bears traces of the culture of the time".[460]

An article which, as can be seen, notes in the document in question a great openness to practiced homosexuality, which no longer appears radically condemned by the Church.

God intervene!

Father Gerald Murray understood very well the damage that this document produces to sound doctrine and souls, therefore he stated regarding this text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: “In this volume the topic of the Bible and homosexuality is treated, but in a corrosive way that is destructive of the truths taught by the Church concerning the inherent immorality of homosexual acts. … Since when is it the practice of the institution, founded by Pope Leo XIII to promote knowledge of the true meaning of the Sacred Scriptures, to cite widespread and serious errors without clearly condemning them? Should erroneous notions that would attempt to use the Bible to justify “homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being” be offered to the faithful for a thoughtful consideration of their possible legitimacy? Should not such offensive impostures be refuted and anathematized?”[461]

Murray essentially says that the text in question deals with the issue of homosexuality in a way that corrodes the sound doctrine that homosexual acts are intrinsically immoral. As I also said above p. Murray points out that the document does not condemn theses that are radically contrary to sound doctrine on homosexuality. The American priest then concluded by saying that: in the face of this serious damage to the mission of the Church, we must reaffirm our faith in the immutable truths of the Faith, rejecting all attempts to weaken and destroy what God has revealed and the Church has always taught .

Steve Skojec's article seems very interesting to me.[462] who first of all reviews the texts of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and then develops his own analysis in which he notes that in the part relating to homosexuality the thesis radically contrary to the sound doctrine on homosexuality is not condemned; he also takes up the analysis made by Diane Montagna on Lifesite news which states that the document does not reaffirm sound doctrine and tends to shift Catholic doctrine towards LGBT positions.

Skojec notes that it was Pope Francis who commissioned this study, the American journalist very expertly places this text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission within the line followed by Pope Francis during his Pontificate, a line which is of "opening" towards legitimation of homosexual acts and towards those who carry forward the homosexual agenda or homosexual lifestyle, among whom Skojec cites Pena Parra, Coccopalmerio, Forte, the most radical German Bishops, p. J. Martin and other prelates.

Then Skojec concludes by stating: “… the fact that homosexuality is discussed in a 11124 document without clear condemnation and with a “marketplace of ideas” approach offering equal time to opposing views is sufficiently concerning in and of itself.” that is, the fact that the Pontifical Biblical Commission document does not clearly condemn homosexual practice and maintains a “marketplace of ideas” approach to this issue that offers equal space to opposing opinions is sufficiently worrying in and of itself.[463]

Some experts in biblical matters have also commented on the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, among them I underline that M. Healy states that this text, contrary to the statements of certain press, does not intend to touch Catholic doctrine[464]. Healy states precisely: “This article assesses that claim by carefully examining the relevant sections of the document in the perspective of its wider reflections on biblical anthropology and on the biblical vision of the institution of marriage. While the document situates the biblical texts concerning homosexuality within their literary and cultural contexts and emphasizes the pastoral sensitivity with which this topic must be approached, it does not promote a revision or reversal of the Church's teaching on sexual morality.”, in summary the professor states: The PCB text does not advocate a revision or reversal of the Church's teaching on sexual morality.

Unfortunately, the text of the PCB states the opposite, in fact in the conclusion when speaking about the evaluation of homosexuality it does not forcefully reiterate the magisterial statements already made and uses some verbs in the future tense to make it clear that the evaluation has yet to be carried out; I then underline that Pope Francis is very determined in his work of deformation and perversion of Christian doctrine and the Pontifical Biblical Commission is a body at the service of the Pontiff, therefore it is evident, for those who have understood who this Pope really is and how he works, that a this text was supposed to support the Pope's action and it is evident that this document discreetly opened the doors to the revision of the doctrine on homosexuality. Precisely this discretion probably deceived Professor Healy.

God intervene!

 

 

f) Some reflections on the statements of Msgr. Morandi and on an article in Avvenire regarding the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

 

f,1) The words of Msgr. Morandi regarding the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

I was happy that the then Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated, shortly after the release of the PCB text, that the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission we are talking about does not open to gay unions and that he said in particular : “… some say that a new and more adequate understanding of the human person would impose a radical reservation on the exclusive valorization of heterosexual union, in favor of a similar acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual unions as a legitimate and worthy expression of the human being . … This is an ideological and partial approach to anthropology.”[465] Unfortunately, however, as we have seen, these words cannot erase what the document states nor many other very clear indications of openness to the legitimization of homosexuality, furthermore these words (of Monsignor Morandi) are neither from the Pope nor from Cardinal Ladaria, President of the Commission.

Mons. Morandi has no role within the Pontifical Biblical Commission so his words really have very limited value and indeed risk being "smoke in the eyes" of many to prevent people from understanding well and being strongly opposed more generally to the "paradigm change" project and more particularly to the openness regarding practiced homosexuality.

That an "openness" towards the legitimization of homosexual acts and towards homosexual unions as well as towards blessings for homosexual couples is taking place during this Pontificate is evident to all those who examine the evidence I bring in this volume; and it is also evident that the PCB document discreetly follows this line by practically speaking of a new possible evaluation of homosexual activity and therefore putting aside the absolute condemnation for such activity established by Tradition.

Monsignor Morandi seems to me to have been sincere in speaking and saying what he thinks and therefore in reiterating sound doctrine, but things are not as he said.

In 2022 this prelate was removed from the important role of Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was sent to be a Bishop in Reggio Emilia[466]; an interesting article reported the following in this regard: “In fact, the Pope has removed the CDF official to whom the 2021 document had been attributed” regarding the ban on blessings of homosexual couples. “ Archbishop Giacomo Morandi has been named bishop of the Italian diocese of Reggio Emilia-Guastalla, in what has been described as a move to remove him from the halls of Vatican power. Morandi was the secretary of the CDF, therefore the number two of the high Vatican congregation. The Pope's gesture has been described on several occasions as a deliberate sign of his disappointment with the document. In April 2022, Sister Jeannine Gramick – the repeatedly convicted co-founder of the dissident LGBT group New Ways Ministry – claimed that CDF officials had been removed because Pope Francis had approved the document “without having full knowledge”. “The way it undoes it [the 2021 document] is to remove the person who did the harm and put in people who won't do harm in the future,” she said. “It's all very subtle.” In recent weeks, papal confidant Juan-Carlos Cruz, an openly gay man, has echoed this statement and said Pope Francis fired the officials responsible for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith document; according to Cruz, the Pope addressed these words to him: "You must trust me that the people who wrote that letter are no longer part of the CDF."[467]

I have the impression that even the comment made regarding the PCB document by Msgr. Morandi had its importance in relation to his removal from the Congregation (now Dicastery) for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Pope is in fact carrying forward the subversion of sound doctrine also with regard to homosexual acts and similar issues and obviously does not want obstacles in his action; more generally we have seen that the collaborators of the Pontiff who allow themselves to tell the inconvenient Truth are as soon as possible removed and downgraded (think, among others, of Cardinals Müller and Burke, think of the famous theologian Monsignor Melina) instead of those who, just as Cardinal Marx or Cardinal Hollerich or the Belgian Bishops spread statements seriously contrary to sound doctrine (in the line of "paradigm change"), they remain firmly in their positions; therefore it would not be strange that Msgr. Morandi had paid for his words and his actions in favor of sound doctrine with his removal from the Congregation of which he was Secretary.

God intervene!

 

 

f,2) A significant article by L. Moia.

 

 

f,2,1) L. Moia's statements.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

Significantly, on the very same day that Msgr.'s interview was published. Morandi, an important article by L. Moia was also published in Avvenire, the CEI newspaper[468] regarding the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission; the article reports the words of p. Bovati SJ, a famous Catholic biblical scholar who is secretary of the same Commission. We already know L. Moia and his shocking statements in his interviews with d. Guenzi and d. Nails, in the Bishops' newspaper, which we saw above and which open the doors to the legitimacy of homosexual acts. Obviously the article in question, being in the newspaper of the Italian Bishops, is in a particular way the echo of the will and desires of the Pope and the Bishops... and therefore it seems extremely important to me...

First of all, the title of Moia's article underlines that the biblical scholars of the Commission have not made any confusion about divorce and in the subtitle the author explains that the text investigates the history of salvation and does not give pastoral indications.

Moia reports the words of Fr. Bovati according to whom: "you have misunderstood those who have read sensational developments on marital issues or homosexuality in our study"...

The article particularly underlines the importance of this document as an "authoritative basis for the developments of philosophical and theological disciplines", in the words of Cardinal Luis Ladaria Ferrer who is the president of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

L. Moia reports some parts in bold, obviously underlining their importance, and in one of them we read: "The word "development" connected to the doctrine of the Church on issues such as forms of marriage, divorce, homosexuality will make the supporters' mouths twist of a static and immutable doctrine of time.” The Avvenire journalist obviously makes it clear that development is possible and attacks the advocates of the static and immutable doctrine...

Moia continues by taking up a text on the Pontifical Biblical Commission which states that it is made up of experts in the biblical field who stand out: "for science, prudence and Catholic feeling towards the ecclesiastical magisterium" and which specifies that this Commission is an authoritative "consultative body connected to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith"

The journalist in question therefore underlines that the Word of God is embodied in history and does not offer prefabricated solutions but poses problems.

Moia continues by underlining that on various issues such as the case of Sodom: "... the careful reading of the Scriptures opens the way to scenarios that are anything but obvious.", he then takes up the text according to which the biblical story relating to Sodom: "does not intend present the image of an entire city dominated by uncontainable desires of a homosexual nature”.

Moia then states that, although, according to the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the sin of Sodom was not a sin of lust, this does not mean that homosexuality in the Bible is considered a behavior to be tolerated or welcomed, ethical judgments, however, says Moia, they must be purified from the cultural traits of the time, allowing pastoral care to intervene to do good towards men; from all this emerges "an invitation to hope in the welcoming mercy of God who always surprises us".

Please note: L. Moia does not speak of a biblical doctrine that absolutely condemns homosexual acts, he does not speak of the unanimous condemnation of the entire Tradition for such acts, but he speaks, like the PCB, of purifying ethical judgments from the cultural traits of the time and speaks of "hope in the welcoming mercy of God which always surprises us".

Inserted into the context of the current situation are clearly statements which present the non-absoluteness of the ban on homosexual acts and which open the doors to a revision of Catholic doctrine on such acts; more deeply they enter into the "river" of interventions which under this pontificate are , in various ways, leading towards the legitimization of homosexual acts.

The openness of the Pope and others with him to practiced homosexuality are therefore now biblically possible, according to this document and this article ... Obviously all this is done with "discretion" ... and with the appropriate phrases ... in fact Moia says: "It is forbidden to trivialize, but it is also forbidden to draw simplistic conclusions from these reflections..."

God intervene!

 

 

f,2,2) My response to L. Moia and p. Bovati.

 

 

Come Holy Spirit, send us from Heaven a ray of your Light.

I say first of all that, contrary to the statements of L. Moia, the PCB document gives pastoral indications because it does not clearly state what God says through the Bible, it removes the absolute divine condemnation from certain human acts and therefore opens the doors to what God In reality, it condemns.

It should be noted that the Pontifical Biblical Commission has as its "head" Cardinal Ladaria who in turn has the Pope as "head". The openings of the PCB therefore have the protection and support of the Pope behind them and are of extreme gravity also in the field pastoral because it is evident that they represent a signal of "openness" and "change" even in the pastoral field on issues of extreme importance for the salvation of souls.

The statements that the document makes fit well into the "paradigm shift", that is, into the subversion of sound doctrine, which the Pope with his collaborators has been working on for some time, as seen; the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission with its statements gives significant assistance to this "change" and this subversion; in some cases, contrary to what Fr. says. Bovati, the statements in the document are real "sensational turning points", as we have seen above; obviously, according to the well-known strategy of Pope Francis and many of his collaborators, these "turning points" were presented in an extremely discreet way and covering them with statements that exclude doctrinal changes, in fact Fr. Bovati denies that a radical change (“a radical turning point”) has been perpetrated in this document.

Particularly significant are the statements of L. Moia with which he talks about development on issues such as marital forms, divorce, homosexuality and attacks the supporters of the static and immutable doctrine...

I remind the journalist that already s. Paul spoke of the condemnation that weighs on those who spread a Gospel different from the one announced by the Apostles: “I marvel that you are moving so quickly from him who called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who trouble you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, announce to you a gospel different from the one we have announced to you, let him be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema!” (Galatians 1, 6ff) The sound doctrine is very clearly and immutably outlined on various issues and precisely on them it cannot be changed.

In this line s. Vincent of Lerins said regarding the development of Catholic doctrine: “Someone may perhaps ask: will there never be any progress of religion in the Church of Christ? It will certainly be there and also very large. … However, we must be careful that this is a true progress of faith and not a change. True progress comes through internal development. Change, however, occurs when one doctrine transforms into another. It is therefore necessary that, as times progress, the understanding, science and wisdom... of the whole Church grow and progress as much as possible. However, the genre of the doctrine, the doctrine itself, its meaning and its content must always remain the same. … Even the dogma of the Christian religion must follow these laws. It progresses, consolidating over the years, developing over time, deepening with age. However, it must always remain absolutely intact and unaltered. …. Indeed, it is right and completely logical to exclude any contradiction between before and after." [469]

The statements of this great father of the Church were taken up by Pius IX in "Ineffabilis Deus"[470] and by the “Dei Filius” of the First Vatican Council which stated: “The doctrine of faith that God revealed is not proposed to human minds as a philosophical invention to be perfected, but has been delivered to the Bride of Christ as a divine deposit for her to faithfully guard and teach it with infallible teaching. Therefore that meaning of the sacred dogmas that Holy Mother Church has declared must be perpetually approved, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or appearance of a more complete intelligence. Let the intelligence and wisdom, both of the centuries and of men, as well as of the whole Church, grow and progress vigorously throughout the ages and centuries, but only in its own sector, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., n. 28].”[471] I underline: "Let the intelligence and wisdom, both of the centuries and of men, as well as of the whole Church, grow and progress vigorously throughout the ages and centuries, but only in their own sector, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning, in the same statement.”

The problem is not the true development, but the false development of Catholic doctrine which is actually a change and subversion of the same; this false development is precisely what Pope Francis is carrying out with the support of several of his collaborators.

The true and correct development of Catholic doctrine remains firm on the immutable statements of their Truth that Catholic doctrine contains.

Not everything in Catholic doctrine is immutable but there are immutable and absolute truths. And to say otherwise, as Moia seems to do, is simply heretical.

In this line, stating that the Word of God does not offer "prefabricated" solutions, as Moia says, is false because what the Bible reveals is the Unique and Immutable divine Truth, eternally "prefabricated", which establishes for us some immutable Truths to be to believe and therefore to be welcomed.

I would add that the words of the article supporting what the PCB says about the “Sodom cycle” defend statements that are in conflict:

1) with what biblical texts clearly state that the PCB incredibly set aside:

2) with what various texts of Tradition and with them many exegetes affirm.

I would also like to point out that significantly throughout the article, as in the text on homosexuality of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Tradition is never spoken of in the truly Catholic sense, "tradition" is only spoken of once with these words: "A text therefore which ... also clears away some clichés consolidated in our tradition.” ... yet the Bible, as seen, refers to Tradition and is intimately united with it.

Benedict XVI stated: “… there is an inseparable unity between Sacred Scripture and Tradition…: «… Therefore both must be accepted and venerated with an equal feeling of piety and reverence» (Dei Verbum, 9). As we know, this word “pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia” was created by Saint Basil… It expresses precisely this inter-penetration between Scripture and Tradition. Only the ecclesial context allows Sacred Scripture to be understood as the authentic Word of God..."[472]

Dei Verbum states along these lines: "It is therefore clear that sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the magisterium of the Church, by God's most wise disposition, are so connected and joined together that none of these realities exists without the others, and all together, each in their own way, under the action of a single Holy Spirit, they contribute effectively to the salvation of souls. ”[473]

I repeat: "... sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the magisterium of the Church, by God's most wise disposition, are so connected and joined together that none of these realities exists without the others, and all together, each in its own way, under the action of a single Holy Spirit, contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

In an important speech to the members of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Benedict XVI, taking up what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in numbers 112 ff. , stated that there are three valid criteria for an interpretation of Scripture in conformity with the Holy Spirit who is its main Author: “First of all, it is necessary to pay great attention to the content and unity of all Scripture… Secondly, it is necessary to read Scripture in context of the living tradition of the whole Church. ... As a third criterion it is necessary to pay attention to the analogy of faith ... To respect the coherence of the faith of the Church, the Catholic exegete must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts, within the faith of the Church itself. … Furthermore, the interpretation of the Holy Scriptures … must always be compared, inserted and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church.”[474]

Detached from Tradition, the Bible easily becomes an instrument in the hands of the powerful in power who, through various subtleties, can skilfully guide the experts he chooses to make the Bible say what God does not say... We know well how many non-Catholic groups draw false indications from the Bible and deviant precisely because of a bad interpretation that does not recognize the decisive value of Tradition.

Precisely by detaching Scripture from Tradition and presenting an exegesis contrary to what Scripture itself fundamentally says, as we have seen, the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in question opens the doors "discreetly" to the legitimization of homosexual acts and homosexual unions and " obviously” “resets” the radical condemnation of them, clearly indicated in the Sodom episode.

The "paradigm shift" that Pope Francis is carrying out continues undisturbed and secures the precious support of this document from the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

This support, however, has repercussions, for consistency, also against the Pope himself and against all Catholic morality because, the statements made by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in the part relating to homosexuality, regarding the need to avoid repeating what bears the cultural traits of that time, consideration could be given to all the commands of the divine law, even those that condemn massacres, abortions, pederasty, pedophilia, i.e. sexual abuse of pre-pubescent minors, thefts, blasphemies, I hate etc. and even to those who condemn disobedience to the Pope... everything would thus be uncertain.

Thank God, sound doctrine teaches us with certainty the correct interpretation of the Bible and the close connection between the Bible itself and Holy Tradition and in this line teaches us that the ten commandments are absolute laws that are always valid, that homosexual acts are inadmissible always and forever and that precisely because very serious sins attract terrible divine punishments to the world, the Sodom episode is extremely significant in this regard.

May God soon free his Church from the errors spread by Pope Francis with the support of his collaborators including the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

 

 

g) Conclusion on the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission regarding homosexual acts.

 

 

The Cross of Christ be our light.

Let us briefly summarize what we have seen regarding the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled "What is man".

First of all, the PCB, contrary to all the Catholic exegesis of all times carried out by Tradition and in particular by the Catholic Magisterium, and against the biblical affirmations themselves, has opened the door to the revision of Catholic doctrine on the moral legitimacy of homosexual acts, which is very serious and unacceptable, as various commentators have already pointed out.

The doctrine regarding the absolute illicitness of homosexual acts has therefore been clearly questioned to the obvious detriment of souls who may, thus, consider this doctrine dubious and insecure and therefore may find grounds for practicing such acts.

Furthermore …

1) The document lacks a clear presentation of the statements of Tradition which, for 2000 years now, have authoritatively interpreted the Bible condemning homosexual activity in an absolute and, as seen, immutable way.

2) The document publicizes and does not condemn the errors of those who oppose sound Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality because they believe that it is the result of a wrong approach to the Bible.

3) The document suggests that only very few passages of the Bible condemn homosexual activity and does not highlight many other passages that more generally condemn it; in reality, as seen, the entire Bible condemns this activity in various ways.

4) The document does not explicitly present in all its force the radical divine detestation of homosexual acts and the radical detestation that we must have for such acts.

5) The PCB does not offer important clarifications regarding the intrinsic disorder of the homosexual erotic inclination.

6) The profound motivation for the condemnation of homosexual acts is presented by the PCB, setting aside the fundamental, Christological dimension of this condemnation.

7) The PCB states that the "motif of homosexuality" is not evoked in the Gospels but things are not exactly like that...

8) In the PCB's treatment, some of the texts that most directly condemn homosexuality in the New Testament are missing... or rather many are missing...

9) The PCB does not cite a significant text from the book of Wisdom, correlated with Rom. 1, 26s.

10) The statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission does not correspond to biblical teaching examined in depth and in its unity, according to which the text of Genesis 19: "does not intend to present the image of an entire city dominated by uncontainable yearnings for nature homosexual; rather, what is denounced is the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner with respect, and therefore seeks to humiliate him, forcibly forcing him to suffer shameful treatment of submission.” (n. 187)

11) The statement of the Pontifical Biblical Commission according to which the sin of Sodom: "... consists in the lack of hospitality, with hostility and violence towards the foreigner, behavior considered very serious, does not correspond to the biblical teaching examined in depth and in its unity and therefore deserving of being sanctioned with the utmost severity, because the rejection of the different, of the needy and defenseless foreigner, is the principle of social disintegration, having in itself a deadly violence that deserves an adequate punishment." (n. 188)

12) The reading that the Pontifical Biblical Commission makes of Genesis 19 appears particularly unreliable when:

– sets aside the teaching of two decisive New Testament passages (2 Peter 2 and Jude 5-7), which also follow Jewish tradition and reread the Sodom cycle in the light of Christ;

– opposes the teaching they offer;

– sets aside what the Holy Scripture states about Sodom as a pleasure-loving and completely perverted city;

– denies that the sin of Sodom is a long series of sins among which homosexual activity is of particular importance.

13) Even the PCB's analysis of the texts of the Old Testament regarding Sodom appears imprecise and superficial.

The article by Professor Healy, an American Catholic exegete, very calmly and discreetly highlights how the PCB has practically "manipulated" the biblical data regarding homosexuality in particular regarding Sodom: exaggerating some realities and omitting what concerns to sexuality... and therefore to homosexuality. [475]

As a great expert in exegesis, whose name I avoid revealing due to the danger it could run, personally explained to me: the PCB document contains some very worrying ambiguities on the question of homosexuality, which seem to leave the door open for a revision of the teaching of the Church, many Catholic exegetes also think so, continued the expert, but unfortunately no one has written in the PCB document expressing these thoughts, I am not surprised that they avoid speaking, if they did they would probably risk being totally put aside party and losing their jobs, Pope Francis and his collaborators have clearly shown that those who oppose their line by reiterating the Truth are adequately sanctioned with removal from teaching, think of the case of the professor. Melina…

Everything we have said so far leads us to understand that the PCB, through the text we have examined, not only has not effectively defended the basis of Catholic teaching regarding homosexual acts but has also significantly and discreetly opened the doors for a revision of this teaching.

Precisely for this reason, Professor Fumagalli cited this document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission in support of his statements with which he declares the lawfulness of homosexual acts in certain cases. [476]

The PCB has, therefore, undoubtedly achieved, with discretion, in the Bergoglian line, an extremely significant, erroneous and scandalous step in our times; many independent commentators have clearly noticed it, however various commentators who work for Catholic institutions appear not to have noticed it.

All this is not strange if we consider that the Pontifical Biblical Commission operates under the Holy See and the Pope, its President, at the time of the document in question was Francis' faithful collaborator, Cardinal Ladaria, the text in question was specifically requested by the Pope to the Pontifical Biblical Commission[477] and obviously he and his faithful collaborators certainly supervised it in various ways; the Pope is working for the legitimization of homosexual acts, and is spreading colossal errors, therefore we can understand that a Commission that operates strictly under the Pope develops an exegesis that, with discretion, offers the basis for such errors.

The document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled “What is man” is therefore discreetly but radically unreliable in presenting biblical anthropology, and is a clear support for the doctrinal, even anthropological, perversion that Pope Francis is implementing.

Reading this PCB text, the words said by Pope Francis to Msgr. come to mind. Forte: “If we talk explicitly about communion for divorced and remarried people, you don't know what mess they make of it. So let's not talk about it directly, make sure that the premises are there, then I'll draw the conclusions."[478].

Even in the text of the Pontifical Biblical Commission we find, presented "discreetly", the premises for the legitimization of homosexual acts so that the Pope and his other collaborators can draw conclusions, as the priest and professor Aristide Fumagalli has already done...

God intervene soon.

 

 

5) Critical examination of some "significant" books that have appeared in recent years and concerning the moral evaluation of homosexual practice.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better to effectively examine some books that have appeared in recent years.

 

 

a) A book from 2010: the text by prof. Giannino Piana entitled “Homosexuality”

 

 

God enlighten us more and more.

In 2010, a significant, in a negative sense, text on homosexuality was published by Prof. G. Piana, entitled “Homosexuality”, Cittadella Editrice. The text is interesting in itself but also because it was taken up again, as we will see, in 2020 by A. Fumagalli in a book that we will examine later and which will have an afterword by Piana himself.

Piana highlights the difficulties of defining homosexuality, explains that the term in question was coined in 1800 to replace the term sodomy, specifies that homosexuality must be distinguished from homophilia (attraction without specifically sexual connotations for people of the same sex ) and by homotropy (i.e. the global inclination of the individual towards people of the same sex) and that Marmor's definition according to which homosexuality is a strong preferential erotic attraction towards people of the same sex is acceptable. Piana underlines the stability of this preference as an element of particular importance to connote this attraction (p. 14ff). The causes of homosexuality, Piana specifies, appear to be precisely unknown, some underline the physiological causes, others underline the psychological and cultural causes, the processes of development of sexuality have particular importance, the psychoeducational factor is indisputable (p. 17ff).

 

 

a,1) Piana's errors regarding the biblical condemnation of homosexual practice.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Piana develops a misleading and extremely reductive treatment of the condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible (“Homosexuality” pp. 21-36),

For Piana (p. 33) homosexual activity does not provoke God's wrath

Piana states that the objective of the biblical texts is not to provide a code of sexual ethics aimed at condemning such activity, he says that faith is fundamental and that moral behavior is a consequence and has a subordinate meaning, he specifies that the ethical evaluation of homosexual activity is significantly affected by cultural factors, he adds that the negative judgment of such activity can be considered the result of cultural conditioning rather than the expression of a real condemnation and therefore concludes by stating that it is difficult to draw decisive ethical evaluations from the Bible in this regard.

For this moralist the Bible would offer moral prescriptions so culturally and historically conditioned that they could no longer be applied to life today and in particular to the question of moral judgment regarding homosexual activity.

Contrary to Piana's statements, the Bible, correctly interpreted in Tradition, as we have seen, radically condemns the acts of this inclination, imposes very harsh penalties for them and indeed considers them terribly punished by God (see Lev. 18 and 20; 2 Peter 2; Down from ).

Leviticus (c. 18 and c. 22), fully accepted by s. Paul, and interpreted correctly in Tradition, radically condemns such activity and s. Paul reiterates this radical condemnation by also pointing out that those who practice homosexuality will not enter the Kingdom of God (1 Cor 6, 9-11); with the s. Apostle also the letter of Judas and the II of Peter very strongly underline the horrendous punishment of God for such sins and the punishment of Sodom is very indicative in this sense.

As we have seen, the Bible, interpreted correctly in Tradition, shows that it gives much importance to the sexual dimension of man because God wants man to be holy and not addicted to sodomy or bestiality and knows well how certain sins can be attractive to some and which colossal damage to individuals and populations.

The Italian moralist puts in the appendix to his book the statements of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this topic and precisely these statements (on p. 87 of the book we are examining) radically condemn the statements according to which the Bible offers moral prescriptions so culturally and historically conditioned that could no longer be applied to today's life and in particular to the question of moral judgment regarding homosexual activity.

In this way it is the Magisterium, reported in Piana's book, which condemns the statements of the moralist himself.

More generally, Piana's treatment of homosexual practice in the Bible is radically counteracted by the text just seen from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith[479] which, as we have seen, highlights that the Bible and then Tradition, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, have radically condemned homosexual practice.

All Tradition, as an interpreter of the Bible, and many magisterial texts radically condemn homosexual acts!

The entire Bible, rightly interpreted, condemns such activity, and throughout the Bible it is God who condemns homosexual acts and shows his radical detestation of them!

 

 

a,2) Piana's errors regarding the condemnation of homosexual acts by the Church Fathers.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Equally imprecise, weak and misleading is the treatment that Piana reserves for the teaching of Tradition and therefore for the Fathers of the Church regarding homosexual acts.

Piana states that the Fathers condemned homosexual practice based a lot on non-biblical currents of thought and little on the Bible but he does not offer any precise and certain study on the matter, he does not provide evidence on the matter and frankly I don't think he can provide it.

I point out that: “The characteristics by which Catholic doctrine recognizes a Father of the Church are ... the orthodoxy of the doctrine, the sanctity of life and the approval, which can be more or less explicit, by the Church; finally antiquity. …”.[480]

Precisely as Orthodox, the Fathers based their doctrine on the Bible which radically condemns homosexual acts and on it they condemned lust and therefore unnatural lust.

The Fathers of the Church on the basis of the Old and New Testaments clearly condemned homosexual practice; in fact the first text that Piana proposes regarding the affirmations of the Fathers is the very strong affirmation of s. John Chrysostom against homosexual acts but this statement was made during the commentary on the letter to the Romans, and based on the biblical text which radically condemns homosexual practice (In epistulam ad Romanos PG 60 c. IV p. 416ff)

In homily 57 (or 58) the same s. Doctor, starting from Scripture, speaks of gluttony as a vice that led Sodom to its iniquitous loves[481]

The same s. John Chrysostom, in his homily on the words of St. Paul: "I do not want you to be ignorant..." (1 Cor. 10,1) said that the punishment of Sodom had no other reason than the punishment of the sins of the inhabitants of that region for which they had given themselves over to illicit sexual unions, illegitimate loves and they had radically subverted the laws of nature (see PG, 51 col. 243-245) ... and it does not appear that these words were said on the basis of extra-biblical texts ...

If we go to Tertullian, who is certainly an important author even if he is not a Father, the text of De Pudicitia clearly shows how the condemnation of lust and above all of homosexual practice that he carries out is based on Scripture[482]

St. Ambrose deals with the unnatural lust of sodomites and indicates it as particularly serious by commenting on the Bible and not on the basis of extra-biblical texts ("De Abraham" PL XIV col 438ff.)

St. Augustine on the basis of the Bible states: "After this promise and after Lot had been brought out of Sodom, the whole territory of the depraved city was set on fire by a rain of fire that came from heaven, because in it carnal acts between males had introduced a more accredited custom of the lawfulness of those acts that moral norms allow. The punishment was a sample of the future divine judgment.”[483]

St. Jerome speaks in his writings of an adulterous and sodomite man... obviously wanting to refer to his sexual depravity and it does not appear that he condemns this sin on the basis of extra-biblical texts[484]

St. Jerome speaks of a sodomite wanting to indicate a person who has committed an impure sin against nature... therefore since then such sinners were indicated with this term evidently taken from what the Bible states...

The same s. Doctor states that the sodomites sinned with all freedom and had no shame therefore they told Lot to bring out the two foreigners to unite carnally with them: “Sodomitæ cum omni libertate peccantes, et ne pudorem quidem ullum habentes in scelere, dixerunt ad Lot: Educ ipsi ut concumbamus cum eis (Gen. XIX, 5)”[485]. St. Jerome does not appear to condemn homosexual practice with extra-biblical texts...

In the light of the biblical doctrine of the Old and New Testaments and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the Fathers and the Church have always clearly condemned sodomy.

Therefore, that the Fathers condemn sodomy not on the basis of biblical texts but on the basis of extra-biblical philosophies seems to me to be a colossal error... one of the many errors contained in Piana's book that I am examining.

 

 

a,3) The theologian Reck and Piana's text.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Piana relies on Reck's statements and this seems significant to me... just read the article by Reck cited by Piana ("Dangerous desires. Catholic discourses on homosexuality" in Concilium 1/2008); Reck is a theologian defined as Catholic and gay [486]. Reck's statements about the biblical account of Sodom are very superficial[487], I refer to my discussion, carried out above in this chapter, of the history of the exegesis of this story and of the current interpretation of it, to see how in reality the story of Sodom is evidently connected to the condemnation of practiced homosexuality; this condemnation is clearly made explicit in Leviticus; the author of the two texts, according to traditional testimony and according to the Bible, is unique.[488]

Leviticus (cc.18 and 20) clearly indicates how the people were punished for this sin... The Jewish tradition, in this line, was already very clear in condemning practiced homosexuality and in speaking of lust and homosexual practice in Sodom as we saw above, the Church has strengthened this condemnation; the texts of Judas and the second letter of Peter specify the condemnation of Sodom in the sense of unnatural lust and therefore further specify the radical opposition of lust, especially if against nature, to divine law...

Reck's treatment of homosexuality appears clearly oriented towards not telling the full truth, after a rigorous study, regarding the Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and the sin of Sodom: a serious, orderly and in-depth study on the topic is not carried out, starting from condemnation of Sodom then makes a hasty examination of the Fathers on this topic...then goes to the Middle Ages and to s. Pier Damiani ... talks about sodomy without noting that already s. Jerome defined those who committed certain impure acts as sodomites...

Reck states that “… in Gregory the Great († 604): Sodom becomes the quintessence of God's punishment for «carnal crime» (scelera carnis – which in that story, however, is not committed at all)”[489]

In the note that Reck inserts at this point we read: “Cf. Gregory the Great, Moralia in Iob, 30.18.60; Regula pastoralis, 3.27. This erroneous interpretation – even more restricted to homosexual acts – continues to the present: cf. for example the Catechism of the Catholic Church of 1993, which speaks of the fact that in Gen 19 “homosexuality” is indicated as a “grave depravity” (n. 2357).”

Reck doesn't really realize what he writes; the passage from the Catechism that he cites states: “Homosexuality designates relationships between men or women who experience a sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex. It manifests itself in very varied forms over the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychic genesis remains largely unexplained. Relying on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, (Cf Gen 19,1-29; Rom 1,24-27; 1 Cor 6,9-10; 1 Tim 1,10) Tradition has always declared that "Acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dich. Persona humana, 8: AAS 68 (1976) 85.) They are contrary to natural law. They preclude the gift of life from the sexual act. They are not the fruit of true emotional and sexual complementarity. In no case can they be approved.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2357)

As you can see, the statements of the Catechism perfectly reiterate sound Catholic doctrine, so there is no misinterpretation of the Bible, it is Reck who is wrong, not s. Gregory or the Catechism.

Reck evidently doesn't know s well. Thomas Aquinas (IIª-IIae, q. 154 a. 2 co.) and does not know the Bible and Tradition well, does not realize that the way to Heaven is the Cross and that there was no life on earth given to satisfy sexual desires, especially those against nature, but to do what God wants and gain Heaven; in the light of the teaching that God has given us, sexual intercourse, as taught by Tradition, the wise interpreter of the Bible, is permissible only in marriage[490] not outside of it, Marriage is between man and woman...

This is God's plan for man in relation to intimate acts of union: sexual union must be carried out between man and woman only in Holy Matrimony and not in a sodomitical way but open to procreation. St. Thomas (IIª-IIae, q. 154 a. 2 co.) and Tradition[491] they are very clear in stating this truth!

Homosexual practice is a very serious sin and so is the desire for it! Reck, on the other hand, states: “homosexual desire means a significant delectatio for the people concerned and does not cause any harm to others; it is therefore nothing repugnant..."[492]

Reck does not see the great damage that lust causes also because he evidently does not know well what s is saying. Thomas (see II-II q. 153 a. 4.) or s. Anthony[493] and what the Catechism of Trent says[494] and more generally what sound doctrine says regarding such damages.

St. Thomas explains that lust terribly disturbs the superior powers, reason and will, and has as its "daughters", that is, its effects: "... blindness, inconsideration, precipitation, self-love, hatred of God, attachment to the present life, horror or desperation for the future life"[495].

St. Alphonsus says the same thing[496].

It should be noted that these great Doctors speak of lust in general, lust against nature evidently brings even greater damage due to its particular perversion.

Reck then criticizes the magisterial statements according to which: “The particular inclination of the homosexual person, although not in itself a sin, nevertheless constitutes a more or less strong tendency towards intrinsically bad behavior from a moral point of view. For this reason the inclination itself must be considered objectively disordered (n. 3).”[497]  Reck finds no rigorous arguments in this statement[498] ... but the problem is not in the statement, it is in Reck who, as we are seeing, has very "disordered" ideas and does not realize or does not want to realize that God's plan for man is very clear and provides for sexual union only after Marriage, which is between man and woman. Reck rejects the claim that the word of God must be interpreted in Tradition[499], without realizing that the Holy Spirit speaks in Tradition and that the Bible is first and foremost the work of God...

Reck does not speak of Heaven, of the Cross, of spiritual combat... his is no longer Catholic theology, his statements appear rather as simple human considerations for a "serene" and "accepted by others" life in sin...

The fact that Piana follows Reck is obviously very significant, as you can understand from what I have said in this paragraph or by directly reading some of the latter author's texts.

 

 

a,4) Significant statements by Piana regarding the moral judgment on homosexual acts.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Let's say straight away that on p. 44 Piana cites a text from the Catechism, at n. 2357, which was in the first edition and which is no longer present in the typical 1996 edition. The n. 2357 in the typical edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: ““Homosexuality designates relationships between men or women who experience a sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, towards people of the same sex. ... Relying on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, (Cf Gen 19,1-29; Rom 1,24-27; 1 Cor 6,9-10; 1 Tim 1,10) Tradition has always declared that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered." (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dich. Persona humana, 8: AAS 68 (1976) 85.) They are contrary to natural law. They preclude the gift of life from the sexual act. They are not the fruit of true emotional and sexual complementarity. In no case can they be approved.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2357)

Obviously these words are very clear and clear in condemning homosexual acts and it is not strange that Piana keeps them out of his text.

According to the author in question, the Church has a negative attitude towards homosexuality and this way of attitude is in clear contrast with the positions taken by many Christian churches (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 45f) ... obviously he does not say that the ancient Orthodox churches are clearly against homosexual practice.

Then Piana clearly says that neither the Bible nor Tradition can help formulate a moral evaluation of practiced homosexuality because in the contexts in which those statements were made there was not the knowledge that we have today and there were heavy ideological prejudices (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 48) and therefore the author in question makes a moral judgment on the basis of the "substance ... of the Gospel" ... This judgment implies overcoming the naturalist perspective by abandoning " ... the logic of explanation to interpret the meaning of homosexuality in the personalist perspective of understanding” (see Piana “Homosexuality” p. 51) This judgment calls into question the condemnation of homosexual acts that the Church has sanctioned, considering them intrinsically evil because they are contrary to the order of nature; the main reason for this condemnation would have disappeared, according to the Italian moralist, for anthropological and scientific reasons, the biological sciences would have demonstrated that human life is the result of the union between male and female elements and on an anthropological level there would have been the recovery of intrinsic value of sexual intercourse regardless of the procreative function; all this would nullify the traditional arguments (see Piana “Homosexuality” p. 51-53) For Piana it is necessary to abandon the naturalist terrain and adopt a personalist and relational scheme; in the human world unity precedes sexual difference, differences must be considered included in an original unity and dependent on it and are more limited than common elements; the biblical stories would go along this line, showing an initial unity from which man originates, and Eve originates from Adam. (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 52-55) The divine image should not be sought in sexual difference but in man in his unity and in the relationship which is a meeting of people; the fundamental theme that Piana underlines is that of relationality: man is realized in relationship with others; in this perspective, the naturalistic theories on which the Church's negative judgment towards practiced homosexuality is based would be overcome; far from denying sexual differences, this interpretation would exalt them as factors that push towards meeting the other and on the other hand would bring out the primacy of the relationship over them, highlighting how the man-woman relationship, even if paradigmatic, does not can exhaust within itself the expressive modalities of relationality which must become the new paradigmatic model from which all other forms of relation must be inspired (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 55-58). Piana seeks support in biblical indications to greatly underline the relationship and to highlight how the relationship between man and woman is not the only possible one; the Trinitarian communion would give absolute priority to the relationship with respect to the ways in which it is achieved to the point that the difference between the divine Persons would be the effect and not the cause of the relationship; Jesus would have worked in the sense of relativizing some institutions responsible for giving legal status to the man-woman relationship as he subordinated them to the radical demands that derive from the entry of the Kingdom into human and s. Paul with the text of Gal.

In this line, every difference would be grasped in its true meaning only if it is inserted into a unitary reading of human reality and placed in dependence on the relational structure which is what truly gives this difference its decisive value, in this line the moral judgment on an act is given on the basis of the goodness of the relationship; the goodness of the act must be commensurate with the ability it has to authentically express the inner world of the two people, that is, to recognize, on the part of the subjects in the relationship, the other in his absolute dignity, the relationship that takes place between man and woman is the highest level of relational communion but this should not lead to the misrecognition of the homosexual relationship because even in it it is possible to develop a high form of reciprocity and indeed in it some would realize a vital fullness and express their identity in an otherwise impossible way ; the maturity of the person is fundamental and in this maturity the homosexual relationship would also become fruitful in a certain way through forms of service to the community (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 58-65).

In summary, Piana affirms with this proposal the primacy of the person over nature, the primacy of the relationship over its historical modalities, "restoring" dignity to the homosexual relationship on the condition that one frees oneself from archaic prejudices, because, in his opinion, every relationship has value authentic which presupposes the awareness of one's identity in a climate of inner pacification and in overcoming any feeling of paralyzing guilt; on the other hand, the homosexual relationship has difficulties that must help the person to be open and not to conceive of their choices as definitive (see Piana “Homosexuality” pp. 58-65). On the basis of all this, Piana states that it would be wrong impose the obligation of perfect chastity on homosexuals, such an imposition would be violence, because perfect chastity would be a gift that cannot be exercised by those who have not received it, and being homosexual would not entail a vocation to celibacy. According to Piana, Catholic doctrine is tainted by a profound dualism due to the fact that it condemns the sins of homosexuality and defines the homosexual tendency as disordered and then manifests understanding and caution in treating homosexuals, in particular those who have a stable homosexuality of a "permanent" nature , instead, for the Italian moralist, it is necessary to give liberating and responsible orientations and let those who feel like living chastity live it. (pp. 65-8)

 

 

a,5) Piana's errors regarding the moral judgment regarding homosexual acts.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

May God enlighten us so that we can analyze Piana's statements well, in the light of God.

Let's say first of all that given the very weak and deviant theological, biblical and traditional bases and given Piana's absurd assertions that the Bible and Tradition are practically useless for a judgment on homosexuality, it is obvious that Piana goes totally out of line, outside of sound Catholic doctrine in its moral judgment on homosexuality.

The condemnation of practiced homosexuality is a biblical fact but also of the entire Tradition. If we want to practice Catholic moral theology we must remain firmly anchored to this fact; if we have faith we know that God has spoken clearly through the Bible and Tradition also to condemn homosexual acts.

The Law of God has not ceased to be valid in recent years, the commandments continue to retain their value intact and continue to condemn fornication and homosexual acts. The words of a famous document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith apply very well to Piana's statements on the Bible: "One of the essential dimensions of authentic pastoral care is the identification of the causes that have led to confusion regarding the teaching of the church. Among them, a new exegesis of the Holy Scripture should be highlighted, according to which the Bible either has nothing to say on the problem of practiced homosexuality, or even gives it in some way a tacit approval, or finally offers moral prescriptions so culturally and historically conditioned that they could no longer be applied to contemporary life. Such opinions, which are seriously erroneous and misleading, therefore require special vigilance.”[500]

Piana's mistake is radical and brings with it other serious errors.

In fact, Piana does not show that he is aware of God's fundamental plan for man nor of the intervention of man who opposes this project... and he does not show that he is even aware of the end to which this project aims, nor of the path to reach this end nor of the enemies of this project, that is, the flesh, the devil and the devil.

We saw above how all of Scripture, in Christ, reveals man to man and makes him know his very high vocation.

The Second Vatican Council states: “Christ […], precisely by revealing the mystery of the Father and his love, also fully reveals man to man and makes known to him his most high vocation.”[501]

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church also says at n. 1701 Christ reveals man to man; Christ reveals to every man, even to homosexuals, who man is and what his vocation is; Christ reveals that man, every man even homosexuals, was created in the image and likeness of the Creator.

It is in Christ, that is, in the Light that comes from Christ, that man discovers the sin that has struck man from the beginning. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man, in every man, even in homosexuals, by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God. In Christ the man is in the image and likeness of the Trinity and must act in the image and likeness of the Trinity, therefore he must act in the will of God, in the Law of God which is for all men so that all may observe it.

Man was created in the image and likeness of God in original sanctifying grace and had extraordinary harmony, furthermore he was immortal. With original sin corruption enters... disorder enters, illnesses enter, death enters (see Catechism of the Church n. 398-401).

The deformation of this image was accomplished with original sin, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 400.

As we saw above, the homosexual tendency originates at a radical level in original sin but can also develop thanks to current sins.

It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man, in every man, even in homosexuals, by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God so that man can live fully the divine image and likeness in which he was created.

In Christ man rediscovers sanctifying grace, that is, participation in the divine life that was lost with original sin... in Christ man can live fully in the divine Law that Christ lived in full and that we are all called to live , in Christ man can live the commandments that He lived and that we are called to live in charity.

Charity manifests itself and shines in Christ, who did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, Jesus in fact said: “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish, but to fulfil.” (Mt. 5, 17) and Christ perfectly did the Father's will and perfectly observed the Father's commandments, in fact he said: “I will no longer speak with you, because the prince of the world is coming; he can do nothing against me, but the world must know that I love the Father, and as the Father has commanded me, so I act…. Stay in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept the commandments of my Father and remain in his love for him. I have told you these things so that my joy may be in you and your joy may be full." (Jn. 14, 30s; 15, 10s)

Christ's human will was fully and perfectly subjected to his divine will and, therefore, he fully observed the divine Law. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 578: “Jesus, the Messiah of Israel, therefore the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, had the duty to observe the Law, practicing it in its entirety down to the smallest precepts, according to his own words. And he is also the only one who was able to do it perfectly (Cf. Jn 8,46.)”.

Christ brings the Law to full fulfillment, explains the Catechism of the Catholic Church: "In Christ it is the very Word of God... that makes itself heard... This Word does not abolish the Law, but brings it to completion by giving its definitive interpretation in a divine way: « You have heard that it was said to the ancients [...]; but I say to you" (Mt 5,33-34).” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 581)

In Christ we can and must once again live the holy Law of God in fullness, in grace, in charity. In Christ we can and must walk decisively towards Heaven, towards Paradise. The ultimate goal of man, which Piana does not highlight, is Heaven! And God knows the way that leads to Heaven and He has revealed it to us... we do not go to Heaven by following our desires but by submitting to the will of God.

There is only one road that leads to Heaven: the Cross! Jesus is very clear: "If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me." (Luke 9,23) and the path of the Cross is the way of implementing the Law of God in Christ and with Christ; in Him and with Him we are called to travel the same path as him, the path of holiness, of chastity, the opposite path to that of sin and homosexual acts!

Piana, obviously, does not highlight the Cross: the only road that leads to Heaven.

The Holy Spirit and Christ himself spoke clearly about man's journey in this world, towards Paradise, as a difficult journey, of self-denial, of following Christ on the way of the Cross, of a journey that is a terrible struggle against the powers of darkness that tempt us to sin, even to the sin of homosexuality; the way that leads to damnation is wide, says the Gospel, the way that leads to Heaven is narrow!

The path to which Christ calls us is a path of struggle...

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2015: “The path to perfection passes through the cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and without spiritual combat.” (Cf. 2 Tim 4.)

Obviously this way of combat, this narrow way which is the way of the Cross is a way of obedience to the Law of God...

Now, as seen above, it is clear that the Law of God radically condemns homosexual acts. More deeply we can say that God through his Law that emerges from the Word of God and Tradition radically condemns homosexual acts and it is evident precisely from Scripture and Tradition that God's plan for man radically excludes homosexual practice . Man is not created to live in the sins of homosexuality but in holy chastity for which sexual union is permitted only within marriage[502] between man and woman and not outside of it.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith clearly states: "... the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and its moral aptitude only in legitimate marriage.[503]

God through the Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium has called us to divinization and to holiness, to chastity, and has clearly condemned impure acts against nature.

Man, in Christ, must be the image and likeness of God, therefore he must manifest in his life the holiness of God, divine purity and not the immorality of homosexual activity.

The way that leads to Heaven is not that of fornication or impure acts against nature... but it is the way of holiness and chastity.

The Holy Spirit who guides the Church and has guided the biblical authors and the holy Doctors and all the holy ecclesiastical writers has always indicated that the way that leads to Heaven, the way that man must travel, the way of Christ, is not the way of homosexual practice but that of chastity; such chastity involves holy and lawful sexual acts only within marriage.

God did not create us to indulge in heterosexual or homosexual sinful pleasures! God created us to live in his will, in chastity.

Homosexual tendencies must be holyly denied and not indulged; homosexual acts are very serious sins to be avoided absolutely, at all costs!

Spiritual enemies push us into sin, even homosexuality, but we, with God's help, can and must resist.

God who commands us not to sin and therefore not to commit homosexual acts helps us to observe his commands.

Contrary to what Piana claims, the Church is not guided by dualist thinking when it affirms the obligation not to commit impure acts against nature. The Church knows that Christ came to save all men and that in Him the situation prior to sin is reconstituted in a certain way and man, although wounded in his nature due to sin, can in Christ participate in the divine nature, live in fullness according to the Divine Law and avoid the sins of homosexuality.

Scripture and Tradition, with the Magisterium, clearly indicate that a nature exists, a Natural Law exists... therefore Piana's statements which tend to set aside the concept of nature and natural law as well as positive and positive divine law are evidently outside of sound doctrine. present a personalist and hermeneutic approach that goes beyond the naturalist one and leads to the legitimization of homosexual acts.

Furthermore, in Cardinal Sgreccia's "Bioethics Manual" we read that, in his opinion, personalist ethics coincides with the Catholic Magisterium in condemning homosexual practice[504] .

As an interesting document from the International Theological Commission says, entitled “In search of a universal ethic. New look at natural law" and which deals precisely with natural law: "The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) and the encyclical "Veritatis splendor" (1993) assign a decisive place to natural law in the exposition of Christian morality [505]. "[506]

There is a natural law and it condemns homosexual acts, there is an ancient law and a new law which equally clearly condemn such acts, says St. Thomas.[507]

In the Commentary on Isaiah s. Thomas states: “Ad quod dicendum, quod, sicut codicit philosophus, coniunctio maris et feminae in hominibus non estsoluto propter generationem, sicut in brutis, sed etiam ad commodum vitae: unde et maris et feminae sunt diversie operationes, in quibus auxiliantur sibi invicem . Secundum ergo quod aliquid diversimode ordinatur ad hos fines, secundum hoc diversimode codicil natural vel unnaturale. Id enim quod nullo modo potest stare cum fine dicto, est omnino unnaturale, et nunquam potest esse bonum, sicut vitium sodomiticum: et sicut hoc, quod una mulier habeat multiple viros, quia una non fecundatur a pluribus: et quantum ad vitam civilim, here a non-regitur a pluribus; sed and opposite”. (Super Isaiam, chap. 4 l. 1. )

Sexual union is between man and woman and is aimed at procreation and mutual help. What goes outside the relationship between man and woman and which is absolutely incompatible with the said purpose of procreation and mutual help is completely unnatural and can never be a good, like the sin of sodomy. The s significantly says. Doctor, after having given a speech based on principles of reason: “These conclusions of ours are confirmed by the authority of God. It is evident that the emission of sperm from which offspring cannot be derived is illicit; for it is written: «Do not commit the abomination of having sex with a man as if he were a woman, and do not copulate with any beast» (Lev., XVIII, 22 ff.). And St. Paul states: «Neither the effeminate, nor the homosexuals... will possess the kingdom of God» (I Cor., VI, 10). And it is also evident that fornication and any other sexual act other than with one's wife is illicit."[508]

Therefore the Natural Law already condemns practiced homosexuality but then the Ancient Law was very clear in condemning homosexual acts and the New Law is even more so, as also indicated by the texts reported by s. Thomas.

I underline that through the denial of the naturalistic approach Piana actually comes to deny the affirmations of the Natural Law, the Ancient Law and the New Law contrary to practiced homosexuality and I also point out that the person presupposes nature because the person is precisely one subsisting in intellectual nature. A true personalistic approach never cancels a serious naturalistic approach, a true personalistic approach presupposes a serious naturalistic approach, therefore a serious personalistic approach presupposes natural law... and does not go against natural law...

Piana's way of thinking appears in a certain way to be a child of our time in which, as the International Theological Commission rightly states in the document on natural law, Natural Law is no longer accepted by many, more precisely from the late Middle Ages onwards the Christian vision linked to Natural Law has lost ground: “71. For various historical and cultural reasons, which are linked in particular to the evolution of ideas during the late Middle Ages, this worldview has lost its cultural pre-eminence. The nature of things is no longer law for modern man and is no longer a reference for ethics….

72 With the eclipse of the metaphysics of being, the only one capable of founding the differentiated unity of the spirit and material reality on reason, and with the growth of voluntarism, the kingdom of the spirit was radically opposed to the kingdom of nature. Nature is no longer considered as an epiphany of the Logos, but as the "other" of the spirit. …

74 The evolution of the understanding of man's relationship with nature also translates into the rebirth of a radical anthropological dualism that opposes the spirit and the body, since the body is in some way the "nature" in each of us (.. ).

75 ... Every reference to a norm coming from God or nature as an expression of God's wisdom, that is, every "heteronomy", is perceived as a threat to the autonomy of the subject. The notion of natural law then appears incompatible with the authentic dignity of the subject.”[509]

It is therefore not strange that in the cultural context in which we find ourselves, Piana has put aside natural law and therefore a healthy naturalistic approach.

Piana's doctrine is therefore deviant and deviant both on a philosophical and theological level.

May God free us from the doctrinal perversions that this author has conveyed with this book.

 

 

a,6) Piana loses the liturgical dimension which is the basis of licit Christian sexual activity; sexuality is licit only in Marriage, which is a Sacrament.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Piana does not realize that God has clearly manifested in Scripture and Tradition and in particular in the Liturgy that his plan for man does not foresee that man performs homosexual acts, in fact God's plan for man in Christ is a plan of grace and chastity which provides sexual life only within a marriage... and therefore between man and woman and only after God has united them.[510]

St. Thomas equally stated that: "... in isto praecepto, non moechaberis, prohibetur non solum adulterium, sed omnis carnalis corruptio, praeter eam quae est matrimonii"[511]In this precept, you will not commit impure acts, not only adultery but any carnal union is prohibited, except that which takes place in marriage.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear in stating that the Sacrament of Marriage is between man and woman and that God unites the two spouses through this Sacrament.

This Catechism underlines how marriage enters into the true plan of God (n. 1602) and into the true order of creation (1603ff).

Note well that it is God who unites the two spouses: “The consent, through which the spouses give and receive each other mutually, is sealed by God himself. ... The alliance of the spouses is integrated into the Covenant of God with men: "Authentic conjugal love is assumed in divine love". [512]” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1639)

The marital bond is established by God and cannot be dissolved (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1640)

In this light it is necessary to see the sexual otherness and fruitfulness that characterize the licit relationship: only the man-woman otherness consecrated by God in the Sacrament and therefore only the fruitfulness that takes place in the man-woman relationship consecrated by God in the Sacrament are elements of the legitimate relationship; outside this area the relationship is illicit and immoral.

Marriage refers to the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 1661 : “The sacrament of Marriage is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ loved his Church... "Only in this matrimonial grace are sexual relations permitted, not outside of it.

Marriage unites the two spouses in Christ, makes them one flesh and in their love manifests the love of Christ for the Church and in this line makes sexual acts open to life licit but, note carefully, it does not make sexual acts licit against nature like sodomy.

The union that God brought about in the two spouses through the Sacrament is necessary for sexual acts to be lawful and holy.

Marriage implies, moreover, a vocation of the betrothed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The vocation to marriage is inscribed in the very nature of man and woman, as they came from the hand of the Creator." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1603)

This vocation, this Sacrament, this union and this holy sexual activity evidently do not exist and cannot exist for homosexual couples!

Homosexual orientation is a disordered orientation precisely because it is opposed to this fundamental divine vocation and what follows from it: a sacramental Liturgy through which God unites the couple so that they become "one flesh". Piana evidently sets aside this fundamental dimension of Christian life and goes beyond sound Catholic doctrine.

The Christian Liturgy, I add, is the basis of Christian life and in particular the life of Christian spouses... but there is no Liturgy at the basis of the Christian life of homosexual couples, indeed there is a radical opposition to the Christian Liturgy which calls to holiness and to chastity and therefore the pseudo liturgy invented by the Belgian Bishops with which homosexual couples are blessed, as we have seen, is not a Marriage and is not to be considered a Liturgy as it is clearly in opposition to the Christian faith.

I remember in this regard that "... When the Church celebrates the sacraments, it confesses the faith received from the Apostles. Hence the ancient adage: « Lex orandi, lex credendi » (or: « Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi », according to Prospero of Aquitaine [fifth century]).[513]”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1124) The law of prayer is the law of faith, but on the other hand the law of faith is the basis of the law of prayer, so that a “liturgy” that blesses situations of public sin, such as this is the case of homosexual couples, it is not Catholic liturgy.

The Liturgy is the foundation and culmination of Christian life, Piana evidently forgets this, or wants to forget it and therefore makes a speech that has very little or nothing Christian about it... indeed he makes a speech that goes against sound Christian doctrine!

 

 

a,7) Question: why weren't Piana and others with him blocked before, that is, at the time of Benedict XVI, given that they were already "pontificating" by spreading their very clear errors?

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Last question to reflect on: G. Piana's book is from 2010, why did the Pope at the time, Benedict XVI, not intervene to clearly condemn this text as the Holy See did for the books of Farley, Vidal, Gramick and Nugent?

I don't know how to answer this question, nor do I know how to answer other similar questions regarding, for example, the statements of Fr. Maggi with the colossal errors, not to mention heresies, that he spreads regarding homosexuality [514] : why didn't they block p. Maggi already at the time of Benedict XVI, given that already in 2011 he made completely incorrect statements?[515]

God enlighten us.

However, it is obvious from what we see that what the current Pope is doing is not something that suddenly appeared... it was something that had been in the making for some time... and which unfortunately was not eradicated when it should have been.

Probably the responsibility for the current situation should also be placed on the shoulders of those who were there before and did not monitor and intervene as they should have.

Benedict XVI was certainly irreproachable in his statements on these issues and certainly did not support certain errors but the question remains: why did he not intervene and why did his collaborators not intervene in a truly strong manner to free the Church from certain errors?

It is probably necessary to take into account the fact that not all of Pope Benedict's collaborators shared his ideas... probably some also had deviant ideas on the topic of homosexuality and perhaps they were part of the gay lobby therefore they let people like Piana, Maggi and others operated practically undisturbed... I remember that one of Pope Benedict's collaborators at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, K. Charamsa, a priest who was also a professor of theology at the time, made a sensational "coming out" and revealed his homosexuality in the early years of pontificate of Francis and began to live with a man[516].

It could also be that Piana's book, like the statements of p. May not have been made known to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith so that they could study and condemn them.

In any case, it is clear from the very words of Benedict XVI that since the Council, a whole powerful perversion of Catholic doctrine has developed among theologians, especially in the moral field.[517], an action that evidently was not eradicated as it should have been in those times and even after, and which now, thanks to Pope Francis, is now bearing its rotten and poisonous fruits in full.

 

 

b) The book by A. Oliva op, “The greatest friendship. A theological contribution to the questions of divorced and remarried people and homosexual couples”, and an article by the same author

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

We have seen in the previous paragraphs the colossal errors of G. Piana ... here we can see how such errors support other errors ... We will examine below the text of a Dominican father, p. Oliva, who, like Piana and in his wake, opens the doors to the legality of homosexual practice.

P. Oliva cites G. Piana and his book “Homosexuality” as a text to which he connects in order to affirm the lawfulness of homosexual practice, in fact he states: “L'étude présente, qui peut apparaître anachronique par son style, a pour but to show this souhaitable change of the part of the Magistère concerning homosexuality and the exercise of sexuality for homosexual couples corresponds not only to anthropological, theoretical and exégétiques actual researches (4) also to the development of a theoretical tradition ( 5), thomiste en particulier. ”[518]

Indicative translation: the present study, which may appear anachronistic in style, aims to show that a desirable change on the part of the Magisterium regarding homosexuality and the exercise of sexuality by homosexual couples would not only correspond to current anthropological, theological and exegetical research but also to the developments of a theological tradition, Thomist in particular.

The theological research that Fr. Oliva mentions in the passage just seen are those that can be read in:

– B. Brogliato, D. Migliorini Homosexual love. Essays on psychoanalysis, theology and pastoral care. In dialogue for a new synthesis, Assisi, Cittadella Editrice, 2014;

– G. Piana, Homosexuality. An ethical proposal, Assisi, Cittadella Editrice, 2010.[519]

Unlike Piana, however, the Dominican father Oliva in his book[520] deals a lot with the doctrine of St. Tommaso severely distorting it. Given the importance of the author, member of the Commissio Leonina, given the importance of the Thomistic doctrine for moral theology, especially after the Pope said that Amoris Laetitia is Thomistic[521], and taking into account the fact that the statements of p. Oliva have been taken up by some moralists, it is important to examine the errors of this author in some depth and refute them.

Most of the errors of p. Oliva is based on a distorted interpretation of a text by St. Thomas (see I-II q. 31 a. 7) and on the marginalization of fundamental points of the Thomistic doctrine.

To proceed in order, therefore, before directly addressing these errors and refuting them, it seems appropriate to examine the text of the Angelic Doctor and these fundamental points of Thomistic doctrine.

God intervene!

 

 

b,1) The text of s. Thomas I-II q. 31 a.m. 7 and the theological cause of homosexuality.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

In the article in question s. Thomas explains first of all that: “… in man nature can be taken in two senses.

First, since the nature of man consists especially in the intellect, that is, in reason...

Second, in man nature can take place in antithesis with reason: and then it indicates what is common to man and other beings, especially what does not obey reason. …”[522] According to these two senses, the s continues. Doctor, there are some natural pleasures and according to both senses there are some unnatural pleasures, although they are connatural according to something to some; p. e.g. for cannibals, explains s. Thomas, it is natural and pleasant to eat men; coitus with men is natural for homosexuals and this happens due to a corruption of the principles of nature in some people. (see I-II q. 31 a. 7 in c.)

It is necessary to underline the importance of St.'s statement in the article. Thomas for whom: “Secundum utrasque autem delectationes, contingit aliquas esse unnaturales, simpliciter loquendo, sed connaturales secundum quid.” (I-II q. 31 a. 7)

The two terms simpliciter and secundum quid must be correctly understood according to the mind of St. Thomas. The term simpliciter means two things[523]:

-absolutely, that is, according to the nature of being, without any addition to this nature;

-totally, that is, universally.

Anthropophagic or homosexual pleasures are simply unnatural for man, that is, they are absolutely unnatural, they are unnatural according to the nature of the human being, without any addition to this nature, and they are also totally, that is, universally, for all men, unnatural.

The term secundum quid is opposed to simpliciter and means according to something, therefore not absolutely, that is, not according to the proper nature of being, but concerning something added to this nature and also means not totally, that is, not universally.

In Deferrari's Thomistic Lexicon we read p. e.g. : “ bonum secundum quid and bonum simpliciter, the good in a certain respect or the relatively good, and the simple or plainly good, that which has all the perfection, substantial and accidental, which is due to it. Quod autem non habet ultimam perfectionem, quam debet habere, quamvis habeat aliquam perfectionem, inquantum est actu, non tamen codicil perfectum simpliciter nec bonum simpliciter, sed secundum quid, IQ 5. Art. 1 ad 1; si quidem aliquid defuerit de debita essendi plenitude, non dicetur simpliciter bonum, sed secundum quid, I-II. Q. 18. Art. 1 c”[524]

Bonum secundum quid and bonum simpliciter mean respectively the good in a certain respect or relatively good, and the good simply or clearly, that is, the good which has all the substantial and accidental perfection that is due to it. That which does not have the ultimate perfection that it must have, although it has a certain perfection, is not simply good but is good secundum quid, that is, according to something.

Anthropophagic or homosexual pleasures are connatural for man according to something, therefore not absolutely, that is, not according to man's own nature but with regard to something added to this nature; furthermore, such pleasures are connatural for man not totally, that is, not universally, not for everyone but for some people.

This means that even for cannibals and homosexuals the pleasures coming from anthropophagy and unnatural relationships are simply unnatural, that is, they are absolutely unnatural, they are unnatural according to the nature of the human being without any addition to this nature, and they are also totally , that is, universally, unnatural for every man and therefore for every homosexual.

Homosexual and anthropophagic pleasures are, however, connatural to some men according to something, that is, not absolutely, not according to the proper nature of being, but with respect to something added to this nature and furthermore such pleasures are connatural not universally, not for everyone the men.

What is added to the proper nature of the human being and which makes homosexual or anthropophagic pleasures natural to some according to something is the corruption of the natural principles of the species and the fact that such pleasures are connatural for some according to this corruption means that these people are driven by this corruption to carry out certain homosexual or anthropophagic acts, that is, it means that this "connaturality" pushes them to sin.

Now, the corruption of the natural principles of the species took place in man due to sin and the "connaturality" that arose from it is the fomite, which precisely pushes man to sin; s. Thomas, in fact, specifies that the work of corruption of human nature is carried out in the individual man through original sin and also through personal sins (see I-II q. 85 a.3); the same holy Doctor further specifies that: “Ad quintum dicendum, quod pronitas ad malum, quae codicil fomes, non consequitur naturam sicut habilitas ad bonum, sed consequitur corruptionem naturae, quae est ex culpa; et ideo fomes totaliter per gratiam tolli potest, non autem bonum naturae per culpam.”(De malo, q. 2 a. 12 ad 5.)

Man's inclination to evil, determined by original sin and actual sin, and indicated with the technical term of flesh or fomite is not a consequence of nature as an ability for good but is a consequence of the corruption of nature caused by guilt .

The corruption of nature, caused by sin, and not the true nature of man, is what produces this inclination to evil and therefore the tendency towards homosexual practice and anthropophagy.

Wanting to investigate more deeply into this corruption of nature we must affirm that original sin has diminished, according to s. Thomas, the natural good of man and the good of nature can be understood as:

1) the same principles of human nature from which it is constituted, such as the powers of the soul etc..; these principles were neither diminished nor canceled by original sin;

2) man's inclination to virtue; this inclination diminished with original sin;

3) the gift of original justice that was given in the first man to all humanity; this good was totally lost with the first sin (See S.Th., I-II q. 85 a.1)

Before original sin, the lower forces of the soul were subjected to reason which was subjected to God and perfected by God; sin and in particular original sin, has determined and continues to determine four "wounds" in the soul of man, that is, it has disordered the human soul in four aspects:

1) reason has been deprived of its order to the truth and ignorance has arisen in man so that reason is as if stupefied especially in acting,

2) the will has been removed from its order towards good and the "wound" of malice has been created in man, so that the will itself is hardened in its tension towards good;

3) the irascible appetite has been removed from its order towards arduous things and the "wound" of infirmity has been determined in man;

4) the concupiscible appetite has been removed from its order to what is delightful according to the moderation dictated by reason and the "wound" of concupiscence has been determined (See S.Th., I-II q. 85 a.3 ).

St. Thomas concludes by saying: “However, since the inclination to good is impaired in everyone even by actual sin, as we have demonstrated above, these four wounds also accompany the other sins; that is, with sin, reason becomes clouded, especially in the practical field; the will becomes reluctant to do good; the internal difficulty in operating well grows; and concupiscence is kindled.”[525]

The fomite mentioned by St. consists of these 4 wounds. Thomas and precisely the effect of the fomite are the disordered tendencies and therefore the unnatural pleasures (delectationes unnaturales) including the homosexual or anthropophagic tendencies and pleasures of which s. Thomas speaks, as seen, in I-II q. 31 a.m. 7 in c.

Such tendencies and disordered pleasures can be radically canceled by the grace of Christ (see De malo, q. 2 a. 12 ad 5)

These tendencies and pleasures, as mentioned, are simply unnatural for all men therefore, as s. Thomas states, natural law requires man not to follow such tendencies and not to enjoy such pleasures; the Natural Law, in particular, condemns lust, especially if it is against nature, and this condemnation is confirmed by the revealed Law[526]

In the Commentary on Isaiah s. Thomas states: “Ad quod dicendum, quod, sicut codicit philosophus, coniunctio maris et feminae in hominibus non estsoluto propter generationem, sicut in brutis, sed etiam ad commodum vitae: unde et maris et feminae sunt diversie operationes, in quibus auxiliantur sibi invicem . Secundum ergo quod aliquid diversimode ordinatur ad hos fines, secundum hoc diversimode codicil natural vel unnaturale. Id enim quod nullo modo potest stare cum fine dicto, est omnino unnaturale, et nunquam potest esse bonum, sicut vitium sodomiticum: et sicut hoc, quod una mulier habeat multiple viros, quia una non fecundatur a pluribus: et quantum ad vitam civilim, here a non-regitur a pluribus; sed and contrary” (Super Isaiam, chapter 4 l. 1. )

Sexual union is between man and woman and is aimed at procreation and mutual help. What goes outside the relationship between man and woman and which is absolutely incompatible with the said purpose of procreation and mutual help is completely unnatural and can never be a good, like the sin of sodomy.

The s further says. Doctor: “These conclusions of ours are confirmed by the authority of God. It is evident that the emission of sperm from which offspring cannot be derived is illicit; for it is written: «Do not commit the abomination of having sex with a man as if he were a woman, and do not copulate with any beast» (Lev., XVIII, 22 ff.). And St. Paul states: «Neither the effeminate, nor the homosexuals... will possess the kingdom of God» (I Cor., VI, 10). And it is also evident that fornication and any other sexual act other than with one's wife is illicit."[527].

Homosexual practice is contrary to the true nature of man therefore it is condemned by natural law and is also condemned by revealed law. The condemnation of this practice is absolute and is among the negative commands of the divine law which can never be violated, in particular it is part of the command: do not commit impure acts.

St. Thomas stated along these lines that: "... in isto praecepto, non moechaberis, prohibetur non solum adulterium, sed omnis carnalis corruptio, praeter eam quae est matrimonii".[528]

The sixth commandment prohibits any sexual act outside the marital union, therefore it prohibits homosexual practice. This prohibition is absolute and valid always and forever, in fact, as we said, Thomas specifies that the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige always and forever, always and in every circumstance, in an absolute way, while the affirmative precepts always oblige but not "to semper”, that is, they oblige to a convenient place and time[529]

In the Summa Theologica we read: “… the negative precepts of the law prohibit sinful acts, the affirmative precepts lead to acts of virtue. But sinful acts are evil in themselves, and can be done in a good way in no way, nowhere and at no time: since they are linked in themselves to an evil end, as Aristotle says. And so the negative precepts always oblige in all cases.” [530]

In many passages of his works, St. Thomas reaffirms this doctrine that the negative precepts of the Decalogue oblige always and forever [531]

Christ came and brought us his grace precisely to heal our corrupt nature, to make us fully observe the divine Law and to make us live not according to the corruption of nature but according to our true nature and according to grace, that is, according to participatory divine nature.

 

 

b,2) The work of Christ and grace on human nature corrupted due to sin. The work of Christ through the Liturgy.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

The coming of Christ and his grace works to heal man and to make him capable of carrying out meritorious supernatural actions in order to achieve eternal bliss. Through grace we receive a "new nature" that is, a "super nature" which is participation in the divine nature, due to this nature it is connatural for man to walk on the path of holiness and due to this "super nature", in a particular way, it is unnatural to perform sin, such as impure acts, homosexual practices etc.. Through this super nature the miseries of corrupt nature are overcome and man can walk towards Heaven in divine Law.

St. Thomas knows grace very well and if he says that certain objectively serious acts are connatural to someone according to something he wants to explain the pronitas (inclination) to sin that is found in men.

To man, wounded because of sin and having this pronitas to sin, grace is necessary in two aspects: so that man is healed, in his nature, from the wounds of sin and so that he works the good of the supernatural force, that is carry out meritorious supernatural actions (See I-II q. 109 a. 2), and reach eternal glory, that is, perfect bliss (see I-II q.109).

Regarding the necessity of the healing action of grace, St. Thomas explains that due to original sin:

1) man has contracted a "stain" from which man himself cannot be healed except with a new illumination brought about by God through a habitual gift which is precisely the gift of (habitual) grace;

2) man's natural goods have been corrupted and the order of nature broken by sin cannot be repaired in such a way that man's will is subjected to God if Christ does not attract man's will through grace ;

3) man has incurred the crime of eternal punishment but this crime cannot be remitted except through the grace of God, against whom the offense was committed and who is the judge of men;

for all this the help of grace is necessary, that is, the gift of God, both as regards the habitual gift and as regards the internal divine motion, so that man rises from sin (Cf. I-II q.109 a. 7) . In particular, through Baptism we reacquire sanctifying grace and the disposition to evil which is called concupiscence and fomite is diminished but is not completely removed, normally; therefore, even after Baptism, the flesh remains in the soul, that is, the fomite, the concupiscence (see Super Sent., II d. 32 q. 1 a. 1 in co.), which engages man in the spiritual struggle until reaching perfect bliss in Heaven. The Eucharist, uniting us supremely with the glorious Christ and communicating to us, in a certain way, this beatitude, works precisely to further heal, compared to Baptism, the wounds caused by sin (see IIIª q. 79 a. 6 ad 3) and to make us realize in the fullness possible to us down here the supernatural good in order to achieve divine bliss.

In this line s. Pius The Eucharist consists in the fact that Christians united with God through this Sacrament draw strength from it to repress lust, to purify minor sins and prevent the more serious ones to which human frailty is exposed.[532]

Furthermore, through grace the fomite can be totally canceled: “Pronitas ad malum qui codicim fomes, non sequitur naturam sicut habilitas ad bonum sed consequitur corruptionem naturae quae est ex culpa; et ideo fomes totaliter per gratiam tolli potest.” (De Malo q.2 a.12 in c. et ad 5)

By grace, man's tendency to evil (which is called fomite) can therefore be completely removed. Regarding the necessity of grace to implement supernatural good and deserve the bliss of Heaven, it should be noted that already in the state of intact nature man needed the help of grace only to practice such good; today man is in a state of corrupt nature due to sin, and therefore he needs grace both to be healed and to practice supernatural good (see I-II q. 109 a.2).

In this line, man, who already in the state of intact nature could not have lived in charity without the grace of God, after original sin has even more need of grace to live in charity (see I-II q. 109 a . 4. ); in the state of intact nature man could abstain from sin with the help of God but in the state of corrupt nature man needs not only God's help but also healing grace so that he can completely abstain from sin (see . I-II, q. 109 a. 8 in co.).

Note that this need for grace is not only for those who have lost grace but also for those who are already in grace: those who have already achieved grace and have not lost it again do not need the help of grace understood as a habitual gift infused in the soul, but it needs the help of grace in the sense that it needs God to move it to act rightly and this for two reasons:

1) we cannot perform an act without God moving us to act;

2) despite having grace, the man healed from original sin and other sins is never, usually, completely healed; as long as he is in this world, the fomite, that is, concupiscence, always remains in him, ordinarily, as seen; and although man is healed in his mind through grace, he nevertheless remains in a certain way obscured in his intellect, so that he is not fully aware of what he needs and therefore it is necessary for him to be protected and directed by God, who everything knows, so that he can reach eternal bliss (See S.Th.. I-II q. 109 a.9 in c.)

Grace allows man, every man, even those with homosexual tendencies, to live according to the Law of God in charity, as mentioned, and therefore in the divine commands.

St. Thomas is very clear in stating that salvation does not consist in living according to the corruption of human nature but consists in living according to grace, that is, according to human nature perfected by sanctifying grace; salvation does not consist in living according to the homosexual tendency and in carrying out homosexual acts but consists in living according to grace, according to the divine Law in true chastity.

Through the Sacraments and more generally through the Liturgy, Christ communicates grace and makes the couple, sacramentally united with Him, capable of living according to the Law of God in order to Heaven.

Through the Liturgy, Christ establishes the life of the couple in Christ with Marriage, unites the spouses making them one flesh and therefore makes them capable of performing lawful and holy acts of intimate union, as we have seen just above.

 

 

b,3) Various errors by p. Oliva and my responses to them.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

  1. Oliva commits very serious doctrinal errors and perverts the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor in a colossal way.

First of all, he states that the current position of the Church recognizes that homosexuals do not choose their homosexual condition (Oliva cites n. 2359 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church), but teaches that "acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered" (Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 2357); now, continues the Dominican, since action is determined by being (agere sequitur esse), forcing a homosexual not to perform homosexual acts would mean preventing him from acting according to his life condition and would force him into celibacy depriving him of the possibility of choosing the own direction in life and discriminating against heterosexual people.[533]

I reply to p. Oliva noting first of all that in the typical edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at n. 2359 I don't read what he says, but I read: “Homosexual people are called to chastity. Through the virtues of self-mastery, educators of interior freedom, through the support, at times, of a disinterested friendship, with prayer and sacramental grace, they can and must, gradually and resolutely, approach Christian perfection." I don't even read what Fr. Oliva says in the other numbers of the Catechism dedicated to homosexuality... it would be good if Fr. Oliva updated herself… [534]. Probably the text cited by p. Oliva is the text that was in the Catechism of the Catholic Church in the first edition which was then improved and corrected with the typical edition.

I also remind everyone that it is Christ who reveals man to man, reveals to every man, even to homosexuals, who man is and what his vocation is. In Gaudium et Spes we read “«Christ […], precisely by revealing the mystery of the Father and of his love for him, also fully reveals man to man and makes his very high calling known to him».[535]

In Christ we know that homosexual acts are a serious sin and that homosexuality is a disordered tendency; in Him we can also understand that: homosexuals are men, they have human nature, and are obliged to observe the divine commandments, even the command that prohibits homosexuality; in Him, furthermore, we can understand that homosexuals are also men wounded by original sin, and that first and foremost homosexual tendencies derive from this sin and the disorder it has brought about in man.

In Christ we can also understand that He came to restore our nature wounded by sin and to give us the ability to live according to his Law to reach Heaven; therefore Christ also came to restore the wounded nature of those who have homosexual tendencies and to give them the ability to live according to the divine Law; in Him man, even homosexuals, has the grace to live according to the will of God and to overcome the tendencies that deviate him from this will and which push him to commit sin.

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 1701: “It is in Christ, "image of the invisible God" (Col 1,15), (Cf 2 Cor 4,4.) that man was created in the "image and likeness" of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man by the first sin, was restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.[536]"

It is in Christ, "image of the invisible God" (Col 1,15), (Cf 2 Cor 4,4.) that man, every man, even homosexuals, was created in the "image and likeness" of the Creator . It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man, in every man, even in homosexuals, by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God, so that in Christ every man, even the homosexual, is in the image and likeness of the Trinity and can act in the image and likeness of the Trinity in the will of God, in the Law of God which also commands not to commit the sins of homosexuality. The position of the Church simply helps the homosexual to live according to his true nature, to understand and realize his true vocation in Christ and therefore to reach Heaven.

The position of the Church (which, in line with what has just been said, condemns homosexual acts and considers the inclination towards them disordered) therefore does not force the homosexual not to live his "condition" of life, does not deprive him of the possibility of choose one's direction in life, limiting the choice to celibacy, and does not discriminate against homosexuals against heterosexual people.

P. Oliva also states that in s. Thomas there would be a clear distinction between homosexuality, which tends towards love and sexual union, and the unnatural impure vice with people of the same sex which leads to an immoderate use of purely venereal pleasure.[537]

I immediately respond to this statement by Fr. Dominican and I say that it is false and is a distortion of the thoughts of the Angelic Doctor who, obviously, has no support in the works of St. Thomas, in fact p. Oliva does not cite any text of St. Thomas on which to base his statements. For s. Thomas, impure acts against nature clearly fall among the acts contrary to the negative precepts of the Law of God, such acts are prohibited "semper et pro semper" or "semper et ad semper" (In Gal, c.6, l.1; II -II q. 33 a. 2 in c.;De malo, q. 7 a. 1 ad 8 etc.) as we have said several times in this book, therefore per s. Thomas there are no legal homosexual acts. Furthermore, the tendency towards homosexual practice is per se. Thomas simply an impure tendency contrary to nature, in fact it is a tendency that leads to carrying out acts radically forbidden by God, therefore it is a temptation, it is a temptation caused in us by the spiritual enemy which is called flesh or fomite. The homosexual tendency is an evidently disordered tendency, it is the fruit of sin (original and actual) and tends towards sin and therefore tends towards a sinful love, and not towards charity, and tends towards a sinful union. Charity, for s. Thomas, as we have seen in this book in the chapter on charity, in volume I, leads us to live according to the commandments and not in the sin of homosexuality. The sin of homosexuality, an objectively very serious sin, excludes charity from us when it is carried out with full awareness and deliberate consent.

Another mistake by p. Oliva is stating that the pleasure inherent in the homosexual relationship since it is found on the side of the soul, has its principle in the rational being, in the intelligence and will, of the homosexual person, therefore for this person, singular, homosexuality it cannot be considered unnatural, although it does not correspond to the general nature of the species.[538]

Oliva is greatly mistaken because for s. Thomas, as seen, the pleasure inherent in homosexual relations has its origins in the corruption that sin has brought about in human nature; according to s. Thomas and sound doctrine, for every man, even for the homosexual, practiced homosexuality is something radically contrary to true human nature and which harms man, it is something which does not help man to realize himself in Christ; practiced homosexuality is therefore an evil that hurts, like anthropophagy (see I-II q. 31 a.7) even if, as seen, corrupt nature can consider all these practices pleasant. The tendency towards homosexual practice is simply a tendency contrary to nature, it is a tendency towards what harms man and which pushes him to damn himself and not to save himself. Christ came so that man may also be healed of his homosexual tendencies and live guided not by them but by the Holy Spirit in purity and divine Law. Christ came so that man should not be guided by homosexual tendencies but should follow Christ on the path of the holy Law of God.

Christ reintegrates man into his true nature and allows him to live according to it: homosexual acts are radically contrary to this nature.

Oliva states that the commandment "thou shalt not kill" prohibits the anthropophagous from following his natural inclination to feed on other men but then states that there cannot be a natural principle which makes the homosexual inclination as such illegal, since it is connatural to homosexual individual and has as its goal love for a person[539]…actually yes. Thomas clearly says, as seen, that these inclinations (anthropophagic and homosexual) are simply unnatural, contrary to the true nature of man and disordered, they come from the disorder and corruption of human nature and not strictly from human nature and should not be followed.

St. Thomas places it on the same level, in I-II q. 31 a.m. 7, various immoralities to which man is driven: anthropophagy, practiced homosexuality; p. Oliva doesn't realize this and builds a castle of absurdity on the "connaturality" of homosexuality...

Then says Fr. Olive that the homosexual is called, like every other person, to participate in the mystery of the redeeming love of Jesus Christ and the communion of grace in Christ[540] but evidently he does not realize, or does not want to realize, the fact that Christ and grace work to heal man from the corruption of nature and therefore to heal him from his deviant tendency, whether homosexual or anthropophagic or of another type, and to direct him not to homosexual or anthropophagic practice but to the practice of sanctity.

The Dominican adds that in his journey of Christian life, the homosexual person must seek his true vocation and if he does not feel inclined to consecrated life or celibacy, he can fall in love with a person of the same sex because this, although not connatural to human species in general, it is however connatural for homosexual people.[541]

As can be seen, p. Oliva creates a colossal distortion and perversion of the Christian message and of the message of St. Thomas. Sound Catholic doctrine with s. Thomas specifies very well that the homosexual tendency is simply against nature, that is, it is contrary to human nature and should never be followed; God does not call anyone to perform homosexual acts or to a life as a couple with a homosexual. Following the homosexual trend is a very serious sin. Christ also came to give us the gift of not following this tendency and to make us know our true vocation to holiness, in Him and with Him.

Oliva talks about charity in homosexual relationships[542] but it must be remembered that, as I said in the chapter dedicated to charity, in volume I, s. Thomas and sound doctrine affirm that charity leads us to observe the commandments and not to break them with unnatural sins. Christ came to teach us the true path of charity and this path does not pass through the practice of homosexuality but through the practice of true purity and the fight against homosexual tendencies. Anyone who voluntarily and freely allows themselves to be guided by homosexual tendencies sins gravely and loses charity. Permissible sexual activity is only that which takes place within marriage, between woman and man.[543]

Oliva cites the text of the Summa contra Gentiles l. III c. 122 but does not say that it is precisely there. Thomas states: “fornication and any other sexual act except with one's wife are illicit; for it is written: “Let there be no harlot among the daughters

of Israel, nor a fornicator among the children of Israel" (Deut., XXIII, 17). And elsewhere:

«Beware of any fornication, and keep away from your wife

from sin" (Tob., IV, 13); «Flee fornication» (I Cor., VI, 18).”

The same doctrine s. Thomas reiterates in other passages.[544]

Therefore no sexual act between two men is permitted!

P. Oliva quotes the text of the Somma contra Gentiles l. III c. 122 and then states: “Ce qui semble curieux, c'est que saint Thomas continue à condemner les péchés contre nature en tant que transgression du commandement de Gn 1, 28 ..”[545]

What seems curious on p. Olive is that Saint Thomas continues to condemn sins against nature as a transgression of the commandment of Gen 1, 28.

I reply to p. Oliva that the reading of the c. 122 of the III book of the Sum Against the Gentiles, does not demonstrate what p. Dominican states, in fact, s. Thomas does not cite Gen. 1,28 and clearly says that homosexual practice goes against many biblical passages: Deut. 23, 17; Tob., 4, 13; I Cor. 6, 18. In the Summa Theologica (see II-II q. 154 a. 11) s. Thomas points to other biblical passages that condemn homosexual activity. P. Oliva evidently does not really follow s. Thomas and distorts his statements.

The same Dominican father also states: "... the actual Magistère de l'Église, affirmant that the commandment of Gen 1, 28 is no longer absolute and allows the use of sexuality without procréation in conjoints légitimes , permet de développer l’enseignement de saint Thomas.”[546] That is, the current Magisterium of the Church, affirming that the commandment of Gen 1, 28 is no longer absolute and allowing legitimate spouses the use of sexuality without the purpose of procreation, allows the teaching of St. to be developed. Thomas.

I reply to p. Oliva noting that:

1) the Church is very clear and clear in stating first of all that sexuality is licit only in marriage.[547] St. Thomas equally stated that: "... in isto praecepto, non moechaberis, prohibetur non solum adulterium, sed omnis carnalis corruptio, praeter eam quae est matrimonii"[548] in the sixth precept every carnal sin is prohibited with the exception of that which occurs in marriage, marriage is between man and woman and therefore homosexual acts radically and insurmountably contrast Catholic doctrine;

2) the Church has clearly stated the principle according to which it is never permissible to separate the unitive dimension from the procreative one from the act of sexual union[549], therefore the act of sexual union must be done by a man and a woman united in marriage and must be done while always keeping it open to the generation of a new life, therefore any sodomy and any act against nature is prohibited even between married people, even more so homosexual acts are prohibited;

3) within a marital relationship open to life, the Church allows in some cases of particular necessity the use of natural means of regulating fertility and this has been the case since 1800[550], subsequently Pius a vile and intrinsically dishonest action.

Therefore it is not surprising if the divine Majesty, as the Holy Scriptures themselves attest, has the utmost hatred for this heinous crime, and has sometimes punished it with the death penalty... Therefore, there are some who, manifestly abandoning the Christian doctrine, taught since origins, nor ever modified, have nowadays, in this matter, publicly claimed to proclaim another, the Catholic Church... loudly proclaims, through Our word, as a sign of its divine mission, and once again sentences that any use of marriage , in which due to human malice the act is deprived of its natural procreative virtue, goes against the law of God and nature, and that those who dare to commit such actions are guilty of grave guilt." [551] Therefore Pius XI already defined contraception as intrinsically evil, intrinsically dishonest and cited Scripture and Tradition in support of his statement.

Pius XII clarified this doctrine further by stating that: “Our Predecessor Pius of the marital act or in the development of its natural consequences, an attack with the aim of depriving it of the strength inherent in it and preventing the procreation of a new life, is immoral; and that no "indication" or necessity can change an intrinsically immoral action into a moral and lawful act (see Acta Ap. Sedis vol 31, p. 1930 et seq.). …”[552] Therefore the Italian Pontiff explained that with regard to the use of natural means of regulating fertility consisting in the observation of the agenesis periods it should be noted first of all that the Marriage is null if one of the spouses in the act of Marriage intended "to restrict the same to the times of sterility matrimonial law ... so that on other days the other spouse would not even have the right to request the document".

The Pope continued by saying: “If instead that limitation of the act to the days of natural sterility refers not to the law itself, but only to the use of the law, the validity of the marriage remains beyond question, however the moral lawfulness of such conduct of the spouses it would be to be affirmed or denied, according to whether the intention to constantly observe those times is based, or not, on sufficient and certain moral reasons. …”[553]

The Pope explained these statements by specifying that the obligatory positive performance of the sexual union by the couple united in marriage in order to preserve the human species: "the spouses can exempt themselves "for a long time, indeed for the entire duration of the marriage" for "serious reasons, such as those that often occur in the so-called medical, eugenic, economic and social "indication". From this it follows that the observance of the infertile times can be licit from a moral point of view; and in the conditions mentioned it really is so.”[554]

In essence the spouses are allowed to unite carnally in an objectively correct and open to life way, this right of theirs implies a duty that is to provide for generations of children, this duty lapses for serious reasons so the spouses can lawfully use their right without having to provide for generations of children; therefore it is permissible, for serious reasons, to unite carnally, as mentioned, observing the agenesis times and therefore practicing the natural methods of regulating fertility, for the same doctrine it is permissible to unite sexually by married couples incapable of procreating. This doctrine is not new, we find it clearly stated already with Pius natural, whether of time or other defective circumstances, a new life cannot be born from it. In fact, both in marriage itself and in the use of matrimonial law, secondary ends are also contained, such as mutual help and mutual affection to be fomented and the quiet of concupiscence, ends which the spouses are not prohibited from wanting, provided that it is the intrinsic nature of the act and, consequently, its subordination to the main purpose is always respected."[555]. We find this same doctrine in subsequent magisterial documents: the “Humanae Vitae” of Paul VI and the “Familiaris Consortio.” of s. John Paul II.

Spouses therefore have a right to unite carnally correctly, those who are not married do not have this right, nor do homosexuals have this right to unite carnally with each other.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear in proposing these truths and in condemning, with s. Thomas, homosexual practice (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2338 ff., in particular nn. 2357 ff.) in these texts we also find it stated that, as seen, not only the entire Bible but also the entire Tradition radically condemns homosexual practiced homosexuality.

P. Oliva avoids looking for false supports in texts belonging to Tradition to spread his statements widely and radically condemned by the Church, the Bible and Tradition.

In particular, P. Oliva avoids saying that thanks to the new provisions of Humanae Vitae 10, although the sexual organ is physiologically ordered to the other sex, nothing would prohibit its use in relationships with the same sex in the context of true homosexual love, unique, faithful and free, taking into account the connaturality, for some people, of the "against nature", as well as the exceptions permitted by natural law, by the metaphysical, anthropological, theological, exegetical and magisterial principles that he cites[556]

Humanae Vitae and the entire Catholic Magisterium radically block the way to the legitimization of every sexual act performed outside of marriage, while recognizing, in the line of Pius made above, even in agenesis times.

Oliva avoid making statements of this kind just seen because they are very serious errors fundamentally condemned by s. Thomas, from the Magisterium, from Pope s. Paul VI and before that from the Bible and then from all Tradition, as we have clearly seen so far; the novelties of Humanae Vitae have nothing to do with the legitimization of homosexual practice, they concern people united in marriage and reaffirm Catholic doctrine... therefore they implicitly reaffirm the condemnation of homosexual acts.

To legitimize unnatural practices, Fr. Oliva bases his errors on the mental distortions that he follows and not on Catholic and Thomistic truth; always for this purpose he sets aside many of the magisterial condemnations of homosexual practice and hides the strong reasons that s. Thomas presents good arguments to support the condemnation of unclean acts against nature.[557]

Oliva adds[558]that all sexual acts between people of the same sex performed for pure venereal pleasure obviously remain sins, because they are contrary to the virtue of chastity, but not because they are sexual acts between people of the same sex.

I respond by saying that this is another colossal error given that sexual acts between people of the same sex are all very serious sins contrary to chastity as clearly emerges also from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 2338 ff.), the Homosexual acts are always and under all circumstances prohibited by the Law of God precisely as sexual acts between unmarried people of the same sex.

The P. Oliva talks about natural law[559] trying to justify homosexual practice through it but strangely forgetting that precisely s. Thomas states that this practice is simply contrary to human nature (see I-II q. 31 a. 7) and that, therefore, this practice is contrary to natural law and revealed law[560]

P. Oliva speaks of natural law looking for non-existent supports to affirm the lawfulness of homosexual practice; p's strategy Oliva is similar, in some respects, to that used in Amoris Laetitia at nos. 304s, as we saw, to open the door to immorality: we talk about natural law and focus on it, in an imprecise and deviant way, not highlighting that there is a revealed divine Law that is much more precise than natural law and therefore not highlighting that the Divine law has very precise negative commands that must always and forever be observed (see the chapter on the errors of Amoris Laetitia regarding charity, in the first volume of this book) and this Law radically condemns homosexual practice, as it condemns adultery ... this divine Law also contains the same natural law, correctly understood, which radically condemns homosexual acts always and forever.

In short, the book by p. Oliva is a mass of errors and distortions of St. Thomas and Catholic doctrine.

In a subsequent article, published on the “Il Regno” blog, p. Oliva reiterated the scandalous errors stated in the book just examined[561]

In this article we read among other things: “And this individuality, explains Tommaso, allows one to orient one's life according to personal inclinations, such as choosing to get married or live in celibacy [...]. Natural law, which entails different levels of obligatoriness [...], contemplates exceptions precisely at the level of individual inclinations, such as homosexuality. And the divine law, which condemns the sins of sodomy, recognizes that the sexual act has a love value in itself, if inserted in a relationship that involves uniqueness, fidelity and gratuitousness [...]"

These statements contain further errors of p. Oliva who want to legitimize homosexual practice; in reality homosexual activity, as mentioned, according to s. Thomas is contrary to human nature and the natural law radically condemns it, the revealed divine law equally condemns this activity and, as seen, this condemnation is absolute and always and forever applies as stated by St. Thomas and the Magisterium. There is no homosexual act that is morally permissible! P. Oliva is in great error! ... and his error is further manifested in these statements of his that we take from the same article: "The person loved by a homosexual, considered as a person, makes the love between the two good, if it is unique, faithful and gratuitous: love which emanates from the soul and which fully realizes the existence of homosexual people, without frustrating their ability to love. A homosexual couple, who lives in their relationship the conscious choice of a unique, faithful and free love... is founded on the naturalness of the homosexual inclination of people taken in their singularity, who live their connatural love."

As we have widely seen so far, homosexual acts are radically condemned always and forever by the Bible, Tradition and Magisterium and by s. Thomas; there can never be a holy homosexual love, homosexuality is a disordered tendency that pushes one to carry out acts contrary to human nature, to natural law and to revealed divine law; Catholic doctrine and St. Tommaso are very clear about it. P. Oliva completely overturns sound Catholic and Thomistic doctrine.

I would add that, along the lines of Prof.'s book. Piana, Oliva's text also completely sets aside the liturgical dimension that establishes the lawfulness of intimate acts.

The only legitimate intimate acts, according to sound Catholic doctrine, are those that have the Sacrament of Marriage as their basis; this Sacrament profoundly unites the spouses and makes them capable of holy intimate acts, according to the will of God; obviously Marriage necessarily implies the sexual difference between man and woman therefore it is radically impossible for homosexual acts to be lawful!

God free the Church from the errors of p. Olive.

 

 

b,4) Some Dominican professors radically and rightly condemn the errors of p. Olive; the Holy See, however, significantly remains silent...

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

The errors of p. Oliva in his book that we are examining are highlighted well by a group of scholars, his Dominican brothers in an article[562].

In this article the Dominican fathers point out that the book caused a significant scandal and that Fr. Oliva makes four major misinterpretations and abuses of Aquinas's doctrine:

1) separates the bond of marriage from the good of children;

2) states that the Church may formally permit some extramarital sexual acts;

3) states that divorced and remarried couples do not sin when they fail in continence;

4) states that homosexual acts can be natural and healthy.

Examining more thoroughly the second error regarding the doctrine of s. Thomas the authors of the article assert that Oliva's surprising statement has nothing to do with Thomas Aquinas and derives directly from his misinterpretation of Thomas Aquinas on marriage, a misreading that also extends to various magisterial texts . Oliva even refers to Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae (paragraphs 8-10) to argue that the exercise of sexuality by a legitimately married couple is separate from the need to procreate. Pope Paul VI would teach, according to Oliva, that sex does not necessarily have anything to do with children. The authors of the article point out that this statement by Oliva is simply outrageous to the memory of St. Paul VI.

Examining the fourth error of p. Oliva in the criticism made of him by the Dominican fathers we see that for them: the entire argument of the Italian Dominican is fundamentally based on his separation of marriage from the good of children and on a misinterpretation of a single text in Aquinas' Summa Theologiae: I- II, question 31, article 7. Oliva focuses on this text and thinks it shows that homosexual acts are natural for homosexual people and what is natural must be good. Furthermore, for Oliva, Aquinas places the origin of the inclination for gay sex in the soul of the homosexual person so that this inclination comes from the most intimate part of his being and goes as far as sexual union.

Now if, as Oliva proposes, Thomas wanted to assert that the homosexual inclination comes from the most intimate part of the person's soul, then the same reading should apply to Aquinas' mention of cannibalism and bestiality so that cannibalism and bestiality would be for some people natural and good. Yet this is clearly absurd.

The Italian Dominican, the American theologians continue, states that we can distinguish between:

homosexual acts sought simply for physical pleasure under the pressure of passionate impulses and homosexual acts coming from a faithful love guided by charity and chastity. Homosexual people, in fact, according to p. Oliva are called to live the homosexual inclination that is natural to them in the light of true love, therefore in fidelity to another person of the same sex, and therefore to enjoy sexual acts as expressions of love.

According to Oliva, the Church should bless homosexual unions.

The fundamental problem with the statements of p. Olive just seen, according to American theologians, is in the moral evaluation of homosexual actions.

Homosexual people are not made to commit impure sins against nature but are called to true chastity, they are called to live the divine Law which is clear in absolutely rejecting homosexual acts. Being among the acts condemned by the negative precepts of the Decalogue, homosexual acts are prohibited always and forever! For the virtues of self-control that teach them interior freedom, even with the support of a disinterested friendship, with prayer and sacramental grace, homosexuals can and must set out on the path of true chastity and the implementation of divine commands about.

The conclusion of the Dominican professors radically criticizes Fr.'s book. Oliva: “Overall, we find Oliva's reading of Aquinas not only questionable but irresponsible. The fundamental principles for interpreting texts are not respected. Furthermore, the popular genre of the book has the potential to create great confusion among the Catholic faithful. For this reason, we feel a strong moral obligation to respond to Oliva's claims.”[563]

The book by p. Oliva would deserve a condemnation by the Holy See... but evidently given the trend, that is, given the ongoing "paradigm change" and its openings to the lawfulness of homosexual acts, not only are there no pontifical condemnations of this false text and scandalous but this text is advertised in a blog article of the famous magazine "Il Regno", as seen [564]...

God intervene.

 

 

b,5) Fr. Cavalcoli, Dominican, responds to p. Oliva, also Dominican.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

The Dominican Fr. Cavalcoli, a well-known scholar of St. Tommaso and professor published a detailed response[565]  to the statements of p. Oliva, in it said: "Father Oliva in fact does not take into account the fact that, for Thomas, a pleasure, to be lawful, must be according to reason, so it is not enough that it is placed at the ontological or psychological level of the individual , but it must be super-individual, that is, according to reason, corresponding to the purposes of human life. And this is precisely the moral good. ... Since Tommaso speaks for the homosexual about a "natural" pleasure, this simple fact is enough for Father Oliva to believe that Tommaso legitimizes homosexual pleasure. … Thomas also admits without hesitation that what is according to nature is pleasant, and in itself is lawful and honest. However, it reminds us that those pleasures which, in the individual, are pleasing to his individual nature as corrupt, are not pleasures "simpliciter loquendo", but only "secundum quid", that is, they cannot be human pleasures in the full and absolute sense, under every aspect, because they frustrate the purposes of human nature. ... For this reason they are not lawful and honest pleasures, but forbidden and sinful. And homosexual pleasure is one of them. …

... for St. Thomas, a human act is lawful and good if it is the application, by the individual, of the moral norm, which is the universal rule of action, the same law for everyone, because it is the law of human nature as such , identical nature in all; and therefore all individuals, as members of the human species, are required to observe it. For this reason, a sin according to the species, for Thomas, is also a sin for the individual who commits it. …

Now, homosexuality... is a conduct contrary to the universal law of human nature, which even the homosexual must try to practice, no matter how much effort it costs him. This is the impeccable thought of Aquinas. ... unfortunately, Father Oliva, perhaps believing he could understand and approach with charity the particular situation of homosexuals, in order to recognize their human dignity, and propose an ad hoc solution, has implemented an unfortunate distinction between individuality and species in moral field, granting to the individual what is denied to the species; and… he completely misunderstands Aquinas' thoughts, making him say the opposite of what he actually says. …Father Oliva glosses over the clear Thomist expressions with which homosexuality is expressly condemned, considering them outdated and products of his time; while, in his opinion, the true, profound thought of Thomas would give a "metaphysical" endorsement to homosexuality, where he speaks of the "good connatural to the individual", without taking into account the fact that Aquinas here explicitly speaks of individual nature “corrupt”. ..."[566]

Also p. Cavalcoli radically rejects, therefore, the very serious errors of p. Olive.

 

 

b,6) A Spanish theologian takes up and supports the errors of p. Olive; the professor. Pieri answers him.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

A Spanish priest, J. Martinez Gordo, incredibly supported and relaunched as valid the statements of Fr. Oliva goes so far as to say that: "... human acts - as the culmination of the connatural inclination - are good or bad depending on whether the relationship that a homosexual has with the loved one is unique, faithful and gratuitous. … “[567]

Therefore homosexual acts would be lawful if they are carried out in a relationship of this kind, otherwise they should be avoided because it would fall into sodomy.

J. Martinez Gordo continues by saying that in light of the contribution offered by s. Thomas, according to p. Oliva: “… it was possible to distinguish the naturalness and connaturality of the homosexual inclination – applicable to bisexuality and transsexuality – from sodomy. The latter would be a morally reprehensible act because it maintains a relationship in which exclusive love, fidelity and generosity do not exist at all.”[568]

Therefore, for this author, the homosexual inclination like the transsexual and bisexual one is ordered if it maintains a relationship that has exclusive love, fidelity and gratuitousness; obviously the acts caused by such inclinations are, for this author, evidently good precisely if they maintain a relationship that has exclusive love, fidelity and generosity. And concluding, the Spanish author states that homosexual relationships lived with exclusive love, fidelity and generosity: "... it is difficult not to recognize it as inhabited by elements of truth and as a way of sanctification. Therefore, there should be no problem for Catholic homosexuals to be able to participate in the sacraments nor to be fully integrated into the ecclesial community."[569]

What we have said about the errors of p. Oliva obviously applies to Martinez Gordo's statements with the aggravating circumstance that Martinez Gordo approves of Oliva's errors even though eminent Dominicans have already radically and rightly condemned them as colossal errors.

Don Francesco Pieri entered the discussion and criticized the statements of Oliva and Gordo [570] noting in particular that in the Commentary on Isaiah s. Thomas states: “Ad quod dicendum, quod, sicut codicit philosophus, coniunctio maris et feminae in hominibus non estsoluto propter generationem, sicut in brutis, sed etiam ad commodum vitae: unde et maris et feminae sunt diversie operationes, in quibus auxiliantur sibi invicem . Secundum ergo quod aliquid diversimode ordinatur ad hos fines, secundum hoc diversimode codicil natural vel unnaturale. Id enim quod nullo modo potest stare cum fine dicto, est omnino unnaturale, et nunquam potest esse bonum, sicut vitium sodomiticum: et sicut hoc, quod una mulier habeat multiple viros, quia una non fecundatur a pluribus: et quantum ad vitam civilim, here a non-regitur a pluribus; sed and contrary” (Super Isaiam, chapter 4 l. 1. ) Sexual union is between man and woman and is aimed at procreation and mutual help. What goes outside the relationship between man and woman and which is absolutely incompatible with the said purpose of procreation and mutual help is completely unnatural and can never be a good, like the sin of sodomy. In the Commentary on the Sentences s. Thomas writes that: “Omnis culpa mortalis est contra gratiam; sed quaedam est contra rationem, ut perjurium; quaedam etiam contra naturam, ut sodomia.” which Pieri translates as follows «Every mortal sin is contrary to grace, but some are contrary to reason such as perjury; others even against nature, such as the vice of sodomy" (4, dist. 14, q. 2, a. 5, exp. Textus) Pieri continues: "... it is evidently improper to draw from this connaturality per accidens affirmed by Thomas in I -II q. 31 a.m. 7 the idea of ​​a congenital or innate character of homosexuality in the single individual, given that he traces it back to a flawed disposition. Nor is it honest to read from his thoughts any intention of moral legitimization for sodomy (coitus masculorum): it would be equally absurd as attributing to him the intention of morally legitimizing bestiality or cannibalism, which complete his exemplification in the same context."[571]

Pieri also points out that various empirical investigations demonstrate the reduced statistical incidence of exclusive and faithful bonds between same-sex couples: homosexual couples are based in the vast majority on non-exclusive and non-faithful bonds. Along these lines we have come to say that: "... the stability of the [homosexual] union is greater the more open the couple is."[572]

Pieri also recalls that: "... according to the epidemiologist M. Xiridou, homosexual relationships last on average a year and a half and men with homosexual tendencies have on average eight partners in a year outside the main relationship."[573]

May God free the Church from errors and heresies, and in particular from these immoral doctrines of Fr. Oliva and Don Martinez Gordo who tend to legitimize homosexuality.

 

 

c) The professor's book. A. Fumagalli “Possible love. Homosexual people and Christian morality.”

 

 

May God enlighten us better and better.

Below we examine the statements of A. Fumagalli, priest of the Diocese of Milan and professor at the Faculty of Theology of Northern Italy, who, taking up the statements of the book by G. Piana that we examined above[574], goes so far as to legitimize homosexual love in the book “Possible Love. Homosexual people and Christian morality.” Cittadella Editrice 2020 [575].

I would like to point out that the prof. Fumagalli holds a course in the context of Special Morality I, in the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy entitled: “Homosexual love and Christian faith.”[576] This course is presented by the professor himself with these words: "The course intends to take up the homosexual question in the theological context, investigating the relationship between homosexual love and the Christian faith, in order to promote a renewed anthropological interpretation and offer criteria for its moral evaluation.” …

In the aforementioned book this author presents the phenomenon of homosexuality, defining it and distinguishing it from transsexuality, transvestism, intersexuality etc., then traces the path of homosexuality throughout history and highlights the evolution of its understanding, significantly noting how since the 19th century the idea has been spreading that homosexuals do not act against nature but belong to a different nature, the term "homosexual" enters this line[577].

We saw above that the term homosexuality was coined by the writer Karoly Maria Kertbeny, pseudonym of Karoly Maria Benkert, supporter of homosexual rights, in 1869; the term in question reflected the essentialist thought according to which the "homosexual" belonged to a third sex; this term was evidently created with the aim of indicating in a neutral way what had until then been referred to with terms of notable negativity such as "pederasty" and "sodomy". [578]

Considered as an existential condition, homosexuality is subsequently depathologized and considered a "psychologically healthy variant of human sexuality", a normal determination of human development[579]. Fumagalli then offers the interpretations of the human sciences on this phenomenon, and in this regard he significantly states that the various studies carried out so far do not provide evidence that clearly affirms the genetic origin of homosexuality, the attempts to find the bases have not produced significant results genetics of homosexual orientation[580].

The Milanese moralist then outlines the Catholic doctrine on the topic of homosexual acts as it emerges from the Bible, from Tradition and in particular from the Magisterium; subsequently he explains how this doctrine can be overcome and how homosexual acts can be legitimized (pp. 153-185).

In particular, according to Fumagalli the main argument that the Church opposes to the legitimacy of homosexual love is the structural absence of sexual otherness which leads to the absence of procreative fertility (pp. 153-162). Both aspects can be overcome, according to Fumagalli, and therefore the moral judgment on homosexual acts must be updated in the sense of considering such acts as legitimate (pp.153-185). To reach this conclusion Fumagalli recalls the statements of Amoris Laetitia regarding the ideal to be achieved, graduality, discernment... and cites Amoris Laetitia n. 297 (p. 174). According to Fumagalli, homosexual love with homosexual acts would realize the homosexual's vocation to love according to what is possible for him. Such acts would therefore be lawful as long as they are lived in the love indicated by Christ (Jn. 13,34), a love lived to the end (Jn. 13,1) and ready to give one's life for one's friends (Jn. 15,34) (p. 175). Such love would imply in the case of homosexual acts, according to Fumagalli:

1) a responsibility for the other, to love him as Christ loves;

2) a responsibility for oneself for which the person is called to live in chastity understood not as continence but as sexual actuation controlled in a liberating way;

3) a responsibility for the world, with the related duties towards society;

4) a responsibility for the life story, so we need to ask ourselves: where is this relationship headed? (pp. 175-185)

Where, homosexual couples must ask, is their relationship headed? …is it directed towards good or towards evil? …is this relationship directed towards the promotion of the person in the sense of living for the other?

Homosexual acts are lawful, according to Fumagalli, when they are beautiful and pure (p. 182) ... that is, when they are acts of interpersonal donation, they are acts of personal unification, they are acts of social interaction with the environment and they are acts that must be inserted into a "historical narrative" (p. 183-185), Christian love is manifested in such acts (p. 182)

Beyond the beautiful words used by Fumagalli, the fact remains that according to him homosexual acts are legitimate, in some cases and this is a very serious mistake.

 

 

c,1) Fumagalli's basic errors.

 

 

God enlighten us more and more.

Following in Piana's footsteps, Fumagalli's text inherits some fundamental errors, in fact the author in question does not show that he is aware of God's fundamental plan for man nor of the intervention of man who opposes this project... and he does not show that he is even aware of the aim of this project... more generally I think I can say that the theological horizon in which the author moves does not appear to be fully Catholic.

 

 

c,1,1) Loss of God's true plan for man and in particular of Christ's work for our salvation.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

God's plan as it emerges from the Bible begins with the creation of man in the image and likeness of God, in Christ.

“God created man in his image; in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Gen 1,27:XNUMX)

In an interesting document of the International Theological Commission we read in this regard that: “A significant development of the biblical story is given by the distinction that Saint Irenaeus makes between image and likeness, according to which «image» denotes an ontological participation (methexis) and « likeness" (mimēsis) a moral transformation (Adv. Haer. V, 6, 1; V, 8, 1; V, 16, 2). According to Tertullian, God created man in his image and gave him his vital breath as a likeness of him. While the image can never be destroyed, the likeness can be lost through sin (Bapt. 5, 6. 7). … In Thomas Aquinas, the imago Dei possesses a historical nature, as it passes through three phases: the imago creationis (naturae), the imago recreationis (gratiae) and the imago similitudinis (gloriae) (S. Th . I q. 93 a. 4). For Aquinas, the imago Dei is the foundation of participation in divine life. The image of God is realized mainly in an act of contemplation in the intellect (S. Th. I q. 93 a. 4 and 7) … ”[581]

The divine image, the International Theological Commission further explains, is not lost with sin but is deformed: “46. Catholic and Protestant exegetes currently agree that the imago Dei cannot be totally destroyed by sin, since it defines the entire structure of human nature. For its part, the Catholic tradition has always insisted that, while the imago Dei can be disfigured or deformed, it cannot be destroyed by sin.”[582]

Instead, the likeness is lost with sin... and original sin has precisely caused man to lose the divine likeness, leaving him with a deformed divine image, in Christ this image is reformed; the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 705 “Disfigured by sin and death, man remains "in the image of God", in the image of the Son, but is deprived of "the glory of God", (Cf. Rm 3,23) of the "likeness". The Promise made to Abraham inaugurates the Economy of salvation, at the end of which the Son himself will assume "the image" (Cf. Jn 1,14; Phil 2,7.) and will restore it in the "likeness" with the Father..." .”

The same Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n.734 "... It is "the communion of the Holy Spirit" (2 Cor 13,13) which in the Church restores to the baptized the divine likeness lost due to sin."

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is enlightening in showing together what man was before sin and what he became after this sin, at n. 399 of this document we read: “The Scripture shows the dramatic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. (Cf. Rm 3,23.)”, the same Catechism states in n. 400: “The harmony in which they were placed, thanks to original justice, is destroyed... Death enters the history of humanity. (Cf. Rm 5,12.)”

Man was created in the image and likeness of God in original sanctifying grace and had extraordinary harmony, furthermore he was immortal. With original sin corruption enters... disorder enters, diseases enter, death enters.

Human nature is wounded by original sin, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains in n.1714: “Man, wounded in his own nature by original sin, is subject to error and inclined to evil in the exercise of his freedom. ”

For s. Thomas, original sin is a disordered disposition of human nature, that is, a bad habit that is guilty as it derives from our ancestors (see I-II q. 82 a.1). Original sin, in particular, diminished man's natural good (see I-II q. 85 a.1) and wounded this nature; before original sin, the lower forces of the soul were subjected to reason which was subjected to God and perfected by God; original sin has determined and continues to determine four "wounds" in the soul of man, that is, it has disordered the human soul in four aspects; even personal sins cause these wounds in us (see I-II q. 85 a.3).

This disorder caused by original sin and personal sins, this wounding of human nature, is at the origin of homosexuality as of every other deviant tendency of man.

From this profound disorder caused by original sin and personal sins the disorder originated which, as St. Thomas, for cannibals it is in a certain way connatural and pleasant to eat men, for homosexuals it is in a certain way connatural to coitus with men (see I-II q. 31 a. 7). From this disorder we have in fact that some pleasures are absolutely speaking, unnatural, although they are connatural in some way to some people, just think of cannibalism, homosexuality etc.

Christ came precisely to restore our likeness and to reform our deformed image.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church significantly states in n.518: “The whole life of Christ is a mystery of recapitulation. What Jesus did, said and suffered had the aim of re-establishing fallen man in his primitive vocation..."

St. Peter Chrysologus had this to say about this work of Christ "... Therefore, now regenerated, now reformed in the image of our creator, let them do what the Apostle commands: "As we have borne the image of the man of the earth, so we will bear the image of the heavenly man" (1 Cor 15, 49). Now reborn in the likeness of our Lord and adopted by God as children, let us bear the whole image of our Author, let us bear it with total likeness, not in the majesty that belongs to him alone, but in that innocence, simplicity, meekness, patience, humility, mercy, peace, with which he deigned to become like us and be similar to us."[583]

More profoundly, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church says in n. 1701: “… It is in Christ, « image of the invisible God » (Col 1,15), (Cf 2 Cor 4,4.) that man was created in the « image and likeness » of the Creator. It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man by the first sin, was restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.[584]"

And the Second Vatican Council states: "Christ [...], precisely by revealing the mystery of the Father and his love, also fully reveals man to man and makes his most high vocation known to him."[585]

Christ reveals man to man, he reveals to every man, even to homosexuals, who man is and what his vocation is. In Christ we have full light on man and man's sin. It is in Christ, "image of the invisible God" (Col 1,15; cf. 2 Cor 4,4) that man, every man even homosexuals, was created in the "image and likeness" of the Creator.

It is in Christ, Redeemer and Savior, that the divine image, deformed in man, in every man, even in homosexuals, by the first sin, has been restored in its original beauty and ennobled by the grace of God.

In Christ man is in the image and likeness of the Trinity and must act in the image and likeness of the Trinity in the will of God, in the Law of God which is for all men so that all may observe it.

In Christ man rediscovers sanctifying grace, that is, participation in the divine life that was lost with original sin...

The Catechism states in n. 1999: “The grace of Christ is the free gift that God gives us of his life, infused into our soul by the Holy Spirit to heal it from sin and sanctify it. …”

As the Catechism itself explains in n.1997: “Grace is a participation in the life of God; introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life. Through Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, Head of his body..."

In Christ, in his grace, man can live in the divine Law that Christ lived in full and that we are all called to live, in Christ man can live the commandments that He lived, for this reason Jesus says: “This it is my commandment: that you love one another as I have loved you.” (Jn 15,12).

Christ observed the Law perfectly; only He, God-man, could implement this perfect observance (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 580).

In Christ, in sanctifying grace and charity, we can live the holy Law of God to the full. In Christ we can walk decisively towards Heaven, towards Paradise, which is the ultimate goal of man.

Christ precisely came not to leave man in disorder and therefore in fornication or in the performance of homosexual acts but he came so that man may truly be the image and likeness of God and manifest in his life the holiness of God and not immorality. of homosexual activity.

As seen above, it is clear that the Law of God, the natural one, the Ancient one and the New one, radically condemns such activity and it is clear that God's original plan excludes it in a radical way, man is not created to live in 'homosexuality but in chastity, sexual union is foreseen in the divine plan and is permitted only within marriage between man and woman[586]. Precisely in Christ man can live according to God's original plan, he can live in the holy divine Law according to which sexuality is permitted only in marriage.

The Holy Spirit who guides the Church and has guided the biblical authors and the holy Doctors and all the holy ecclesiastical writers has always indicated that the way that leads to Heaven, the way that man must travel, the way of salvation is not the way of the performance of homosexual acts but is that of chastity, which provides for holy and lawful sexual acts only within marriage.

Christ came precisely to give us the opportunity to live according to this sound doctrine and therefore to make us walk towards Heaven.

 

 

c,1,2) Loss of the liturgical dimension which is the basis of licit Christian sexual activity. Sexuality is licit only in Marriage, which is a Sacrament.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Fumagalli develops a very reductive treatment of sexual otherness and the absence of procreative fertility in homosexual relationships. In this discussion he states that in reality a certain otherness and a certain "fertility" is also found in such relationships... therefore, he concludes, the homosexual acts are legal in some cases...(p. 159-185)

The "problem", however, is not simply whether there is some otherness between two individuals and whether there is some "fruitfulness", the "problem" is that God has clearly manifested in Scripture and Tradition that his plan for man does not foresee that man performs homosexual acts... God's plan for man in Christ is a plan of grace and chastity which foresees sexual life only within a marriage... and therefore between man and woman and only after God brought them together.[587]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear in stating that the Sacrament of Marriage is between man and woman and that God unites the two spouses through this Sacrament.

This Catechism underlines how marriage enters into the true plan of God (n. 1602) and into the true order of creation (1603ff).

Note well that it is God who unites the two spouses: “The consent, through which the spouses give and receive each other mutually, is sealed by God himself. ... The alliance of the spouses is integrated into the Covenant of God with men: "Authentic conjugal love is assumed in divine love". [588]” (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1639)

The marital bond is established by God and cannot be dissolved (see Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1640)

God unites the couple and gives them the faculty of acts of intimate union!

Acts of intimate union are permissible only because God has already united such a couple.

In this light it is necessary to see the sexual otherness and fruitfulness that characterize the licit relationship: only the man-woman otherness consecrated by God in the Sacrament and therefore only the fruitfulness that takes place in the man-woman relationship consecrated by God in the Sacrament are elements of the legitimate relationship; outside this area the relationship is illicit and immoral.

The union that God creates in the couple is a union in Christ, marriage refers to the spousal relationship between Christ and the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 1661 : “The sacrament of Marriage is a sign of the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ loved his Church... "Only in this union and in this matrimonial grace are sexual relations permissible, not outside of them.

It should be added that Marriage implies a vocation of the betrothed, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: "The vocation to marriage is inscribed in the very nature of man and woman, as they came from the hand of the Creator." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1603)

This vocation, this Sacrament, this union and this holy sexual activity evidently do not exist and cannot exist for homosexual couples!

Homosexual orientation is a disordered and sinful orientation precisely because it is opposed to this fundamental divine vocation and therefore to the Sacrament and grace.

Fumagalli does not accept this, unfortunately, and therefore his book is radically deviated and deviating from sound doctrine.[589]

The Christian Liturgy, I repeat, is the basis of Christian life and in particular the life of Christian spouses... but there is no Liturgy at the basis of the Christian life of homosexual couples, indeed there is a radical opposition to the Christian Liturgy which calls to holiness and to chastity and therefore the pseudo liturgy invented by the Belgian Bishops with which homosexual couples are blessed, as we have seen, is not a Marriage and is not to be considered a Liturgy as it is clearly in opposition to the Christian faith.

I remember in this regard that "... When the Church celebrates the sacraments, it confesses the faith received from the Apostles. Hence the ancient adage: « Lex orandi, lex credendi » (or: « Legem credendi lex statuat supplicandi », according to Prospero of Aquitaine [fifth century]).[590]”(Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1124) The law of prayer is the law of faith, the law of prayer establishes the law of faith.

There are no Sacraments or Liturgies at the basis of homosexual life, homosexual life and homosexual couples absolutely contradict the divine plan; on the other hand, the law of faith is the basis of the law of prayer, so a "liturgy" that blesses situations of public sin, as is the case with homosexual couples, is not a Catholic liturgy.

The Liturgy is the fons and culmen of Christian life, Fumagalli obviously forgets this, and therefore makes a speech that has very little or nothing Christian about it... indeed he makes a speech that goes radically against sound Christian doctrine!

 

 

c,2) Other errors by Fumagalli

 

 

c,2,1) Various errors and inaccuracies regarding the statements of s. Thomas, to the correct Christian doctrine and its correct evolution.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

First of all, the Milanese theologian speaking about Aristotle and St. Thomas states that for the Angelic Doctor the sodomitic inclination is an illness because it goes against the very purpose of sexuality and that for the Doctor himself and for Aristotle this inclination can be natural to someone due to a corruption of nature; this inclination, precisely because it is connatural due to the corruption of nature, can never legitimize homosexual acts.[591] Despite these statements, Fumagalli takes up the text of p. Oliva op and evidently accepts some of its statements and therefore falls into the same error, regarding the Thomistic doctrine, which we have extensively examined above when we spoke precisely about the text of this Dominican: he believes that s. Thomas claims that homosexuality is simply natural to certain people [592].

Fumagalli relies on this error to state that s. Thomas places homosexuality at the level of sexual identity and not as something added to his already predefined identity. In this way Fumagalli argues that homosexuality is natural for some people so that natural law would affirm the possibility of carrying out homosexual acts for them. This too is a colossal error by Fumagalli which has no support in Thomistic doctrine; for s. Thomas the human being is man and woman and there is no sexual identity different from these two, homosexual orientation is added to this identity and must not be followed but fought in a holy way as it is a temptation, as we saw above; s. Thomas is very clear, precisely for this reason, in declaring that homosexual acts are radically prohibited by natural law and positive divine law, as we saw above, speaking of the text of Oliva op; such acts are radically against nature for man and therefore must not be carried out; since, however, human nature has been wounded by sin, such acts are in a certain way connatural to someone, but this connaturality is precisely in the line of sin and is a source of temptation, therefore such acts should never be performed.

Furthermore, the idea of ​​the development of Catholic doctrine as a "difference in continuity" cited by Fumagalli (p. 127) does not seem to me to have been well examined by him; some truths of Catholic doctrine are immutable and Fumagalli does not examine what is immutable in the Church's teaching regarding the 10 commandments and specifically regarding homosexuality.

As I explained above, Catholic doctrine has clearly and insurmountably established the truth that only sexual union is lawful in marriage, only after the union achieved by God in marriage is carnal union between two people lawful, therefore both fornication and homosexual acts are seriously disordered acts; therefore it is considered infallible doctrine of the Church that which condemns fornication as an objectively serious act, obviously this also implies the condemnation of homosexual practice as infallible.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in fact, in 1998, specified that: "Other examples of moral doctrines taught as definitive by the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church are: the teaching on the illicit nature of prostitution (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. . 2355.) and on the illicitness of fornication. (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2353.)”[593]

Fornication is a sin because it is a sexual act performed outside of marriage; the doctrine of the Church is very clear in condemning every sexual act that is performed outside of marriage.[594]. Homosexual practice is sexual activity that always takes place outside of marriage. If fornication is definitively and absolutely condemned by the Church, even more so are homosexual acts which add that of an unnatural relationship between people of the same sex to the evil of sexual union performed outside of marriage. In fact, as we saw, in 1999 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a text clearly condemning the statements of Sister Gramick and Father Nugent, in which among other things it stated "... Sister Gramick, while expressing her love for the Church, he simply refused to express any assent to the Church's teaching on homosexuality. … Father Nugent … was unwilling to subscribe that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and added a paragraph questioning the definitive and immutable nature of Catholic doctrine on this point.

... the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare for the good of the Catholic faithful that the positions expressed by Sister Jeannine Gramick and Father Robert Nugent regarding the intrinsic malice of homosexual acts and the objective disorder of homosexual inclination are doctrinally unacceptable because they do not faithfully transmit the clear and constant teaching of the Catholic Church on this point [See Gen 19, 1-11; Lev 18, 22; 20; 13 Cor 1, 6; Rom 9, 1-18; 32 Tim 1, 1; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 10-2357, 2359; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration Persona humana 2396 (AAS 8 [68] 1976-84); Letter Homosexualitatis problema (AAS 85 [79] 1987-543).]. ”[595]

Therefore the definitive and immutable nature of Catholic doctrine on homosexual acts is part of Catholic doctrine!

In 2001 some statements by Fr. were condemned. Vidal, among them there were some that pertain to our topic: "The Author maintains that the Church's doctrine on homosexuality has a certain coherence, however it does not enjoy a sufficient biblical foundation (...) and is affected by important conditioning (... ) and ambiguity.(…) In it we find the defects present «in the entire historical edifice of Christian sexual ethics».(…) In the moral evaluation of homosexuality – adds the Author – we must «adopt an attitude of temporariness" and then "it must be formulated in terms of research and openness". (...) For the irreversible homosexual, a coherent Christian judgment "does not necessarily pass through the only way out of a rigid morality: passage to heterosexuality or total abstinence".(...) Such moral judgments are not compatible with Catholic doctrine, according to which there is a precise and firm evaluation of the objective morality of sexual relations between people of the same sex.(...)"[596]

In 2012 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith published a notification condemning some of Sister Farley's errors regarding homosexual acts and homosexual unions: “Sr. Farley writes: «From my point of view […], relationships and Homosexual acts can be justified, in accordance with the same sexual ethics, just like heterosexual relationships and acts. Therefore, people with homosexual inclinations, as well as their respective acts, can and must be respected, whether or not they have the alternative of being otherwise" (p. 295).

This position is not acceptable. … As for homosexual acts, however, the Catechism states: «Relying on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual relationships as serious depravities, Tradition has always declared that acts of homosexuality are intrinsically disordered. They are against natural law. … Under no circumstances can they be approved"[597]. … The Congregation makes the faithful aware that its book Just Love. A Framework for Christian Sexual Ethics does not conform to Church doctrine.”[598]

Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and therefore absolutely and immutably condemned by the Church.

Fumagalli's errors go in the direction of discontinuity and change of sound doctrine... that is, they go in the line of opposition to the sound doctrine that the Church has always supported and which is immutable.

I remember that so that the development of doctrine is carried out correctly and is not a deformation or destruction of the truth spread by Christ, Saint JH Newman, a famous English theologian, offered seven principles: "

1)Preservation of the type…

2)Continuity of the principles…

3) Power of assimilation…

4) Logical consequence…

5) Anticipation of the future…

6) Preservative influence of the past...

7) Lasting vigor ..."[599]

Fumagalli's statements, in particular, are not a logical consequence of what the Church has always affirmed in the moral field, these statements do not demonstrate continuity with the principles that the Church has always affirmed.

Fumagalli clearly and unequivocally betrays sound Catholic doctrine and Christ who gave it to us.

Fumagalli's statements that the Church's doctrine on sexuality has its "foundation in the theology of creation and its development in an anthropology of sexuality ... the theology of creation is nourished by Holy Scripture, the anthropology of sexuality makes use of contemporary philosophy"[600]

Fumagalli does not say that the anthropology of sexuality that the Church follows is first and foremost theological anthropology based on the Word of God and on Tradition and therefore on the Liturgy and which also makes use, in particular, of the sound philosophy of the Christian tradition.

Precisely because it is based on the Word of God, on Tradition and on the Liturgy as well as on sound Christian philosophy, which clearly and definitively condemn homosexual acts and which call man to follow Christ in holiness, in true chastity, on the way of the Cross, a sound theological anthropology will never be able to support the claims of those who, like Fumagalli, want to legitimize such acts.

The philosophical anthropology of the Christian tradition and in particular the Thomistic one does not allow us to affirm that homosexual acts are lawful, the Thomistic philosophical ethics is very clear in affirming that such acts are clearly and absolutely prohibited by the Natural Law. St. Thomas states that homosexual acts are contrary to human nature (see I-II q. 31 a. 7) and contrary to natural law and revealed law.[601]

Fumagalli cites in support of his claims [602] the text, which I have widely criticized above for its errors, of the Pontifical Biblical Commission "What is man" LEV 2019 and relies on it which, as seen, precisely because of its errors opens a window for the legitimation of homosexual acts.

Unfortunately for Fumagalli, the errors of this document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and the errors of Fumagalli himself are condemned by the entire Bible and by the entire Tradition that interprets it, by the Liturgy, by the holy and sure Magisterium and by all the unanimous teaching of the Fathers and Doctors. Homosexual acts have always been condemned by God, and I underline by God, and will always be condemned by God himself... Tradition and with it Scripture are very clear on this point.

The biblical condemnation of homosexual practice is not a fact simply linked to the culture of the time but a fact that manifests God's eternal, radical aversion to such impure acts against nature. Sound theological anthropology is not that which emerges from the text of the PCB in question but is that which the Church has always proclaimed and which radically condemns homosexual acts, it is that which emerges from the entire unanimous Tradition and from Sacred Scripture correctly understood, that is understood outside the homoheretic ideology that today seeks to subjugate everything to itself.

 

 

c,2,2) Regarding the professor's statements. Fumagalli therefore needs to have a "more integrated vision of sexual identity".

 

 

Fumagalli's further mistake is to state that sexual identity is not pre-established but becomes part of the person's historical experience; Catholic doctrine and natural observation itself affirm precisely the opposite: sex is given and man must welcome this gift clearly inscribed in his body,[603] the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2333: “It is up to everyone, man or woman, to recognize and accept their sexual identity. Physical, moral and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented towards the goods of marriage and the development of family life.”

Sexual identity is given to us by God who created man and woman, with very precise physical characteristics that distinguish man from woman... we must recognize and accept it.

God created man... male and female (Gen 1,27; 5,1-2), no other sexual identities exist.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2360 “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.”

The sexuality we are talking about here and ordered to conjugal love is evidently an original fact that is given to us and that we must accept.[604]

Sexual identity is not detached from one's body but conforms to the body, the man's body implies male sexual identity, the woman's body implies female sexual identity.

Contrary to what Fumagalli says, who states that it is necessary to have a "more integrated vision of sexual identity, defined not only by the bodily nature but by the complex combination of other variables"[605]; the line that the Church has always followed is not essentialist[606] but biblical, traditional, liturgical and deeply rooted in reality; precisely in this line the famous "Bioethics Manual" by Msgr. E. Sgreccia[607], which, as we saw above, develops a scientific treatment of sexuality, states that the differentiation and complementarity of the sexes is manifested in corporeity. The body within a homologous structure reveals differentiation factors that mark the entire basic personality: chromosomal factors, endocrine-neurological factors... more generally the entire corporeality is marked by sexual differentiation, in its identical and homogeneous fundamental structure.

Being sexual is a fundamental, original fact for man. [608]

Corporeity does not exist unless sexually differentiated and sexuality marks the entire personality: it is the spirit and the personal ego that is man or woman, and not just the body, precisely because it is the spirit that animates and informs and brings corporeity to life ; therefore the person does not just have one sex but is a man or a woman. The individual's personal vocation cannot be harmoniously realized unless it accepts and values ​​that specific way of being. Sexuality is a structural conformation of the person that man must accept. [609]

Sexuality marks the whole human being but does not exhaust him, the exercise of genital activity is not the only way to express oneself as a man or woman.[610]

Sgreccia also deals with bodily sex and psychological sex and reiterates how the Church profoundly explains the contrast between bodily sexuality and psychological sexuality through the truth of original sin; the same author specifies that "the conception of the psyche must be understood in a hylemorphic sense", as the result of the two principles: physical and spiritual, psychological differences cannot be attributed only to socio-cultural influences, the psyche is rooted in the body and the spirit and the different psychology of men and women must be seen in particular in this light.[611]

The problem of disordered sexual orientation and in particular homosexuality is treated, as we have seen, very effectively by Sgreccia in the same "Manual" which also takes into account the indications of science on the subject.

I underline that according to Sgreccia, personalist ethics also affirms the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts.[612]

Fumagalli says that the integrated vision he speaks of is more in conformity with what a document of the Congregation for Catholic Education states in the following passage: " 4. Sexuality is a fundamental component of the personality, its way of being of manifesting itself, of communicating with others, to feel, express and experience human love. Therefore it is an integral part of the development of the personality and its educational process: «From sex, in fact, the human person derives the characteristics which, on a biological, psychological and spiritual level, make him or her man or woman, thus greatly conditioning the process of his development towards maturity and his insertion into society".[613]" [614]

This text from the Congregation for Catholic Education, of course, not only does not affirm what Fumagalli says but actually refutes on an intrinsic level the error of this moralist. The text in question brings out a truth also underlined by Sgreccia[615], so the physically defined sexual identity marks the person on a biological, psychological and spiritual level. The person does not only have one sex, but is a man or a woman, and the life of the individual cannot be realized harmoniously if not by accepting and valuing that way of being, that is, by accepting and valuing his masculinity or femininity[616]. Physically determined sex manifests that that person has a certain biological, psychological and spiritual structure that is specific to those who have that sex; that person has a corresponding divine calling convenient with that sex.

This identity always remains and obviously always shows itself, because agere sequitur esse, even if the orientation is disordered and could make one think that the identity is different.

Another passage from the same text of the same Congregation states, along these lines: “22. In the Christian vision of man, the body is recognized as having a particular function, because it contributes to revealing the meaning of life and human vocation. Corporeality is, in fact, the specific way of existing and operating of the human spirit. This meaning is first of all anthropological in nature: "the body reveals man",[617] « expresses the person »[618] and it is therefore the first message from God to man himself, almost a kind of "primordial sacrament, understood as a sign that effectively transmits into the visible world the invisible mystery hidden in God from eternity".[619]. … Faced with this capacity of the body to be at the same time a sign and instrument of an ethical vocation, one can discover an analogy between the body itself and the sacramental economy, which is the concrete way through which grace reaches man and salvation. … 29 « Only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man find true light »[620] and human existence acquires its full meaning in the vocation to divine life. …

30 In light of the mystery of Christ, sexuality appears to us as a vocation to realize the love that the Holy Spirit instills in the hearts of the redeemed. Jesus Christ sublimated this vocation with the Sacrament of Marriage.”[621]

As we can see: the body reveals man, expresses the person, contributes to revealing the meaning of life and human vocation; corporeity is, in fact, the specific way of existing and operating of the human spirit. As can be seen: it is Christ who reveals man to man... and Christ through the Church has clarified very clearly that homosexual acts are serious sins and that sexual union is licit only after the man and the woman they were united in marriage.

The text of the Congregation in question, therefore, is not in conflict with the doctrine of the Church and does not push for the "more integrated vision of sexual identity" of which Fumagalli speaks. The text in question makes it clear that a man who loves will always be a man who loves, precisely with the characteristics of a man, and will never become a woman who loves, precisely because the fact of being physically a man radically marks the person even on a psychological and spiritual, as the text examined says. And a woman he loves will never be a man he loves because the fact of being physically a woman also radically marks the person on a psychological and spiritual level, as the text just examined says. Love as a passion is radically linked to the physical dimension and therefore to the real physical masculinity or femininity of the person.

As Cardinal Sgreccia's "Bioethics Manual" explains, sexual orientation that differs from nature does not enter into the true nature of man but must be explained, on a theological level, in light of original sin and the damage it has brought. [622]

In conclusion, it is not the text of the Congregation in question that opens the doors to Fumagalli's errors but it is Fumagalli who misinterprets the text of the Congregation.

The text of the Congregation simply re-proposes the doctrine of the Church, a doctrine that is rooted in the Truth that comes from God, the Supreme Reality, and a doctrine that, precisely for this reason, is deeply rooted in biological reality, therefore it is not essentialist but realist.

There is therefore no need to move to a "more integrated vision of sexual identity", as the Italian moralist I am criticizing says, but we need to be guided more and more by the Holy Spirit and penetrate more and more into the sound doctrine that God has given us to help homosexuals. to reorder and sanctify oneself in Christ. In this line it is necessary to understand more deeply in Christ the causes of the homosexual tendency in order to be able to help those who are affected by it to free themselves from it, to find themselves in Christ and to live better and better according to the revealed Law.

 

 

c,2,3) Obvious errors by Fumagalli on the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts, on the law of gradualness and on true charity.

 

 

Contrary to what Fumagalli says, sound biblical and traditional doctrine condemns homosexual acts as immoral always et pro semper and not only when performed freely due to religious idolatry or hedonistic selfishness.[623]

The prohibition of homosexual acts is one of the negative commands of the Divine Law, as seen above in this chapter when we dealt with the biblical and traditional condemnation of homosexual practice, it is clearly proclaimed already in the Pentateuch and is clearly and clearly accepted throughout Scripture, it falls within the VI precept of the decalogue. As we said: the negative commands of the Divine Law can never be lawfully violated, they are valid semper et pro semper ... the Veritatis Splendor, which Fumagalli should know, is very clear in this regard ...

“The negative precepts of natural law are universally valid: they oblige each and every one, always and in all circumstances. In fact, these are prohibitions that prohibit a specific action always et pro semper, without exceptions, because the choice of such behavior is in no case compatible with the goodness of the will of the person acting, with his vocation to life with God and to communion with others. It is forbidden for everyone and always to break precepts that bind everyone and at any cost not to offend anyone and, first of all, themselves, the personal dignity common to all. …. The Church has always taught that one must never choose behaviors prohibited by the moral commandments, expressed in a negative form in the Old and New Testaments. As we have seen, Jesus himself reiterates the mandatory nature of these prohibitions: "If you wish to enter into life, observe the commandments...: do not kill, do not commit adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness" (Mt 19,17-18) .” (VS n. 52)

Again in Veritatis Splendor we read “But negative moral precepts, that is, those which prohibit some concrete acts or behaviors as intrinsically bad, do not admit any legitimate exception; they leave no morally acceptable space for the "creativity" of some contrary determination." (VS n. 67)

The Catechism of the Catholic Church further specifies in n. 1756 that: “… There are acts which in themselves and in themselves, regardless of the circumstances and intentions, are always seriously illicit due to their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. It is not permissible to do evil so that good may come from it."

Contrary to what Fumagalli says, it is not the recent Magisterium that has expanded the negative judgment of Tradition and the Bible regarding homosexual acts[624] it is Fumagalli who did not correctly understand the Catholic doctrine which has always radically condemned such acts and has never allowed legitimate homosexual activity. Contrary to what Fumagalli says, homosexual practice has never been considered licit by the Church, not even those carried out with acts "intentioned by Christian personal love".[625] for the simple reason that the Church has always understood very well that this practice is radically against the Law of God and that charity, that is, true Christian love, does not lead to homosexual acts, therefore there are no homosexual acts "intended by love Christian personnel” ... Charity comes from God and leads to following His Law which radically condemns homosexual acts, charity is lost with the commission of serious sins, among which there are homosexual acts, as we saw very precisely in the chapter in which we talked about charity.

I then remember certain statements by Fumagalli [626] that the gradualness admitted by Catholic doctrine is the law of graduality and not the gradualness of the Law. Everyone is called to live all the commandments in Christ! No one can dispense himself or herself from the commandments…

In this regard it is important to remember that, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2072: “Since they enunciate the fundamental duties of man towards God and towards others, the ten commandments reveal, in their essential content, serious obligations. They are essentially immutable and oblige always and everywhere. No one could dispense with them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the heart of the human being.”

No one can exempt himself or herself from the commandments, allowing themselves or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, homosexual acts, murder, pedophilia, rape, etc.) condemned by the divine commandments.

The law of God is indispensable, as St. Thomas (see Iª-IIae q. 100 a. 8 co.) ; this implies that no one can exempt others or themselves from the fulfillment of the Law and this applies in particular with regard to what is objectively serious they condemn; that is, no one can exempt himself or others from the observance of the commandments by allowing himself or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, homosexual acts, murder, pedophilia, rape, etc.) condemned by the divine commandments, and this also applies to the confessor and for the penitent...

 

 

c,3) An article praising this book in “Avvenire” by L. Moia.

 

 

On the basis of what has been said so far, Fumagalli's text deserves radical disapproval and condemnation and therefore the praise paid to it by Giannino Piana at the end of the book itself appears completely incorrect and out of place and frankly the presentation by Msgr. appears out of place. Semeraro. Given that, as seen, this Pope is spreading errors and is opening the doors to the legality of homosexual acts, neither G. Piana's praise nor the preface by Msgr. is strange. Semeraro, now Cardinal, nor the laudatory article found in the Bishops' newspaper, Avvenire [627] ...

Let's stop on some statements that we read in the article just cited, signed by L. Moia [628].

First of all, note the following: "The condemnation of homosexual acts, explains the author of the book Fumagalli, "does not contemplate the possibility, unknown until contemporary times, that homosexual acts correspond to the nature of the person and express personal love" that is, they are "an expression of personal Christian love".

These words are particularly serious:

-as they practically imply that the nature of homosexuals is not human nature and therefore for them the natural law, neither the Ancient Law nor the New Law established for the salvation of men (and which radically condemn homosexual acts) do not apply;

-as they affirm that homosexuals can express true Christian personal love through homosexual acts.

If homosexuals are not men, that is, they do not have the common human nature, we need to understand what they are... we need to understand if there is eternal salvation for them, in fact Christ became man, he took human nature to save men, as we say in the Creed...

If homosexuals are not men, Fumagalli's book has nothing to say to them as the Catholic doctrine he talks about and which he presents starting from the Bible and the Magisterium concerns men and not beings of another nature... If homosexuals are not men we need to understand what Law God has set for them... we need to understand what type of soul they have... and we need to understand if eternal life exists for them... furthermore I don't think the Sacraments received or administered by them are valid... because the Sacraments are for men and must be administered by men...

If homosexuals are not men, the killing of a homosexual is not murder... If the homosexual is not a man, therefore killing him in the womb is not an abortion... Furthermore, one might wonder how he could be generated by sexual union of a man and a woman, like all men, an individual of non-human nature...

If Fumagalli is a man we have to ask ourselves to what extent he can talk about homosexuals given that they have another nature...

The statements in the article are obviously colossal and very serious errors.

Homosexuals are men, they have the common human nature, and are called to live according to the natural Law and according to the revealed Law... they are called to live all the commandments in Christ, including the one which absolutely prohibits homosexual acts; with the grace that comes from Christ, God-man, and with Christ they are called to walk in incessant prayer, and with the help of the Sacraments, on the path of the Cross... towards holy Paradise... fighting against the temptations of the devil, of the flesh and of the world that push them to the sin of homosexuality and other sins!

Another significant statement that I find in the interview is this: “Not the abstract idealism of “all or nothing”, but the reasonableness of “the best possible”. The fruit that this theology has produced in reference to the so-called irregular marital situations, we further read, "can adequately instruct the moral discernment and pastoral accompaniment of homosexual people on the path of Christian love".[629]

God enlighten us...

If according to Fumagalli homosexuals do not have human nature, avoid talking about spiritual accompaniment and discernment as is done with men... because we need to see what nature they are and what their ultimate goal is, what is the Law that God has established for them etc. . etc.

If, for Fumagalli, homosexuals do not have human nature, those who, considering homosexuals as men, continue to reiterate the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts are not idealists, he is out of line who insists on applying all this to beings of another nature that concerns men... Fumagalli is off the mark when he considers homosexuals to be of a different nature...

However, given that homosexuals are men, Fumagalli is evidently and gravely mistaken because, contrary to the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, he believes that homosexual acts are in some cases legitimate.[630].

I remember that the prohibition on carrying out homosexual acts is absolute and therefore everyone must, with the help of Christ, oppose the carrying out of such acts at any cost and must avoid immediate occasions of sin in these areas, furthermore they must help others to oppose equally to such acts and to avoid the immediate occasions of them.

Everyone is called to fully live the commandments in Christ, no one can exempt himself or others from the needs that emerge from the commandments, especially from the negative commands; everyone must, with the help of grace and prayer, commit themselves and help others in the implementation of the divine commands.

Christian charity is a supernatural virtue by which, under the guidance of the omnipotent Holy Spirit, we detest sin (and therefore objectively serious acts), we absolutely avoid sinning and therefore expose ourselves to imminent occasions of sin.

Furthermore, charity leads us to help others: to detest sin, to no longer sin and to avoid immediate opportunities for sin.

The "reasonableness of the best possible" that Fumagalli talks about and which leads him to legitimize homosexual acts in some cases[631], as it implies graduality of the Law is a colossal error. This reasonableness of the best possible is taken from Amoris Laetitia which Fumagalli cites in this context[632].

The fact that Fumagalli cites the principle of Amoris Laetitia (which we spoke about in volume I in more detail) according to which everyone is called to the ""maximum possible good" here and now" without saying that we are called to do the will of God and to leave ourselves guided by his grace which overcomes nature and leads us to live according to divine law, puts Fumagalli's statement outside the evangelical and traditional doctrine: man is not called to simply do what is possible, he is called to do the impossible that God gives him the ability to do, Jesus clearly said that it is impossible for us to save ourselves but everything is possible with God[633] and precisely God wants to save us and helps us with his grace to do what is impossible for us and to save ourselves... precisely: God wants to save us and helps us with his grace to do what is impossible for us, that is, to live according to his Word, according to his Law and to save us...

Certainly the great Catholic moralists have cited the classic phrase "ad impossibilia nemo tenetur" indicating that we must do everything possible but they have always understood as possible what is humanly impossible but God makes possible. The great Catholic moralists in this line have always considered it possible with God's help to live according to God's Law and avoid homosexual acts; the great moralists have always stated that homosexual acts are always absolutely forbidden. Certainly the moralists also spoke of the absolute impossibility of implementing the Law but they explained with great precision when it occurs in the light of the Truth. Pope Francis, his collaborators and above all Prof. Fumagalli, however, thinks very differently from these great moralists, unfortunately, and distort these great theological principles to open the doors to true doctrinal perversions.

The doors that Pope Francis opened to immorality through Amoris Laetitia are clearly and legitimately (in the Bergoglian line) crossed by Fumagalli regarding homosexual acts.

We understand very well, therefore, why a monsignor like Semeraro, now Cardinal, wrote the preface of this book without in the slightest condemning the colossal errors that mark it: this text with its very serious errors is clearly part of the "paradigm shift", with its doctrinal perversions, which the Pope is carrying forward.

God enlighten us.

 

 

c,4) Conclusion on the errors spread by the professor. Fumagalli with his book “Possible Love”.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Concluding the examination of Fumagalli's statements, it seems important to me to note that they are actually supported by:

1) on a biblical level about nothing, because the Bible interpreted in Tradition is very clear in rejecting homosexual practice and in speaking of sexual union foreseen only in the matrimonial context, between man and woman;

2) at the level of Tradition on nothing, because the whole Tradition is very clear in rejecting homosexual practice and in speaking of Marriage and sexual union foreseen only in the matrimonial context, between man and woman;

3) at the level of the Magisterium about nothing, because the Magisterium is very clear in rejecting homosexual practice and in speaking of marriage and sexual union foreseen only in the matrimonial context, between man and woman; the clear errors of Amoris Laetitia evidently have no value in the face of the clear and unanimous statements of the Bible and of all Tradition, the Pope is not God and has no power, as seen on the natural and revealed divine Law;

4) at the level of good philosophy about nothing, because sound philosophy does not dream of saying that homosexuals do not belong to human nature and that the natural law that prohibits homosexual acts does not apply to them; good philosophical ethics clearly states that homosexuals have human nature and that natural law prohibits homosexual acts.

Empirical science also states that homosexuals are men, belonging to the human race and are treated like men; empirical science clearly says that homosexuals are men born from human couples.

Fumagalli's statements with which he declares the lawfulness of homosexual acts have nothing to do with sound Catholic doctrine and its development, they are simply a radical subversion of the Truth that Christ came to bring, they legitimize acts that are objectively very serious , which constitute a matter of grave sin and which open the gates of hell to those who commit them with full awareness and deliberate consent, in this sense such deviations are extremely dangerous and deserve clear condemnations from the Church.

I conclude by noting that Fumagalli's book is known ... and the Holy See has not intervened to condemn it ... the professor has not been sanctioned and continues freely to spread his errors and probably does so from the top of his chair in the Theological Faculty of Northern Italy where he holds a course in the context of Special Morale I[634] as we said above.

Fumagalli's text with its very serious errors is clearly part of the "paradigm shift", with its doctrinal perversions, that the Pope is carrying out...

May God intervene and completely eliminate this "paradigm shift".

 

 

c,5) G. Piana's afterword to Fumagalli's book

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

It is certainly significant that Fumagalli had the afterword to his book written by G. Piana[635], evidently considers it important that the latter publicly comments and praises his work; and it is also significant that the prof. Piana, now eighty years old, created a totally laudatory afterword of Fumagalli's book, evidently he fully approved of what the latter states.

After 10 years since the publication of his book[636], Piana, therefore continued not to realize profoundly:

-of God's fundamental plan for man, therefore also for homosexuals, a plan which absolutely excludes homosexual acts;

-of the deep sacramental rooting that this project has;

-of the end aimed at by this project (Paradise), an end that cannot be achieved by committing homosexual sins;

-of the intervention of man who, through sin, even homosexual sin, opposes this project and of the damage that this intervention has caused and continues to cause;

-of the work of God and Jesus Christ regarding the realization of this project and therefore of the grace that God gives us so as not to sin and not carry out homosexual acts;

-of the road (the Cross) and the laws to follow to reach Heaven, a road and laws that provide for radical opposition to homosexual acts;

-of the work of the enemies (the flesh, the devil and the world) of this project, enemies who also push people to commit homosexual acts;

The elderly moralist does not even realize that, contrary to what Fumagalli says, the anthropology of sexuality taught by the Church is first and foremost theological anthropology, based on the Word of God and on Tradition and therefore on the Liturgy and which also makes use of the sound philosophy of the Christian tradition. The Word of God correctly interpreted, Tradition and sound philosophy absolutely exclude that homosexual acts are lawful in some cases, therefore sound theological anthropology can only exclude homosexual acts from the divine plan for man. Furthermore, the question regarding the moral judgment of homosexual acts cannot be reduced to the fact that since there is a certain otherness even between homosexuals and a certain "fertility" (understood in a very broad sense and excluding filiation) in some cases such acts would be lawful. As we said above: God has clearly demonstrated in Scripture and Tradition and therefore in the Liturgy that his plan does not foresee man carrying out homosexual acts; Piana's colossal efforts to affirm and reiterate the lawfulness of such acts are completely deviant and deviating from the Truth [637]. God's plan for man in Christ is a plan of grace and chastity which provides for sexual life only within a marriage... and therefore between man and woman... Only in this matrimonial grace are sexual relations permitted, not outside of it . Sacramental marriage unites the two spouses in Christ, makes them one flesh and in their love manifests the love of Christ for the Church and in this way makes sexual acts open to life lawful but, note carefully, it does not make sexual acts lawful. unnatural acts such as sodomy and the like.

Marriage implies, moreover, a vocation of those engaged to live this Sacrament and therefore to become instruments of God to manifest the love of Christ for his Church and also to show the creative power of God through sexual union and the procreation of couple.

This vocation, this Sacrament, this union and this holy sexual activity evidently do not exist for homosexual couples...

Furthermore, Marriage is a Sacrament and is implemented in the Liturgy; now a profound truth highlighted by the Council states that the Liturgy is the fons and culmen of Christian life.

The Liturgy is the basis of Christian life and in particular the life of Christian spouses... but there is no Liturgy at the basis of the Christian life of homosexual couples and no Liturgy that sanctifies their sexual relationship... indeed there is a radical opposition of these relationships to the Christian Liturgy, because from it flows grace and therefore sanctity, chastity, from it flows holy acts and not homosexual acts, indeed from it flows the supernatural strength to always and everywhere avoid homosexual acts; in the Liturgy there is the culmination of grace, of chastity, of holy purity, of holiness which is radically opposed to the sin of homosexuality.

Piana continued not to realize, 10 years after his book, that homosexual acts and homosexual unions are radically rejected by God throughout his doctrine and that they are completely contrary to God's plan for man... and he continued not to realize that his morality, like that of Fumagalli, while referring to the Council, also tramples on the conciliar principle according to which: the Liturgy is the fons and culmen of the Christian life. Yet Piana lived during and after the Council and knows this doctrine well...

Obviously I don't see that it is possible to invent a new Sacrament to sanctify the intimate acts of homosexual couples...

God, therefore, calls man to chastity in this world and to blessed chastity in the other, this project absolutely excludes homosexual acts and is opposed to them; in this line it is completely precise to state, against Piana and Fumagalli, that homosexual orientation is a disordered orientation.

Furthermore, Piana, by totally praising Fumagalli's text, shows that he forgets the teaching of Veritatis Splendor on the semper and pro semper validity of the negative commands of the divine law and evidently shows that he accepts that someone can dispense himself or herself from the norms of divine law, allowing themselves or others to carry out objectively serious acts (such as adultery, homosexual acts, murder, pedophilia, rape etc.) condemned by the divine commandments...

Furthermore, Piana does not realize that Fumagalli's idea that the legitimation of homosexual acts would be in "non-compliant continuity" with sound doctrine is a colossal error; in fact some truths of Catholic doctrine are immutable, definitive and we have seen that the condemnation of homosexual practice must be considered as a definitive and immutable statement. According to Catholic doctrine, the sexual act is licit only after a valid sacramental marriage, that is, only after God has united the engaged couple and made them one flesh!

The errors of Fumagalli, and therefore of Piana who praises them, which lead to considering as licit what is in reality a very serious sin and radically condemned by the Church, go in the direction of the discontinuity from Tradition and the change of sound doctrine... that is, they go in the line of opposition to the truth that the Church has always supported; this opposition is evidently very serious also because you consider permissible what has always been considered a very serious sin and therefore opens the doors of eternal damnation for many souls.

We know that only the Truth sets us free, the Church spreads precisely this Truth and therefore prohibits the performance of objectively serious acts and condemns the performance of serious sins, such as homosexual practice. Opposition to this Truth does not free... therefore it is a further mistake by Piana to state that Fumagalli's text is liberating because it openly admits the possibility of experiencing homosexual love with all its intensity.[638]

The freedom that Piana speaks of is not, therefore, the freedom that Christ brings... it is rather the libertinism of the world. May God intervene and free his faithful and especially his professors, like Fumagalli, from errors, immorality and from every false freedom.

 

 

d) Important Catholic truths completely ignored in the books of Piana, Fumagalli and Oliva.

 

 

d,1) The great Catholic truths about the Ultimate End of man and about the very new, completely ignored in the books of Piana, Fumagalli and Oliva.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Sound moral theology, and above all great moral theology, highlights man's ultimate goal, which is Heaven and bliss!

St. Thomas speaks at length about beatitude in his treatise on moral theology in the Summa Theologica, in I-II. In the morality and doctrine of s. Thomas Heaven, bliss and eternal life have a pre-eminent position. In the light of the beauty of Paradise, of our vocation to it and of the attraction that it, according to the divine will, exercises on us, the moral theology of St. Thomas and Catholic moral theology more generally.

The Roman Catechism significantly states: "The holy apostles, our guides, wanted to close the Symbol, the compendium of our faith, with the article concerning eternal life, both because after the resurrection of the body the faithful do not have to wait for the reward of eternal life; and because perfect happiness, full of every good, must always be before our eyes, and we learn that our mind and thoughts must all be fixed in it.”[639]

I underline: perfect happiness full of every good, that is, Heaven, must always be before our eyes, our mind and thoughts must all be fixed in it... this must apply in a particular way to a moral theologian and to a good book of moral theology, because moral theology is entirely oriented towards Paradise and must lead to Paradise, to eternal life and with the hope of eternal goods it must support the commitment of believers on the narrow path of the Gospel.

The full and definitive realization of man, created in the image and likeness of the Trinity, takes place only in Paradise.

Man was created by God for Heaven, therefore he was created for what we will read in the texts I will present below. I want to include some texts that talk about Heaven so that we can realize at least in an embryonic way what God has prepared for us up there and what we must earn in this world by walking on the narrow path of the commandments and the Cross.

In a beautiful text of the "Conferences" of the Angelic Doctor we read: "When all our desires are fulfilled, that is, in eternal life, faith will cease. ... The first thing that takes place in eternal life is the union of man with God. ... Eternal life also consists in the highest praise ... It also consists in the perfect satisfaction of desire. ... man's desires are satisfied only in God ... The saints, in their homeland, will possess God perfectly. ... Everything that can bring happiness is present there and in the highest degree. … Eternal life finally consists in the joyful brotherhood of all the saints. It will be an extremely delightful communion of spirits, because each one will have all the goods of all the other blessed ones. Everyone will love the other as themselves and therefore will enjoy the good of others as their own."[640]

The Roman Catechism states “… eternal life means not so much the perpetuity of life, in which even demons and evil men participate, but rather the perpetuity of bliss, capable of fully satisfying the desire of the blessed. ... from the meaning of this expression eternal life we ​​also learn that this happiness, once achieved, can no longer be lost, as some mistakenly supposed. In fact, happiness results from the union of all goods, without the mixture of any evil: which happiness, to satisfy man's desire, must necessarily consist in eternal life. ... the greatness of the happiness of the blessed in the heavenly homeland can be understood by them alone and by no one else. …it is too high and preclear a reality to be able to perfectly express its substance with its own word. In fact, in the sacred Scriptures many other names are given to this celestial bliss... none of them are able to express its greatness."[641]

Going to clarify what Paradise consists of, the Catechism itself states: "... as the Holy Fathers handed down, the happiness of eternal life must be defined as liberation from all evils and the acquisition of all goods. …

Substantial bliss, which with a common term can be called essential, consists in seeing God and enjoying his beauty; because here is the source and principle of all goodness. This is eternal life, says Christ the Lord, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent (Jn 17,3). …To the essential beatitude are added some embellishments common to all the blessed, which, being less distant from human reason, tend to move and excite our souls with greater force. To this type belong those to which the Apostle seems to allude when writing to the Romans: Glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good (Rom 2,10:XNUMX). In fact, the blessed do not only enjoy that glory which we have shown to be ultimately the essential beatitude of God... but also that which results from the clear and precise knowledge that each of the blessed will have of the excellent and splendid dignity of the others. But how great should we esteem the honor that God grants them, since they are no longer called servants, but friends, brothers and children of God? ... But they will also be praised by Christ the Lord before the heavenly Father and his Angels. Furthermore, if it is true that nature engendered in all men the desire to be honored by those who are illustrious for wisdom, considering that such certificates of consideration are the most effective proofs of merit, how great should the glory of the blessed not be believed, professing the deepest esteem for each other.

The enumeration of all the enjoyments with which the glory of the blessed will be filled would be infinite; and we can't even imagine them. However, the faithful must persuade themselves that everything joyous that can touch us or be desired in this life, whether it refers to the knowledge of the intellect or to the perfection of the body, will make the blessed life of the celestials abundant; although in a higher way than the eye can see, the ear can hear, or in any case can penetrate the heart of man, as the Apostle states (1Co 2,9). The body, which was previously gross and material, when in heaven, having removed mortality, has become tenuous and spiritual, will no longer need food; the soul will then be satisfied with that eternal pasture of glory, which will be offered to all by the Author of that great banquet (Lk 12,37).

Who could ever desire precious robes or royal ornaments for the body up there where there will be no need of such things, and everyone will be covered with immortality and splendor, awarded the crown of eternal glory? But if the possession of a vast and sumptuous house is also part of human happiness, what can be conceived more vast and sumptuous than the sky itself, which is illuminated in every part by divine splendor? Therefore the Prophet, placing before his eyes the beauty of that abode, and burning with the desire to reach that blessed seat, says: How lovely are your tabernacles, O Lord of virtues! My soul yearns and yearns for the desire of the Lord's courts. My heart and my flesh rejoice in the living God (Ps 83,1).”[642]

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church we read in n. 1023: “Those who die in the grace and friendship of God, and who are perfectly purified, live forever with Christ. They are forever similar to God, because they see him "as he is" (1 Jn 3,2), "face to face" (1 Cor 13,12)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1023)

The blessed souls of Heaven: "... have seen and see the divine essence in an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature"[643]

Paradise surpasses every possibility of understanding and description: "The Scripture speaks to us about it with images: life, light, peace, wedding banquet, wine of the Kingdom, house of the Father, heavenly Jerusalem, paradise" (1 Cor 2,9). (Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1027)

The life of Heaven is a life of supreme purity and absolute chastity.

These, then, are the wonderful things for which God created man; we are made for these magnitudes that surpass every possibility of understanding and description. In the light of these wonders to which we are called we understand even better the greatness of man's vocation. These wonderful things are, on the other hand, the reward for the holy life, for the victory over temptations; this is the reward, therefore for the victory over the temptations that push men into impure sin against nature; this is the reward for those who follow the path of the Cross and pray incessantly according to the evangelical indications.

The books by Piana, Fumagalli and Oliva do not even embryonically deal with these wonders of Heaven, ... yet the Bible reminds us:

ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς λόγοις σου μιμνῄσκου τὰ ἔσχατά σου καὶ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα οὐχ ἁμαρτήσεις (Sir. 7,36)

Which in the Vulgate becomes: “ In omnibus operibus tuis memorare novissima tua

et in aeternum non peccabis.” That is, in all your works remember the last things and you will not sin... And among the last things to remember there is also hell, as Catholic doctrine clearly reiterates... and whoever dies in grave sin is damned; the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: “Dying in mortal sin without having repented of it and without welcoming the merciful love of God means remaining separated from him forever by our free choice. And it is this state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and with the blessed that is designated by the word "hell"." (Catechism of the Catholic Church n. 1033)... And the Gospel also states: "Enter through the narrow door , because the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to perdition, and there are many who enter therein. How narrow is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it!” (Mt. 7,13ff)

St. Thomas states when commenting on this text: “Sed posset aliquis dicere: nonne omnes primi salvabuntur? he said: multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi, quia qui fide credunt, omnes vocati sunt; sed illi electi, qui bona opera faciunt, et isti sunt pauci, ut supra VII, 14: arcta est via, quae ducit ad vitam, et pauci sunt qui inveniunt eam.” (Super evangelium Matthei c.20 l.1)

I translate the most decisive statement "Many are called, but few are chosen" because those who believe by faith are all called; but those who carry out good works are chosen and these are few, as above (Mt.7,14) "The way that leads to life is difficult and those who find it are few" ...

And in the Summa Theologiae I q.23 a.7 ad 3m s. Thomas states: “… bonum quod excedit communem statum naturae, invenitur ut in paucioribus; et defectus ab hoc bono, ut in pluribus. … Cum igitur beatitudo aeterna, in vision Dei consistens, excedat communem statum naturae, et praecipue secundum quod est gratia destituta per corruptionem origines sins, pauciores sunt qui salvantur. And in hoc etiam maximum mercy Dei apparet, quod aliquos in illam salutem erigit, a qua plurimi deficiunt secundum communem cursum et inclinationem naturae.

I translate: the good that surpasses the common state of nature is found in fewer individuals; and the lack of this in more individuals. Since eternal bliss exceeds the common state of nature, those who are saved are fewer in number than those who are damned. And even in this the divine mercy appears most of all, which raises some to that salvation from which the majority of men fail according to the common course and inclination of nature.

St. Leo the Great, Pope and Doctor of the Church, said significantly: “Impletur itaque per omnia sententia Veritatis qua discimus angustam esse et arduam viam quæ ducit ad vitam (Matth. 7, 14); et cum latitudo itineris ad mortem trahentis multis frequentur agminibus , in salutis semitis paucorum intrantium suntrare vestigia . Why is the populace already away from the right side, where the joy and corporal goodness of all is proclivis in the world? … Ita cum innumeri sint qui vizia concupiscant , vix inveniantur qui temporalibus æterna præponant.” (Sermo XLIX (XI De Quadragesima) PL 54 p. 302 c. II)

“Thus the sentence of the Truth is fulfilled in everything by which we learn that the way that leads to life is narrow and arduous (Matthew 7,14) and while the width of the road that leads to death is frequented by many crowds, of the few who enter on the paths of salvation footprints are rare. Why is the left path more populated than the right if not because the multitude is inclined towards worldly and corporal pleasures? …Thus, although those who desire visible things are innumerable, there are hardly those who place eternal things before temporal things.”

And very significantly, for the topic we are dealing with, yes. Alfonso states in this line: “Incontinence is called by s. Basil living plague, from s. Bernardino of Siena is the most harmful vice of all: Vermis quo nullus nocentior; because, according to says s. Bonaventure, immodesty destroys the shoots of all virtues: Luxuria omnium virtutum eradicat germinat. Therefore she is on her own. Ambrose called the seminary and the mother of all vices: Luxuria seminarium est, et origo omnium vitiorum; while this vice also brings with it the others, hatred, theft, sacrilege and the like. And so he rightly said yes. Remigio who, exceptis parvulis, maior pars hominum ob hoc vitium damnatur. And the p. Segneri said that as hell is full of angels due to pride, so it is full of men due to dishonesty. In other vices the devil fishes with a hook, in this one he fishes with a net; so that he makes more gain for hell by this vice than by all the others. And God, on the other hand, has sent the greatest punishments into the world for incontinence, punishing it from heaven with deluges of water and fire.”[644]

In this regard, I would like to point out the significant words of Our Lady in Fatima: “Pray, pray a lot; and make sacrifices for sinners, because many souls go to hell, because there is no one to sacrifice and intercede for them.”[645]

I take a further text on this theme from the Osservatore Romano of 7-2-1954 (weekly edition). Fr. Riccardo Lombardi speaks of an interview granted to him by Sister Lucia dos Santos, one of the visionaries of Fatima: "I asked her "Tell me if "Better World" is the Church's response to the words of the Virgin that you heard." She replied "Father there is certainly a need for this great renewal. If this is not done, considering the current development of humanity, only a limited part of the human race will be saved” …….
Filming p. Lombardi “Do you really believe that many go to hell? I hope that God saves many" (it is not for nothing that one of my books has the title "The salvation of those who have no faith"). Sister Lucia replied “Father, many are damned” Filmed by Fr. Lombardi “Yes, the world is a bilge of vices. But there is always a hope of salvation.” Sister Lucia replied "No, Father, many, many will be lost"....”

The P. Lombardi concludes the article by saying verbatim: “Those words (from Sister Lucia) shook me.” ... statements similar to those of Lucia are found in the other visionaries of Fatima ...

In the “Diary” of s. Veronica Giuliani, published by the Capuchin Monastery, Città di Castello 1974 l. IV p. 281 it is written “Holy Mary but she said to me…..” Daughter, I will let you know that God is offended daily; they flood souls into hell.”

On page 354 of the same text: "She (the Holy Virgin Mary) told me...Daughter...at every moment thousands of souls fall into hell"

On p. 358 of the same text it is written: “Daughter, know that now a living has come into the world, which few will be saved”

I underline that these texts are evidently in the line of the s. Gospel which states: “Enter through the narrow gate, for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to perdition, and there are many who enter therein. How strait is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and few are those who find it!” (Mt. 7,13ff) … and various of these are texts of the Catholic Tradition to always be kept in due consideration …

I specify that these texts like others in this line do not aim to terrify souls but to make them truly walk on the path that leads to Heaven and to keep them well away from sin, that is, from the path that leads to hell; these texts therefore aim to:

1) double vigilance in souls;

2) lead the faithful not to remain in mortal sin for a single day;

3) make the faithful seek the remedy for their sins incessantly;

4) separate, at least in spirit, the faithful from the multitude who live in sin;

5) push the faithful to follow the small number of truly Christian Christians, disciplined in their conduct and faithful to their duties;

6) lead the faithful to resolutely follow the narrow path that leads to Heaven, overcoming obstacles;

7) make the faithful pray incessantly, as the Lord wants, to have the grace to enter and persevere on this narrow path.[646]

It does not seem that such holy indications are aroused by the books of Fumagalli, Oliva and Piana which also are or should be books of Catholic moral theology.

But this is not surprising because precisely in front of these great truths the soul can more easily understand the need to follow the safe path that leads to Heaven and to escape from hell; It is precisely in front of these great truths that the reader is more easily pushed to follow the sure path that Tradition and in it the Holy Spirit through the saints and the Holy Church have established to lead men to Heaven; It is precisely in front of these great truths that the reader more easily understands the need to follow what the Bible has clearly established to reach bliss; It is precisely in front of these great truths that the soul can understand how dangerous it is to rely on the lucubrations of some moral theologian who wants to pervert sound doctrine... obviously books that are closed to the full truth of Christ and want to pervert it are not strange that they are closed to these great truths and close the minds of their readers to them.

 

 

d,2) Lack of an adequate, at least embryonic, treatment of the Cross and the need for incessant prayer!

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Fumagalli, Oliva and Piana do not even dedicate at least an embryonic space to the Cross and the spiritual struggle in their books.

St. Rose of Lima said, presenting the words that Jesus had said to her: “Let no one err or be deceived; this is the only true stairway to heaven, and apart from the cross there is no other way to ascend to heaven.”[647]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 2015: “The path to perfection passes through the cross. There is no holiness without renunciation and without spiritual combat.” (Cf. 2 Tim 4.)

Whoever wants to be saved must follow Christ on the path of the Cross and the fight against spiritual enemies: the flesh, the devil and the world.”

Gaudium et Spes states in n. 37: “The whole of human history is in fact pervaded by a tremendous struggle against the powers of darkness; struggle that began from the origin of the world, destined to last, as the Lord says, until the last day (Cf. Mt 24,13; 13,24-30 and 36-43.). Inserted in this battle, man must fight tirelessly in order to remain united with good, nor can he achieve his inner unity except at the cost of great effort, with the help of the grace of God." [648]

The way of the Cross is a way of spiritual combat, it is a way of self-denial and following Christ.

Jesus said it clearly: "If anyone wants to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me" (Lk 9,23:9,23). St. John Paul II stated: “The testimony of Christ is a source, paradigm and resource for the testimony of the disciple, called to follow the same path: «If anyone wants to come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross every day and follow me" (Lk 5,1:2). Charity, according to the needs of evangelical radicalism, can lead the believer to the supreme testimony of martyrdom. Always following the example of Jesus who died on the cross: «Therefore become imitators of God, as dear children, - Paul writes to the Christians of Ephesus - and walk in charity, in the way that Christ also loved us and gave himself for us , offering oneself to God as a sweet-smelling sacrifice” (Eph 86:87-XNUMX).” (VS n. XNUMX-XNUMX)

The way of the Cross is a way of charity and readiness for martyrdom.

Charity is divine love in us and is achieved precisely by denying ourselves and following Christ on the path of the holy commandments and the Cross; charity can lead the believer to the supreme testimony of martyrdom. If the Christian lives in true charity, he is always ready for martyrdom; s. Ignatius of Antioch stated: “Non-believers have the imprint of this world, but the faithful who are in charity bear the imprint of God the Father through Jesus Christ. If we, with his grace, are not ready to die to participate in his Passion, his life is not in us."[649]

Fraternal charity, as we said, also leads us to lead our brothers to faith and charity and therefore to the fortitude that gives them the ability to remain faithful to the divine Law even in the midst of the most terrible trials up to martyrdom.

The entire Holy Scripture is studded with the shining examples of the glorious martyrs, admirable testimonies of fidelity to the holy law of God, affirmations of the inviolability of the moral order in which the sanctity of the law of God and at the same time the intangibility of personal dignity shine of man, created in the image and likeness of God, a dignity that is never allowed to debase or oppose, even with good intentions, whatever the difficulties, as St. John Paul II (see VS n. 90s)

The Law of God in its negative commands is always absolute and impassable and this may entail the need to accept death rather than violate such commands; the Bible shows us this clearly precisely by speaking to us about the martyrs.

Charity makes us firm in the Law of God until death and fraternal charity leads us to lead our brothers to faith and charity and therefore to the fortitude that gives us and them to be able to remain faithful to the divine Law even in the midst of trials more terrible and to the point of martyrdom. In this line, charity makes us firm in not giving in to the sins of homosexuality and pushes us to help our neighbors not to give in to these same sins.

The history of the Church is full of extraordinary examples of martyrs: "... who witnessed and defended the moral truth to the point of martyrdom or preferred death to a single mortal sin. By raising them to the honor of the altars, the Church has canonized their testimony and declared their judgment to be true, according to which the love of God necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention to save one's life." (VS n. 91)

I underline: the love of God, that is, charity, necessarily implies respect for his commandments, even in the most serious circumstances, and the refusal to betray them, even with the intention of saving one's life.

Charity obligatorily implies, therefore, respect for all divine commands, even those that prohibit homosexual practice, in all circumstances, even in the most serious circumstances, charity obligatorily implies the refusal to betray them, even with the intention of save your life.

Those who have homosexual tendencies are, like all men, called to charity and therefore in it they are called:

– to walk the path of the Cross, of spiritual combat;

– to live in the commandments, even those that prohibit homosexual practice;

– to prefer death to grave sin and in particular homosexual sin;

– to help others to live holy lives;

– to be ready for martyrdom for Christ and for the Holy Divine Law.

Precisely to live on this path of the Cross and readiness for martyrdom, in the Law of God and in charity, which we have talked about so far, homosexuals are called, like all Christians, to pray incessantly... St. Paul states: "Pray incessantly" (1 Thess 5,17).

The Apostle himself adds: "... pray without ceasing with all kinds of prayers and supplications in the Spirit, being vigilant for this purpose with all perseverance and praying for all the saints" (Eph 6,18:2742). The Catechism of the Catholic Church in numbers XNUMXff points out in this regard that: “ …“We have not been commanded to work, keep vigil and fast continuously, while incessant prayer is a law for us”.[650]… Praying is always possible … Praying is a vital necessity. … Prayer and Christian life are inseparable …”

Fumagalli, Oliva and Piana do not at least embryonically develop the theme of the Cross, spiritual combat, martyrdom and true charity, nor do they deal in a barely embryonic way with the theme of the necessity of prayer, and they do not even talk about incessant prayer; but without these teachings well assimilated and lived it is impossible to truly follow the way of Christ and therefore the Christian moral path.

 

 

d,3) Final considerations on the professor's statements. Fumagalli, by p. Oliva and prof. Flat.

 

 

Let us therefore ask ourselves: where do the aforementioned authors want to take homosexuals and more generally their readers? The path that leads to Heaven, according to Catholic theology, is that of the Cross, of the struggle, even of martyrdom and prayer... but Fumagalli, Oliva and Piana do not offer a serious, even embryonic, treatment of all this!

I would like to point out in particular that in the light of Paradise and the Passion of Christ the Catholic theologian can speak effectively of the need to "deny oneself" and follow Jesus on the path of the Law of God by taking up one's own Cross with the help that we obtain from God through prayer, as the Gospel teaches; in this light the Catholic theologian can reflect effectively on our life in Christ and can invite his readers to follow the true path that leads to Heaven, the path of the Cross; in this light the moral theologian can clearly say that the path that leads to Heaven is narrow even for those who have homosexual tendencies, it is the path of the Cross and of spiritual combat, it is the path of "effort" in incessant prayer and in the humble acceptance of Sacraments, it is a way of observing the Law of God, it is a way of opposing homosexual tendencies, it is a way of renouncing homosexual acts; in this light and in this theological horizon which includes the truths on the necessity of prayer and on the very new and in particular on Heaven, our Fathers, the holy Doctors and our s. Magisterium spoke of the Law of God and condemned and fought lust and every impure sin, especially that against nature; in this light and in this theological horizon which includes the truths on the necessity of prayer and on the very new and in particular on Heaven, our Fathers, the holy Doctors and the great saints have converted great sinners.

By losing this light and this truly Catholic theological horizon and losing in it the reality of the very new and in particular of Heaven, it becomes practically impossible to direct souls on the true path that leads to eternal life and one easily falls into the error of considering life practically impossible according to the Law of God and therefore to legitimize what in reality is a serious sin.

I have precisely underlined the lack of an adequate, at least embryonic, treatment of Heaven and the very new as well as of the Cross and incessant prayer in the books of the aforementioned authors because given the non-existence of an adequate treatment of the divine plan for man and of the work of Christ and given the statements completely contrary to Tradition regarding the judgment of homosexual acts, the aforementioned shortcomings better highlight how the real theological horizon of Fumagalli, Piana and Oliva does not appear to be that of Catholic theology; they cite the Bible, the Magisterium, etc. on the question of homosexual relationships but precisely because they lack a truly Catholic theological horizon, illuminated by the Bible and Tradition, they offer readers a profoundly distorted idea of ​​Catholic doctrine and do not effectively help sinners to convert.

These theologians will first of all answer for all this before God, but the Pope and his collaborators will also answer for it who, as seen, not only do not condemn or sanction these texts but actually in some cases praise them... obviously indicating that they approve them!

God intervene!

 

 

e) A significant article by d. Paolo Cugini on various authors who support the legality of homosexual acts.

 

 

May the Cross of Christ be our light and enlighten us ever better.

Don Paolo Cugini, Parish Administrator of the Santissima Trinità of Dodici Morelli, in the Diocese of Bologna, wrote an article a few years ago[651] which I think is interesting regarding various theologians who would like to make homosexual acts legitimate.

Don Cugini states first of all that the Church is obliged to rethink its position both on homosexual inclination and on homosexual acts.

Don Cugini adds, based on the statements of the theologian Carmelo Dotolo[652], that theology "must open itself to the multiplicity of knowledge in order not to run the risk of a unidirectional and, therefore, partial reading of reality." Then the priest states "... the need to abandon that obsolete epistemological approach which makes the idea precede reality, risking constantly reading it in a distorted way."

In this line of "methodological renewal" d. Cugini presents the statements of some authors who have attempted to address issues regarding homosexuality on the basis of new paths...

Don Cugini then first presents the statements of D. Migliorini who wrote a book with B. Brogliato on homosexual love[653] and in which he also deals with natural law. In this presentation Cugini highlights that "natural law is not a static body nor a list of defined and immutable precepts, but a source of inspiration"; this law: “in the passage from the general to the particular, requires the exercise of an infinite hermeneutic”; homoeroticism can be considered natural because it is found in all eras; the genital organs in this line would have 3 functions: a physiological one, an erotic one and a reproductive one.

It is a mistake, for this author, to finalize sexuality exclusively for procreative purposes; St.'s statement is no longer tenable. Thomas according to which the sexual act must be aimed at procreation; the current position of the Church ignores the homosexual person, speaking of deviance or intrinsically bad acts, and denies the homosexual person both on the level of personal identity and on that of social recognition; “homosexual union, which recognizes the value of the unitive purpose and the responsibility in the faithfulness of the partner, bears witness to Christian love”; in this sense the homosexual union should therefore be recognized.

Subsequently Cugini presents Sister Forcades' statements that:

1) it is necessary to “affirm the unique and original character of each individual and «the affirmation of the impossibility of using, within the person, any category, be it gender, class or race.”;

2) complementarity is not necessary in love, in fact in Trinitarian relationships there is no complementarity; 3) Trinitarian love implies making space around the subject and this can also be found in a homosexual relationship, which is also holy and must be recognized to the point that homosexual marriage is also permissible.

Finally Cugini presents G. Piana's statements which we have already seen above.

What to say regarding the statements of Cugini and the aforementioned authors cited by him? Since the biblical and traditional data regarding the illicit nature of homosexual acts is clear and insurmountable, Catholic doctrine is first and foremost based on Revelation which clearly speaks in the sense of this illicit nature. The revealed Law but also the natural law correctly understood, as seen, are very clear in condemning homosexual acts. The forms of homosexuality found in nature do not justify the lawfulness of the human homosexual act because man, unlike animals and all other terrestrial beings, has reason and must live according to reason illuminated by faith and charity, the Natural Law and the Revealed Law, as mentioned, command man to live chastely and absolutely prohibit homosexual acts.

More precisely, as seen in this chapter:

1) Catholic doctrine is very firm and immutable in stating that the sexual act is licit only after people are united by God in Holy Matrimony;

2) Catholic doctrine is equally firm and immutable in stating that homosexual acts are very serious sins, they are seriously disordered acts.

The statements of the authors cited by Cugini are in radical opposition to the deposit of faith!

As we said above: God also gave us the revealed Law to clarify and perfect the natural Law and to make it thoroughly known; the Church teaches us what the true natural law is and precisely from this teaching we know that masturbation and homosexual activity are, in themselves, seriously sinful; homosexual union, as sinful, is never a testimony of Christian love.

Sister Forcades' statements regarding the legality of homosexual marriage and homosexual activity are in total contrast with what the Bible and Tradition affirm; Trinitarian love is most holy and chaste and does not foresee homosexual acts but rather radically contrasts them.

God intervene.

 

 

f) Important clarifications on some serious doctrinal deviations of our times regarding homosexuality, justified on the basis of science and creation.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

An important clarification must be made regarding the openings regarding the legality of homosexual acts and blessings for homosexual couples justified on the basis of new scientific discoveries.

The Bishops who want to make openings regarding the legality of homosexual acts or blessings for homosexual couples affirm that they are required by scientific progress, so for Msgr. Bonny, the document of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which prohibited homosexual blessings essentially lacks scientific foundation.[654]

The Bishop of Aachen Helmut Der believes that from a scientific point of view, homosexuality is not an illness, it is not an expression of a deficit, incidentally it is not even a consequence of original sin, which is why the Church cannot say that i homosexual feelings are unnatural. Nor could it require these people to live in abstinence. The Bishop's reasoning is that creation is different, therefore, even in the field of sexuality, we can accept a diversity desired by God and which does not violate the will of the Creator[655].

The German Bishops with the action text "Magisterial revaluation of homosexuality", recommend the Pope to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the doctrine on homosexuality and homosexual acts and justify their position by stating that homosexual orientation belongs to man as he was created by God, therefore it is not ethically and fundamentally different from heterosexual orientation; homosexual sexuality, even in its implementation with sexual acts, is therefore not a sin that separates from God, and must not be judged as bad in itself. [656]

These Bishops basically state that true science and the plan of creation conflict with Catholic doctrine regarding sexuality.

Likewise, various theologians, as seen, basically state that true science conflicts with Catholic doctrine regarding sexuality.

In reality, things are very different.

As Dr. said. Nicolosi, good science is compatible with and supports the Catholic vision of human sexuality. [657]

We have seen above that homosexuality can be overcome and has a multifactorial etiology, primarily psychological, according to various authors.

The professor. Anatrella states that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality and adds that homosexuality has no neurobiological origins.[658]

Even Dr. Nicolosi stated that the cause of homosexuality is not genetic[659], he underlines that there is no genetic causality of homosexuality but biological and genetic factors can create a temperament predisposition to it[660].

Reilly, in 2015, highlighted data indicating that homosexuality is not genetic and is not immutable  [661].

They prove that homosexuality is not genetic, explains Reilly in his book[662], in particular the studies of le Vay[663] and Breedlove[664].

The Dr. Van den Aardweg, as seen, stated that there are many misrepresentations and misinterpretations in the field of research on physical or biological factors, and research on homosexuality is not exempt from this, even the research of the best and most experienced investigators. [665]

According to Dr. van der Aardweg more precisely, the most established facts in relation to homosexuality indicate that it is caused by psychological-evolutionary elements, not genetic or physiological.[666]

As the professor says. A. Fumagalli, rightly, various types of studies have been carried out to clarify whether there is a genetic basis of homosexuality but both the studies on the hormonal profile, both the anthropometric studies, both those of cerebral morphology and those on a family basis have not offered evidence that can unequivocally support the hypothesis of a genetic origin of sexual disorders, this is confirmed by recent studies; therefore attempts to find the genetic basis of sexual orientation have not produced reliable results" [667]

Furthermore, as Cardinal Müller says, homosexuality is not something that God directly created and is not genetic but psychological: "... homosexuals in general do not exist, it is an invention, they evidently speak to cover their own interests. Let's go back to Genesis: there is a female and a male sexuality, nothing else. Man is created for woman and woman is created for man, as Saint Paul says in the First Letter to the Corinthians (chapter 11). The concept of homosexuality does not exist in Creation, it is an invention that has no basis in human nature. Homosexual tendencies are not an ontological fact, but a psychological one. Some people, however, want to make homosexuality an ontological fact."[668] That is, human nature as created by God does not foresee homosexual acts as natural for man.

Along these lines, as we have seen, homosexuality is against nature, as Scripture and Tradition say. The opposition of homosexual acts to human nature is a clear and unanimous fact of Holy Scripture (Rom. 1, 26-27) and Catholic Tradition[669].

Cardinal Müller himself made another extremely important statement in October 2023 regarding the topic we are dealing with, in it he stated: "I have defended Catholic doctrine against pseudo-modernism especially in the last ten years... I am happy when others in their own way they do what is necessary and remind the Pope of his God-given responsibility for the preservation of the Church in the “teaching of the Apostles” (Acts 2:42).

At the moment, there is a heretical but career-enhancing position that God reveals himself only to Pope Francis through direct information in the Holy Spirit, and that bishops need only blindly repeat these heavenly illuminations and transmit them mechanically like talking puppets. The bishop, however, by virtue of his consecration, is the successor of the Apostles and authentic master of the Gospel of Christ, but in the college of all bishops with the Pope as the ever-present and visible principle of the unity of the Church in revealed truth and in its sacramental communion. This is the true doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and not the neo-papalism of those who want to hand over the Church of Christ to the ideology of atheistic and anti-human capitalism of Davos. Their fraudulent pretext is the adaptation of the supposedly obsolete Word of God, as if the whole truth had not been given to us in Christ, to the canons of an anti-marriage pseudoscientific anthropology and a civilization of death (abortion, embryo trafficking, euthanasia , mutilation of the body through the so-called sex change). Every Catholic believes in the divine and Catholic truth that in Peter the bishops of Rome are installed as his legitimate successors. But as a theologically enlightened disciple of Christ, he opposes the caricature of the papacy both in the anti-Roman polemics of the reformers of the time and in the parrot-like understanding of neo-papalism or non-Catholic papagayism..."[670]

The Cardinal himself also said: ""I hope that it is the truth of Christ that determines the direction of the synod and not a dynamic group process that leads the participants in the direction of an anti-Christian anthropology that questions the double gender of humanity created by God. This blatant contradiction with the divine and Catholic faith is often veiled by an alleged pastoral care towards people with some kind of "erotic preferences". The norm of Christian thought is man, for whom the Son of God became man and redeemed us from sin and death with his death on the cross. The propagandists of these anti-scientific and anti-revelation ideologies, in fact, are not really concerned with human happiness and the eternal salvation of people created in the image and likeness of God, but rather with the relativization and therefore the destruction of the natural and sacramental marriage of human beings as man and woman. A fictitious “blessing” of same-sex couples is not only blasphemy against the Creator of the world and humanity, but also a grave sin against the salvation of the people concerned, who are led to believe that sexual activity outside be pious about marriage." [671]

The Bishops and theologians who in the name of "science" want to change the Catholic moral doctrine on homosexuality and those who make statements similar to theirs are, as Nicolosi says, prey to misinformation and lies which are spread precisely to prevent the truth from being out about homosexuality and about the paths to return to the natural heterosexuality of the human person and unfortunately such deviations from the truth are also spread by priests and Bishops.

Nicolosi says it surprised and shocked him, and it should shock us too, to know that there are priests and bishops who think that God created 2 types of people: heterosexuals and homosexuals; for the American psychologist the problem is not a lack of doctrine but of effective service to souls, the evangelicals have a very effective service for those who fight homosexuality; the Catholic Church has a strong doctrine that opposes homosexual acts and fundamentally the homosexual tendency, unfortunately there are educators who confuse young people by making them think that God created them this way[672], easily leading them to think that homosexual acts are natural for them.

If Nicolosi were alive he would be amazed today more than ever to see that these statements are no longer just those of some Bishop or priest or educator but even those of the Pope [673]

 

 

6) What we have said so far makes us understand that "obviously" homosexual acts were not discussed at the summit on abuse in February 2019.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

What we have said so far also sheds a strong light on the reason why at the summit on abuse held in 2019 in the Vatican "strangely" there was no mention of homosexuality...

Yet, as we saw above, a Polish priest, Don Dariusz Oko, published a text that caused a sensation, as R. Marchesini explains very well [674]; according to this Polish priest: “In the seventies and eighties of the twentieth century, priests with homosexual tendencies began to create many problems in many dioceses and abbeys around the world. The scandal of sexual abuse of minors, which exploded in the 80s in the USA, was largely due to gay priests and in 2002 this situation led to a real earthquake. In 1989, Don Andrew Greeley, a Catholic writer and sociologist, wrote in the American weekly National Catholic Reporter of Kansas City about the "lavender mafia" [a term that indicates the gay lobby within the Catholic Church] in an article that outraged some and agreed with others. According to Greeley, the priesthood was becoming increasingly gay, and was no longer representative of the universal Church.” [675] ...

Dr. van den Aardweg said along these lines: ““A consequence of the homosexual sexual obsession is the tendency to seduce or harass youngsters and young adults. The risk of adult gay men's harassing same-sex minors is 10-20 times the risk of adult heterosexual men's harassing minor girls. [676]"[677]

A consequence of homosexual obsession with sex is the tendency to seduce or molest young people or young adults; the risk of a homosexual man molesting a minor of the same sex is approximately 10 or 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual man. of little girls.

 

 

a) The terrible reputation of Cardinal Bergoglio and then of Pope Francis regarding the treatment of cases of sexual abuse.

 

 

a,1) Some cases of pedophilia or pederasty that occurred in Argentina when Pope Francis was Cardinal and his unworthy way of acting.

 

 

First of all, what Marco Tosatti says in one of his articles is extremely significant [678] in which he presents a video in which several people who recognize themselves as victims of a pedophile priest say that despite having turned to Pope Francis, he never received them? The video in question starts from a statement by Pope Bergoglio that abuse had never occurred in his diocese. In the video one of the women says, regarding the affirmation of the non-existence of abuse in the diocese of Buenos Aires, when Bergoglio was archbishop: "He wants us to believe so, but it is a lie". – Who tried to speak to the archbishop? - a journalist asks those present in the video. “Who tried to talk to him? Everyone. And there was no response,” the women said in the video. “He received all the celebrities, like Leonardo DiCaprio – said a woman – but for us not even a little letter to say that he was sorry”.

Furthermore, in the same video you can also see that the Pope answers some questions posed to him: "Your Holiness, during the Grassi case did you try to influence Argentine justice?". The Pontiff stopped and had the question repeated. Then he replied: “no”. The reporter continued: “Then why did you commission a counter-investigation?”. To which the Pontiff replied: “I have never done it”. It should be noted that there was such a counter-investigation and that it was commissioned by the Argentine Episcopal Conference in the years in which Cardinal Bergoglio was President of that Episcopal Conference, explains Tosatti in the same article. Journalists Henao and Winfield reported the following in one of their articles: “Before Pope Francis can enact accountability for bishops and other church leaders, he has to own up to the harm he himself caused victims in Argentina,” said Anne Barrett Doyle of the online resource Bishop Accountability, which has gathered the documentation on the Grassi saga.”[679] which means the following: Pope Francis, before he can establish the accountability of Bishops and other leaders in the Church, must address the effects of the damage he himself caused to victims in Argentina, says Anne Barrett Doyle of the online portal Bishop Accountability, which collected the documentation of the “Grassi saga”.[680]

Pope Francis' reputation regarding the fight against abuse is therefore very bad! What we will see in the next pages confirms and expands this bad reputation, as we will see.

“Der Spiegel” published a few years ago nineteen pages of an investigation dedicated to the reigning Pope, entitled “Do not bear false witness. The Pope and the Church in its greatest crisis".

“A large part of the article is centered on interviews with victims of clerical abuse in Buenos Aires, the diocese of which Bergoglio was archbishop until his election in March 2013. … “Der Spiegel” journalists traveled to Argentina, to Munich and elsewhere to gather news. … The newspaper writes: “In 2013, shortly after Bergoglio was elected pope, Julieta Anazco and thirteen other victims of Father Gimenez wrote a letter in which they described what had happened to them …”.

The letter was sent by registered mail with return receipt in December 2013, and confirmation of receipt arrived three weeks later. Then, nothing more. Not a word. … “Der Spiegel” explains that “during the period in which Bergoglio was cardinal, many victims of abuse in Buenos Aires turned to him for help; no one was allowed to see it." There are currently sixty-two trials underway against Argentine priests... We want to reach the Pope, but he is not interested in us."

Juan Pablo Gallego, a prominent victims' defense lawyer said: “Francis is now in exile in Rome, having found refuge (with immunity), so to speak, over there. In Argentina he should refute the suspicion of having protected rapists and child abusers for years."[681]

Impressive!!

God intervene!

 

 

a,2) The McCarrick case

 

 

As the Chiesa e post Concilio website succinctly explains, “The former apostolic nuncio of the Holy See, Msgr. Viganò wrote an 11-page memorandum in which he reports having produced 2 reports accusing Cardinal McCarrick, both of which were covered up by the previous Secretaries of State, Cardinals Sodano and Bertone.” Says Mgr. Viganò: “Bishops and priests, abusing their authority, have committed horrendous crimes against their faithful, minors, innocent victims, young men eager to offer their lives to the Church, or have not prevented with their silence that such crimes continue to be perpetrated."

When this situation became known to Benedict XVI, "the Pope canonically sanctioned Bishop McCarrick, requiring him not to travel, to abandon the seminary, not to celebrate in public, nor preach, nor hold conferences. The sanctions were communicated to McCarrick by the Nuncio Pietro Sambi and were reiterated to him by Viganò himself. But then Pope Francis arrived, who removed all sanctions and actually made McCarrick his privileged consultant, so much so that he sent him to China and followed his advice for the appointments of Cupich in Chicago and Tobin in Newark."[682]

Monsignor Cordileone, commenting on Viganò's words, recalled that in his previous statements the latter told the truth and his statements on the McCarrick case “must be taken seriously. To dismiss them lightly would continue a culture of denial and obfuscation. Of course, to validate his statements in detail a formal investigation will have to be conducted, one that is thorough and objective. I am therefore grateful to Cardinal DiNardo for recognizing the merit of finding answers that are “conclusive and based on evidence,” and I join my voice to that of other bishops in calling for such an investigation and for taking any corrective action that may be necessary in light of its findings.”[683] The statements of Msgr. Viganò, therefore, must be taken seriously. To dismiss them lightly would be to perpetuate a culture of denial and obfuscation. Obviously, to validate his statements in detail will require a formal, in-depth and objective investigation. I am therefore grateful to Cardinal DiNardo for giving credit for demanding “conclusive and evidence-based” answers, and I join my voice with those of other bishops in calling for such an investigation and in taking any corrective action that may be necessary.

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, former first counselor of the apostolic nunciature in Washington DC, confirmed the former nuncio's words.

Monsignor Jean-François Lantheaume, when questioned on this topic, stated: “”Viganò told the truth. That's all.” that is, Msgr. CM Viganò told the truth in his explosive statement released to the press on August 25.[684]

Monsignor Viganò's words were indirectly confirmed by Cardinal Ouellet who also tried to oppose them.

The statements of Fr. are impressive. Ramsey, a former Dominican who for many years made important Catholic prelates aware of McCarrick's unworthy and sinful actions, released in an interview. [685] in it we read: “A former Dominican, Ramsey served on the faculty of Immaculate Conception Seminary at Seton Hall University in New Jersey during McCarrick's time as archbishop of Newark, from 1986 to 2000. He said he first raised concerns with the seminary's rector in the late 1980s after hearing seminarians tell how McCarrick shared a bed with them during overnight visits to his beach house. “This is something everyone in the seminary knew ” Ramsey said, explaining that at the time he didn't know the misconduct fell into the category of harassment, “I just knew it was wrong.” Ramsey said the dean recognized that McCarrick's behavior was concerning and believed something needed to be done, but nothing happened. … When Ramsey confided his concerns to Archbishop Thomas Kelly of Louisville, who died in 2011, Kelly, he said, told him that nothing could be done, because McCarrick “was the boss” … Kelly, Ramsey said, was alluding to the behavior of McCarrick with the men, and said, “we all know” about the time McCarrick picked up a young man from the airport, and that man was the seminarian who had been expelled. Ramsey said he took the “we all know” comment to mean that all the bishops were at least to some extent aware of McCarrick's behavior. ... Ramsey said he finally decided to write a letter detailing McCarrick's misconduct to the Vatican nuncio to the United States, Archbishop Gabriel Montalvo, in 2000, when McCarrick was appointed archbishop of Washington.  … However, even though his letter was received, Ramsey said he was never contacted about it. He again addressed his concerns to Cardinal Edward Egan, then archbishop of New York, in 2004, after leaving the Dominican order to become a diocesan priest in New York.  When he confided his concerns to McCarrick, “Cardinal Egan clearly didn't want to hear about it,” Ramsey said. “He knew exactly what I was talking about. Seeing how he reacted, he knew exactly what I was saying, and didn't want to pursue the matter.” Ramsey then wrote to journalist Joe Feuerherd in 2005 after reading an article Feuerherd had published about McCarrick. The reporter, Ramsey said, had heard the same rumors about McCarrick's behavior with seminarians, but had not been able to verify them, so "this is something everyone knew, and it took one person, the guy who was abused by child, to open Pandora's box." In 2015, Ramsey decided to write yet another letter detailing his concerns to Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, who is the president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors (the one established by Pope Francis on March 22, 2014, ed.), after he was upset when he saw McCarrick participate in the funeral Mass of card. Egan in New York. “I thought to myself, what is this guy still doing around? Doesn't everyone know about the issue? He is an abhorrent person,” Ramsey said, explaining that the response he received from the (Child Protection) Commission was that McCarrick's misconduct was not within the Commission's purview, given that the allegations of child abuse were not had yet to come to light publicly, and he was asked to take the matter elsewhere. “My career is full of people who don't respond to letters, or don't respond in the right way,” he said. After news of Ramsey's 2015 letter became public knowledge, Card. O'Malley released a public statement earlier this month apologizing for failing to act on the concerns raised... Ramsey said he was never contacted directly about it. O'Malley "should have reached out to him before issuing a public statement," Ramsey said, explaining that he received a formal letter from the cardinal (O'Malley) only after Ramsey had written to him to tell him to make a statement without contacting him first was a PR disaster. … Regarding Viganó's 11-page statement that Benedict XVI imposed private sanctions against McCarrick in 2008, and that Pope Francis suppressed or ignored them, viewing McCarrick as a confidant and advisor to the U.S. Church, Ramsey said he was “shocked” by the letter. While he believes the key allegations raised by Vigano deserve to be taken seriously, Ramsey said he objects to the picture Vigano paints of a vast “gay network” operating within the Church, calling the claim “ridiculous.” . (…) “There is a significant portion of the clergy who are homosexual, and of that, there is a significant portion who is chaste and trying to be chaste,” he said, adding that “I have no problem with people who every they fall so much." [686]

In reality, as we will see, Msgr. Viganò spoke about homosexual networks, referring to what an American theologian had said in this regard, the words of Msgr. Viganò were confirmed by the statements of Cardinals Müller and Brandmüller who equally spoke of homosexual networks in the Church[687].

Cardinal Müller said regarding the McCarrick case and the explosive revelations of Mgr. Viganò: “I was not surprised by his accusations, but I would like to propose to the Holy Father to speak with him, to seek reconciliation with him, and to give answers to those accusations or questions for the People of God who have the right to know. It is always possible that there has been some mistake, or some management mistake, we can learn from our mistakes and we must become better at managing abuse. Don't divide the Church into groups. The Holy Father has the task of unity, he must be the symbol of unity, we must overcome the division between conservatives and liberals with the help of the Holy Father. We want a united Church."[688]

In 2020 a Vatican dossier was published on the McCarrick case; as R. Cascioli explains regarding this report: "Given the genesis of this investigative work, it is not surprising that the undeclared objective was precisely the official defense of Pope Francis and the counter accusation against Monsignor Viganò."[689]

In an interview given on 12 November to Raymondo Arroyo of ETWN, a well-known American Catholic TV broadcaster, Monsignor Viganò replied "point after point, accusing the authors of the Report of having deliberately avoided his testimony and avoided examining certain circumstances in depth, thus arriving to cover up - as we have already denounced - the system of moral corruption in the Vatican Curia which still - indeed, now more than ever - allows morally controversial and even outright abusers to reach the top of the Church."[690]

In the report, as reported by R. Cascioli: "... there is not even a trace of the testimony of James Grein who, Viganò recalls, is «the only victim of McCarrick's sexual harassment who had the courage to denounce it publicly». Why this hole? Perhaps to prevent Grein from telling, as he has already done publicly, that "the beginning of the rise of McCarrick - then a new priest - coincided" with a visit to St. Gallen, in Switzerland, to a monastery that had become famous for the meetings of the so-called “St. Gallen mafia” which had a decisive role in the election of Bergoglio to the papacy. McCarrick himself, Viganò still recalls, in a conference in October 2013, publicly boasted of having favored the election of Pope Francis, which had taken place a few months earlier.”[691]

By now we know how Francis knows how to tell falsehoods and it is not strange that his collaborators work in his wake to spin reality as they see fit, so that listening to Msgr. Viganò who responds to the accusations of the "Vatican Report" we can say that: there is "already enough to doubt the full reliability of the McCarrick Report and to suspect the manipulative intentions of those who drew it up, but we fear that no one has the intention of going to bottom of the matter."[692]

 

a,3) The Barros case

 

 

AM Valli pointed out that at the time of the release of Mgr.'s explosive statements. CM Viganò: “Obviously no one in the mainstream press has ... remembered Bergoglio's long defense against Bishop Barros of Chile, the cover-up of the crimes of the abusive priest Karadima, a defense from which the Pope tried to save himself in a corner (but in very confusing way, introducing a vague difference between "evidence" and "evidence") only after the Associated Press published a letter which demonstrates that Bergoglio had already been informed of everything in 2015." [693]

Henry Syre in his book “The dictator Pope” (2018 edition) reports that on January 23, 2018, the National Catholic Reporter stated that Pope Francis' defense of Chilean Bishop Juan Barros Madrid is only the latest in a series of statements that he has done in his nearly five years of pontificate and which have hurt survivors and the entire church body. The article went on to say that the Pope, despite at least three public reports from survivors to the contrary, also said he had seen no evidence of Barros' involvement in a cover-up to protect notorious abuser Father Fernando Karadima. These remarks are shameful to say the least. They may suggest that Francis may now be complicit in the cover-up. The pope's statements about zero tolerance have been strong, but he has time and again refused to deal decisively with those who provided cover for abusers. In an openly critical statement, as we have struggled to find parallels in recent Church history, Boston Cardinal Seán O'Malley said the pope's comments against Karadima's abuse survivors were defamatory to them and had caused them "great ache". …

Things got worse, when it was revealed in February 2018 that, despite Francis' insistence that he had seen no evidence of victims coming forward to accuse Bishop Juan Barros of a cover-up, Cardinal Seán O'Malley had told him actually delivered an eight-page letter from a victim who claimed just that: that Bishop Juan Barros had not only covered up the sexual abuse, but had been an eyewitness to it. A copy of one letter was obtained by the Associated Press. To say the least, Pope Francis has not maintained Pope Benedict's "zero tolerance" line when it comes to clerical sexual abuse and has been far more lenient, or irresponsible, in addressing this ongoing moral scandal within the Church . [694]

The Pope subsequently recognized his mistakes and also intervened with regards to Monsignor Barros, in fact, having returned to Rome from the trip to Chile: "... probably because he was better advised, the Pope appointed Monsignor Charles Scicluna as his envoy to Chile to clarity: the ponderous dossier resulting from Scicluna's work definitively changed the mind of Francis who, evidently, had been misdirected. Hence the meeting in Rome with the victims and the summoning of all the bishops to Rome.” The Chilean Bishops resigned, as R. Cascioli explains: “At the end of the historic meeting which took place in the Vatican from 15 to 17 May, all the bishops of Chile had individually presented the letter of resignation from their pastoral office to the Pope. An entire episcopal conference placed his ministry back in the hands of Francis, a unique fact in the history of the Church. Of those 31 letters of resignation yesterday the Holy See announced that 3 were accepted, including the very heavy one from Monsignor Juan Barros, bishop of Osorno..."[695]

Here therefore, compared to the cases of Argentina, in the end the victims were listened to... but in the end...

 

 

a,4) The Inzoli case.

 

 

Reporting the words of Michael Dougherty, journalist M. Hickson states: “It is known that Pope Francis and his cardinal allies have interfered in the judgments on cases of abuse examined by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Such interventions have become so endemic in the system that it is now thought that cases of priestly abuse in Rome have two bases of judgment: the first is that between guilty and innocent, the second is that between those "who have cardinal friends" and those "who do not they have cardinal friends." … Consider the case of Father Mauro Inzoli. Inzoli lived in a rather flamboyant way and had such an exorbitant passion for luxury cars that he earned the nickname "Don Mercedes". He was also accused of molesting children. He was accused of abusing minors in confessionals, and would go so far as to teach children that sexual contact with him was legitimized by Scripture and their faith. When this case reached the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: his guilt was proven, and in 2012, under the papacy of Pope Benedict, Inzoli was dismissed from the clerical state. ... Cardinal Coccopalmerio as well as Monsignor Pio Vito Pinto [sic], now dean of the Sacred Rota, intervened in favor of Inzoli, and Pope Francis returned his priestly status to him in 2014, inviting him to lead "a life of humility and prayer ”.”[696]

In this regard the essay[697] of the “Herder Korrespondenz” written by Benjamin Leven and entitled “Francis and the Abuse. The Papal Secret” stated, based on Vatican sources, that “… it was Card. Francesco Coccopalmerio, one of Pope Bergoglio's most trusted men, who at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith promoted an attitude of indulgence towards priests responsible for sexual abuse."

According to Leven, Cardinal Coccopalmerio “generally spoke against the secularization of a priest as punishment” because it would be the equivalent of “a death sentence”.”

I would add that according to the testimony of Archbishop Viganò Coccopalmerio is part of the "pro-gay" current in the Vatican. [698]

S. Cernuzio writes that it was Benedict XVI who was the first to inflict on Don Inzoli the sanction of reduction to the lay state: "... Pope Francis, on 27 June 2014, had instead imposed on him to lead a «life of prayer and humble confidentiality as signs of conversion and penance". Almost a second chance on the part of the Argentine Pontiff. But Don Mauro had no problem showing himself in public in January 2015, sitting in the second row at a conference on the "traditional family" of the Lombardy Region. The event had caused a great stir and was interpreted by many as a clear provocation."[699] In 2016 Pope Francis reduced Inzoli to the lay state again.[700]

More precisely: Don Inzoli had appealed to Benedict XVI's 2012 provision and Pope Francis had reduced the sentence in 2014 but after the 2016 sentence for which the priest was sentenced by the Cremona court to 4 years and 9 months for sexual abuse to the detriment of five boys, Pope Francis has definitively dismissed Don Mauro Inzoli from the clerical state.[701]

Henry Syre in his book “The Dictator Pope” says regarding this case that according to a journalist Pope Francis, following the advice of his group of allies in the curia, is pushing to undo the reforms that were instituted by his predecessors John Paul II and Benedict XVI in the management of cases of abusive priests. This leniency, however, backfired, and after complaints from Inzoli's hometown of Cremona, the police reopened the case against him. He was tried and sentenced to four years and nine months in prison for "more than one hundred episodes" of molesting five boys, aged twelve to sixteen. Fifteen other crimes were beyond the statute of limitations. After Inzoli's conviction in the civil courts, the Vatican belatedly initiated a new canonical trial. Inzoli's case is not an isolated case.[702]

Syre himself added: “Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield wrote that “two canon lawyers and a church official” told her the pope's emphasis on “mercy” had created an environment in which “several” priests under canonical sanctions imposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith had successfully appealed to Francis for clemency through powerful Curial connections. The unnamed official noted that such appeals had rarely been successful with Benedict XVI.” [703]

Which means the following: Associated Press reporter Nicole Winfield wrote that two canon law lawyers and a Church official told her that the Pope's emphasis on "mercy" had created an environment in which "several" priests under canonical sanctions imposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith they had successfully appealed to Francis for clemency through powerful curial connections. The anonymous official noted that such appeals have rarely succeeded with Benedict XVI.

According to Leven, it may have been Cardinal Coccopalmerio who opposed Cardinal Müller's clear and strong line against sexual abuse and the Pope supported the line of the Italian Cardinal: "Only 20 percent of the guilty have been laicized," but even this it was too much for some of the Pope's trusted men (Papsteinflüsterer).”[704]

I add that: “An authoritative Vatican source reported to LifeSiteNews that Cardinal Gerhard Müller, together with his three long-experienced collaborators, priests at the CDF, were fired by Pope Francis because they had all tried to faithfully follow the rules of the Church regarding ecclesiastical abuse. In one specific case, Müller opposed the fact that the Pope wanted to reinstate Don Mauro Inzoli, an unequivocally sinister predator of many boys; but the Pope didn't listen to him. … The Vatican source also said that the restrictions imposed on Cardinal McCarrick by Pope Benedict XVI were known to several people in the Vatican.”[705]

An article by M. Tosatti reveals that, when questioned by Arroyo regarding the truth of the news which states that "in June 2013, while he was celebrating mass in the church of Santa Monica, the Pontiff had called him on the phone, forcing him to interrupt the mass, to tell him to close the investigation into Cardinal Murphy O'Connor" Cardinal "Müller indirectly confirmed the news" and stated: "I cannot go into details because I am tied to the Pontifical Secret, but I can say that any trial against bishops or cardinals to the Congregation needs the permission of the Pope. This is a problem, we should change this point. The Congregation must begin its investigation, and there is no need for interference from the Pope or friends of the Pope who say that the CDF is dogmatic, that there are hardliners, that Mueller is German, he is too harsh; all this must be kept out. There must be a normal process and only at the end the Pope must be informed, and his is the final decision. But we cannot be hindered in the process. We need independence of ecclesiastical courts in the canonical process.

… For bishops and cardinals we need the special permission of the Pope. And without that permission we cannot go further. My proposal is to make the CDF more independent."[706]

Now, it is true that, from what we know, the Murphy O'Connor case had already been examined at the time of Benedict XVI and no proceedings had been initiated against that Cardinal, but it is also true that the words of Cardinal Müller just seen have the their weight: it is not a good thing if the Pope uses his power to stop a necessary investigation.

In this regard, the essay in the “Herder Korrespondenz” written by Benjamin Leven and entitled “Francis and Abuse. The Papal Secret” claimed “that it was Pope Francis himself who stopped the plan “to establish a permanent criminal tribunal for bishops” implicated in sexual abuse cases. The Congregation of the Faith has no jurisdiction over bishops, "here, the Pope himself is the judge". According to Leven, the Pope has abandoned the plan for a tribunal for bishops. The author concludes that “Thus, there seems to be an ambivalent image: the Pope addresses the problem, is able to intervene, and meets the victims of abuse. At the same time he looks the other way in individual cases and proves to be impervious to advice”.[707]

 

 

a,5) The Rupnik case.

 

 

MI Rupnik, a priest, former Jesuit famous for his works of art and his preaching, was reported for sexual and psychological abuse and punished with excommunication for absolution of an accomplice in the sin against the sixth commandment.

“As a starting point there are the accusations presented in 2015 and of which news reached the Society of Jesus in 2018. They were «charges of sexual harassment and the acquittal of an accomplice by Father Rupnik in the sin against the sixth commandment ».” The accusations were considered credible and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “established that Rupnik was in a state of latae sentencentiae excommunication. Excommunication which, as Avvenire wrote, was revoked in the same month by another CDF decree, after "Rupnik had admitted the facts and asked for forgiveness." Restrictions were imposed on him. “Meanwhile, the accusations against him did not stop. Added to this were those of sexual abuse and power presented by numerous consecrated women of the Loyola Community. Even in this case the testimonies were deemed credible. Overall, as released at the time by an official note, "Father Rupnik's behavior reported took place in various periods between the mid-80s and 2018. They cover a time span of more than thirty years""[708]

Further measures affect the priest, the Society of Jesus dismisses him in June 2023 stating, among other things: “ This was done in accordance with canon law, due to his obstinate refusal to observe the vow of obedience. The "Responsible Team in cases of complaints against Jesuits belonging to the DIR" gave us its dossier in February 2023 relating to the numerous complaints of all kinds that have reached us, coming from very different sources and for events that occurred over a period of time of over 30 years regarding Father Rupnik. As Superiors we considered the degree of credibility of what was reported or witnessed to be very high and we followed the indications and recommendations provided to us by the Contact Team in its final considerations." The Superiors of Fr. Rupnik had imposed on him a new mission in which "... to come to terms with his past and ... to give a clear signal to the numerous injured people who testified against him, in order to enter a path of truth." But M. Rupnik disobeyed this order, hence his dismissal from the Society of Jesus.[709]

Faced with this situation, Pope Francis maintained the 20-year statute of limitations for the crimes committed by M. Rupnik and motivated his desire in these words: "In this there is a general conduct, be it the presumption of innocence or the prescription, are legal weapons of guarantee. […] Because if we start to leave those guarantees, justice becomes very manipulable. I do not tolerate the prescription when a minor is involved. Of course I'll take it off right away. In this case, no, which does not prevent the person from being prosecuted. But outside of this accusation which is already prescribed. The prescription is a guarantee." And he added regarding the prescription: “Now, if there is a minor, I always remove it, or with a vulnerable adult.”[710]

So why not consider people like those M. Rupnik abused vulnerable adults? The testimony of one of them makes it clear that she was largely vulnerable and under the influence of this priest!

In fact, the testimony of this woman "... lured when she was still a minor by the Jesuit, is the chronicle of total plagiarism, which involved every aspect of her existence. Rupnik took advantage of her 16-year-old inexperience and insecurity to get her to attend spiritual retreats with him and then force her to join the Loyola Community. Once in her power, he forced her to have sex "for her own good" and tried to initiate her into threesomes by entrusting her to another woman to "instruct" her and prepare her for the encounter with the “guru”. ” ... and with the perversions that the "guru" had already taught to the "other woman".[711]

R. Cascioli explains: “Why insist so much on the Rupnik case? … It is a scandal that unmasks the hypocrisy, if not the exploitation, of certain slogans on zero tolerance for sexual abuse and of the call for greater transparency, reiterated by Pope Francis in the press conference on the plane returning from Africa, unfortunately while at the same time he was shuffling the cards on the Rupnik case. It is a brazen attitude that mortifies and humiliates the victims, that confuses those who have followed Father Rupnik as a teacher in recent years, and that cannot fail to pain the faithful who see the path of purification that Cardinal Ratzinger-Pope Benedict XVI had also interrupted. effectively initiated in the Church.”

“… And we are outraged by the fact that those who have spread the concept within the Church that abuse is the result of clericalism (a line contested by Benedict XVI) are today the most striking example of the worst clericalism and abuse of power. ... From the press release of the Society of Jesus we understand what the strategy is: impose some sanction on Father Rupnik, ensuring that everything remains closed and is resolved within the Jesuit order, thus avoiding them being called upon to give embarrassing explanations two other Jesuits, the prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Monsignor Luis Francisco Ladaria, and Pope Francis.”[712]

In September 2023 the pope met the director of the Aletti center, Maria Campatelli, whose director was Fr. Rupnik, who vigorously defends the former Jesuit, but the Pontiff has never met M. Rupnik's victims, after a few days a note from the Diocese of Rome presented "the conclusions of the investigation ordered following the accusations of repeated abuses committed against the founder of the association, Father Rupnik, who resigned from the Jesuits last June", according to this note in the association "there is a healthy community life free of particular critical issues" and its members are "... saddened by the accusations received and by the methods with which they were managed" ... With the addition that there would be "well-founded doubts" regarding the excommunication imposed in May 2020 on the then director of the Center Marko Rupnik for the "seriously anomalous procedures" followed in formulating the request for this punishment ecclesiastical."[713]

Faced with all this we read in the Nuova Bussola Quotidiana in an article by L. Scrosati: “

«I'm shocked, like all Rupnik's victims. The pope never considered the victims. But he is very interested in the money and power of the Aletti Centre", one of the people deeply hurt by the ex-Jesuit's duplicity and the way the superiors of the Society of Jesus told us in handling the issue. These consecrated women who belong to the Loyola Community, or who have left it, are continuing to suffer from the botched provisions of their superiors, from which we understand how much they have one thing at heart: preventing the truth from emerging and justice from being done. … The only certainty is the continuous humiliation of these women, the total disinterest in them, just as everyone gets drunk on the rhetoric of synodality and ministries to women.”[714]

The victims of Fr. Rupnik have written a public letter in which they state: "... the facts and press releases that have taken place in recent days" i.e. Maria Campatelli's hearing and the note from the Diocese of Rome "leave us speechless, with no voice left to shout our bewilderment, our scandal. In these two non-random events, even in their succession over time, we recognize that the Church cares nothing about the victims and those seeking justice; and that the "zero tolerance on abuse in the Church" was only an advertising campaign, which was instead followed only by often hidden actions, which instead supported and covered the perpetrators of abuse.

They make us think that the rhetoric we saw on stage in Lisbon during last July and August is an empty word ("Everyone, everyone, everyone is welcomed into the Church!"), because in the end there is no place in this Church for those remember uncomfortable truths. …

And the victims were therefore censored...

All they have received and continue to receive is just silence…. And with this report published today, which clears Rupnik of any responsibility, he ridicules the pain of the victims, but also of the entire Church, mortally wounded by such ostentatious arrogance.

That conversation granted by the Pope to Campatelli, in such a familiar atmosphere, was thrown in the faces of the victims (these and all victims of abuse); a meeting that the Pope denied them. He never even responded to four letters from as many nuns and former nuns of the Loyola Community who had them delivered to him in July 2021. The victims are left in the voiceless cry of a new abuse."[715]

…there is nothing to add!

Finally, on 27 October 2023 from the Holy See Press Office we learned that: "«In the month of September the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors reported to the Pope serious problems in the management of Fr.'s case. Marko Rupnik and the lack of closeness to the victims. Consequently, the Holy Father asked the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith to examine the case and decided to waive the statute of limitations to allow a trial to take place."

The former Jesuit M. Rupnik will go to trial before an ecclesiastical court for the alleged crimes of which he is accused.

Praise be to God.

 

 

b) The cause of sexual abuse, for the Pope, is clericalism.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

Note carefully the words that an interviewer addresses to Cardinal Müller at a certain point: "Well, in this regard the Pope and his closest collaborators when they talk about abuse point the finger at clericalism."[716]

The journalist's statements are true: the Pope and his collaborators regarding the scourge of abuse speak of clericalism, they do not speak of lust, they do not speak of homosexual acts.

The Pope in fact stated. “It is impossible to imagine a conversion of ecclesial action without the active participation of all the components of the People of God. Even more: every time we have tried to supplant, silence, ignore, reduce the People of God to small elites we have built communities, programs, theological choices, spiritualities and structures without roots, without memory, without a face, without a body, ultimately without life.[2] This is clearly manifested in an anomalous way of understanding authority in the Church - very common in numerous communities in which behaviors of sexual abuse, of power and of conscience have occurred - such as clericalism, that attitude which "not only it cancels out the personality of Christians, but it also tends to belittle and underestimate the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the hearts of our people"[3]. Clericalism, favored both by the priests themselves and by the laity, generates a split in the ecclesial body which foments and helps to perpetuate many of the evils that we denounce today. Saying no to abuse means forcefully saying no to any form of clericalism.”[717]

The Pope's words are linked to his other statements: “We cannot reflect on the theme of the laity while ignoring one of the greatest deformations that Latin America has to face - and to which I ask you to pay particular attention -, clericalism. This attitude not only nullifies the personality of Christians, but also tends to belittle and underestimate the baptismal grace that the Holy Spirit has placed in the hearts of our people. Clericalism leads to a standardization of the laity; treating him as an "agent" limits the various initiatives and efforts and, I dare say, the audacity necessary to be able to bring the Good News of the Gospel to all areas of social and above all political activity. Clericalism, far from giving impetus to the various contributions and proposals, is gradually extinguishing the prophetic fire to which the entire Church is called to bear witness in the hearts of its peoples. Clericalism forgets that the visibility and sacramentality of the Church belong to all the people of God (see Lumen gentium, nn. 9-14), and not just to a select and enlightened few.”[718]

According to the Pope, "This drama of abuse has behind it church situations marked by elitism and clericalism, an inability to be close to the people of God."[719]

The Pontiff adds, at the end of the 2019 abuse summit, “The holy and patient faithful People of God, supported and enlivened by the Holy Spirit, is the best face of the prophetic Church which knows how to put its Lord at the center in its daily giving of itself. It will be precisely these holy People of God who will free us from the plague of clericalism, which is the fertile ground for all these abominations."[720]

Therefore, in the face of such abuse, the Pope does not insist on lust, does not speak of homosexuality as clearly disordered and generating further disorders, despite the fact that many of the cases of abuse are homosexual acts, as we will see, but underlines clericalism. In all the documents highlighted by the s. Addressing the issue of abuse, the Pope never speaks of homosexuality as an important cause of abuse.[721]

All this, as we will see in the following pages, is clearly very serious and indicates a radical distortion of the reality of things.

May God intervene and free the Church from the errors that Pope Francis and his collaborators are spreading!

 

 

c) Famous prelates, before the Vatican summit on priest abuse, also in response to the Pope, release important statements on the relationship between homosexuality and clergy abuse.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

In opposition to the Pope's statements, Cardinal Müller stated regarding clericalism: “It is an equivocal term. What is clericalism? Who defines this concept? And who is clerical? The term originated in France and Italy in the 11th century and was used to attack the Church as the enemy of modern society. Do we really want to get into this controversy against ourselves? Or do we want to accuse Jesus who instituted the clergy? Clergy is the Greek term that we find in the Acts of the Apostles when the XNUMX apostles draw lots to replace Judas and transfer his “share” – cleros – to Matthias. Cleros is therefore not a group of people but is the participation in the authority of Jesus Christ which was transferred to the Apostles and their successors. It is certainly not this clericalism that can be considered guilty of sin against the VI commandment. The real abuses of power are simony, careerism or being a courtier in the Pope's court to receive the miter, to be rewarded. When Machiavelli is worth more than the gospel in the exercise of ecclesiastical politics, here there is the abuse of power. Talking about clericalism or criticizing celibacy is a false path that leads away from the real cause of the problem."

The Cardinal, in the same interview added “… we must take seriously the VI commandment, chastity as an attitude, as a virtue. … The Church indicates a path, we must resume our anthropology.” [722]

According to the German cardinal, in the same interview, more generally the cause of abuse is certainly the non-recognition of the dignity of the person but also an undominated sexuality: "Man is called to use his sexuality in the sense intended by the Creator, just as it is described at the beginning of Genesis.”

The Cardinal also said: “… there are those who want to deny the statistical truth that the vast majority of abuses committed by priests are homosexual acts. … The abuses committed against seminarians should also not be underestimated …”[723]

We saw above that according to the psychologist van den Aardweg: “A consequence of the homosexual sexual obsession is the tendency to seduce or harass youngsters and young adults. The risk of adult gay men's harassing same-sex minors is 10-20 times the risk of adult heterosexual men's harassing minor girls. [724]"[725]

A consequence of homosexual obsession is the tendency to seduce or molest young people or young adults; the risk of a homosexual man molesting a minor of the same sex is approximately 10 or 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual than of young girls.

Along these lines, Cardinal Müller said: “It is a fact that over 80% of child victims of abuse are males and adolescents. We must take note of this reality, these are statistical figures that we cannot deny. Those who do not want to see this reality accuse those who tell the truth of having a grudge against homosexuals in general. But homosexuals in general don't exist, it's an invention, they evidently speak to cover their own interests. … The concept of homosexuality does not exist in Creation, it is an invention that has no basis in human nature. Homosexual tendencies are not an ontological fact, but a psychological one. Some people, however, want to make homosexuality an ontological fact. ”[726] … “ … the Church cannot accept bad behavior among priests contrary to the will of God, thus destroying its own credibility. Unfortunately, there are those who have made the homosexual ideology their own, but can we accept the falsity of the world and introduce it into the Church? … It is the world that needs salvation, and not God that needs salvation from the world.”[727]

An important clarification from Cardinal Müller is also the following regarding the topic of sexual abuse: “I believe that first of all this topic must be understood in its real dimension. Although it is a serious scandal, it is unfair to generalize, because the abuse still concerns a very limited part of priests."[728]

I would like to point out that Cardinal Müller was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and therefore in this capacity he directly dealt with various cases of sexual abuse, so his expertise in this matter is notable.

In the wake of Cardinal Müller, "Monsignor Jordi Bertomeu Farnós, who was one of the special envoys (together with the current Maltese bishop Monsignor Charles Scicluna) of the Vatican in Chile to investigate cases of sexual abuse by local priests and religious" said to the "Spanish newspaper Revista Palabra ... that the 6 thousand cases registered are many" but "they represent 3% of all cases of child abuse reported to the civil authorities and concerning different categories of people and social groups (from families to sports associations, from exclusive circles to other entities involved...)" and confirmed that "80% of cases of clerical abuse are practiced by priests against victims of the same sex" [729]

We then note what was stated by Msgr. Viganò, long before the summit on abuse: “We need to recover the virtue of chastity in the clergy and seminaries. We must fight against the corruption of the improper use of the Church's resources and the offerings of the faithful. We must denounce the seriousness of homosexual conduct. It is necessary to eradicate the existing homosexual networks in the Church, as Janet Smith, Professor of Moral Theology at the Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit, recently wrote. “The problem of clergy abuse – you wrote – cannot be solved simply with the resignation of some bishops, much less with new bureaucratic directives. The center of the problem lies in the homosexual networks in the clergy which must be eradicated." These networks of homosexuals, now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act covered by secrecy and lies with the power of the tentacles of an octopus and crush innocent victims, priestly vocations and are strangling the entire Church."[730]

The text cited by Mons. Viganò is very interesting and important; the moral theologian Janet Smith makes many important statements on this topic in this interview in which she states that it is necessary to eradicate the homosexual networks that are in the Catholic Church.[731].

Monsignor Viganò added: “As regards the Roman Curia for now I will stop here, even if the names of other prelates in the Vatican are well known, even very close to Pope Francis, such as Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio and Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, who belong to the pro-homosexual current favorable to subverting Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality, a current already denounced since 1986..."[732]

More decisively focusing on the summit that would be held in the Vatican in February 2019, Msgr. Viganò, before this meeting, stated, clearly also responding to the Pope's statements presented in the previous paragraph: “Why will the meeting focus exclusively on the abuse of minors? These crimes are indeed the most horrific, but the crises in the United States and Chile that have largely precipitated the next summit concern abuses committed against young adults, including seminarians, not just minors. Almost nothing was said about sexual misconduct towards adults, which is itself a serious abuse of pastoral authority, regardless of whether the relationship was “consensual” or not. Why does the word "homosexuality" never appear in recent official documents of the Holy See? …the vast majority of abuse was inflicted on post-pubescent boys by homosexual clerics. It is pure hypocrisy to condemn abuse and claim to sympathize with victims without honestly addressing this fact. … Why does Pope Francis keep and even call as his close collaborators people who are notoriously homosexual? Why did he refuse to answer legitimate and honest questions about these appointments? … I prayed to the Holy Father to meet the commitments that he himself has undertaken by assuming his office as Successor of Peter. I pointed out that he took on the mission of confirming his brothers and guiding all souls in following Christ along the path of the cross. I exhorted him then, and now I exhort him again, to tell the truth, to repent, to show his willingness to follow the mandate given to Peter and, once converted, to confirm his brothers (Luke 22:32) .”[733]

Also interesting along these lines is what Cardinals Brandmüller and Burke wrote.

“… Faced with the ongoing drift, it seems that the problem is reduced to that of child abuse, a horrible crime, especially when perpetrated by a priest, which however is only part of a much larger crisis. The plague of the homosexual agenda is widespread within the Church, promoted by organized networks and protected by a climate of complicity and silence. The roots of this phenomenon evidently lie in that atmosphere of materialism, relativism and hedonism, in which the existence of an absolute moral law, that is, without exceptions, is openly questioned. Clericalism is accused of sexual abuse, but the first and main responsibility of the clergy does not lie in the abuse of power, but in having moved away from the truth of the Gospel. The denial, even public, in words and deeds, of divine and natural law, is at the root of the evil that corrupts certain environments of the Church."[734]

The words of the prelates cited in this paragraph must make us reflect.

We have seen that the Pope with his "paradigm shift" is trying to legitimize homosexual acts, therefore when faced with the phenomenon of sexual abuse he speaks of clericalism and avoids speaking of homosexuality and sexual perversion in a clear and forceful way even if it is evident that, as said: “… the vast majority of abuses committed by priests are homosexual acts. ”[735] and furthermore a consequence of homosexual obsession is the tendency to seduce or molest young people or young adults, the risk that a homosexual man molests a minor of the same sex is approximately 10 or 20 times greater than that of a heterosexual compared to women little girls. [736]

The papal strategy appears clear: since he wants to legitimize homosexual acts, he hides the serious damage that they ordinarily produce, including in relation to abuse.

The prelates cited in this paragraph, however, since they want to bring out the Truth of Christ, clearly reiterate the Catholic teaching regarding homosexual acts, highlight the damage they produce and also reveal the existence of homosexual networks within of the Catholic clergy.

Obviously the Pope's tactics are harmful both with regard to Catholic doctrine and with regard to the fight against abuse.

May God free the Church from the errors of Pope Francis, from homosexual networks and from abuse of all kinds, especially of a sexual nature!

 

 

d) The abuse summit and some comments on it.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

The strong statements of courageous prelates seen in the previous paragraph were also intended to push the participants in the meeting held in the Vatican on the issue of sexual abuse by clerics so that in this meeting homosexual practice was discussed and the condemnation of it was renewed, considering that approximately Eighty percent of such abuse is homosexual in nature.

Given that the "paradigm shift" strategy goes in the direction of legitimizing homosexual acts, in this summit "obviously" and with various justifications there was no talk of homosexuality and homosexual acts...

In this regard, Marco Tosatti, during the February 2019 summit, stated: “80% of the abuse committed by the clergy has male adolescents as victims, but the summit in the Vatican is avoiding addressing the problem. This deliberate omission is a clear sign of the power of the gay lobby in the Church and an indication of the desire to make acceptable what the Church has always explicitly condemned, namely homosexual relationships. This is confirmed by the elusive words uttered by the men chosen to lead the summit, from Cupich to Scicluna."[737]

I would like to point out to this courageous journalist that, as we are seeing, it is obvious that homosexual acts are not spoken of and are not condemned, even in relation to the abuses linked to them... given that the "paradigm change" and therefore the Pope "opens the doors”, as seen, also to the legitimization of such homosexual acts.

Significantly, as already seen, the Pontiff, at the end of the 2019 summit on abuse, remained silent on homosexuality and spoke of clericalism, saying: "The holy and patient faithful People of God, supported and vivified by the Holy Spirit, is the face better than the prophetic Church which knows how to put its Lord at the center in its daily giving of itself. It will be precisely these holy People of God who will free us from the plague of clericalism, which is the fertile ground for all these abominations."[738]

After this summit, in an interesting article, Christian Spaemann stated: “What does the weakening of the Holy Catholic Order have to do with homosexual networks and the scandal of abuse in the Catholic Church? A simple answer must be found: the decisive passages in Amoris Laetitia, in which the Catholic Holy Order was undermined, do not only speak of civilly remarried divorcees, but in general of “irregular situations” (among others in AL 305). Why shouldn't homosexual relationships be included? Why not also those among the priests? Why not also those of the clerics who are of the age of consent? There is a suspicion that the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia was created in the context of an agenda aimed at establishing so-called “sexual diversity” in the Church. Amoris Laetitia, along with the underlying decades-old heretical moral theology as taught in the theological universities of the West, are the foundation for the lack of orientation – or flawed orientation – when it comes to the situation described above. The continuous passage of representatives of a liberal moral theology through the institutions of the Church fits into this picture. Therefore, it is not surprising that, at a time when "sexual diversity" is promoted, the natural family is massively contested; The Church's problems with clerical homosexual abuse are increasingly coming to the surface, and bishops are being promoted into the highest ranks of the Church who are openly in favor of normalizing homosexuality as practiced in the Church.” [739]

Spaemann then cited the case of Cardinal Farrell, who was appointed Cardinal by Pope Francis in 2016, lived in the house with Cardinal McCarrick for 6 years and claims to have known nothing about the well-known sexual conduct of the latter; precisely Farrell, under the obvious guidance of Pope Francis, opened the last World Meeting of Families in Ireland, in 2018, to the LGBT community and therefore Fr. was invited to speak. J. Martin SJ whom I have discussed extensively in this book of mine, especially in this chapter; I remember that the errors of p. Martin regarding issues relating to homosexuality have been radically condemned by many Catholic prelates and in particular by Cardinal Müller who defined him as a heretic, the Pope instead scandalously praises this Jesuit.

Taking into account this background, it is logical, says Spaemann, that: "...at the summit of bishops' conferences around the world, the discussion on the abuse scandal was limited to crimes against children and that a discussion on its real background.”[740]

There is not even any mention of homosexuality in the document published by the Pope in May 2019 dedicated precisely to combating the abominable crime of child abuse entitled: “Vos estis lux mundi.”[741]

 

 

e) An article from the newspaper Avvenire to reflect on….

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

In 2020, a film entitled “Cuties” (original title “Mignonnes”) was released by Netflix which was harshly boycotted for sexualising teenage girls and therefore lost around 9 billion dollars. Of this film Brandon Smith stated: “And, I can say without a doubt, that this film is in fact child pornography according to the legal definition of the Department of Justice. A word of warning – I do not recommend you watch this film for yourself, but if you do, be warned that the content is highly upsetting.”[742] A profound article was written on Lifesite News; it states that "critics have described as child pornography and as a promotion of pedophilia".[743]

This article also explains well all the scenes that need to be considered to judge this film for what it really is, and adds that an online database, owned by Amazon, of film information alerts parents to this film by saying that during one of the many highly sexualized and erotic dance scenes that purposely exploit and objectify numerous scantily clad underage girls, one of the dancers lifts her crop top to completely expose her bare breasts which is legally defined as pedophilia and can be extremely distressing for many viewers.

In the same article we read that Texas legislator Matt Schaefer called for an investigation into the film for possible violations of child exploitation and child pornography laws.

In the same article we read that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas urged Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate the production and distribution of this film to determine whether any federal laws against it were violated in the filming and production of “Cuties.” the production and distribution of child pornography; other US senators have strongly condemned this film and have taken similar steps to Senator Cruz.

Robby Starbuck, director and producer, said that the entire team behind Cuties must be investigated because, according to this expert, the producers of the film preyed on inexperienced little girls.[744]

Lila Rose, founder and president of the pro-life group Live Action, posted a series of tweets claiming that the makers of Cuties broke US child pornography law because the film blatantly zooms in for adult audiences as explicit "exploration." sexual, the sexual parts of little girls dancing suggestively, partially clothed.[745] As this same article reports, many other people, including well-known intellectuals, have also condemned the film in question.

Direct viewing of a clip of the film[746] makes it very clear and clear how the film's condemnation is right[747] that we read above, frankly the scenes are strongly alluding to sexual acts and in this sense of a disgusting perversion if you consider that they are children.

La Nuova Bussola Quotidiana stated in an article by Ermes Dovico: “In the film Cuties (Mignonnes), released by Netflix, the eleven-year-old protagonists are filmed in provocative dances and explicit sexual attitudes. For the director, the aim is to denounce hypersexualisation. No, little girls were used and portrayed in degrading ways – an evil in itself. If you want to pursue a good goal, you educate yourself in goodness, therefore in purity, for which there is only one way.”[748]

Incredibly, Avvenire, however, does not see any "scandalous sexualisation of adolescents" in it, in fact the CEI newspaper published an article in 2020 signed by A. Fagioli [749] and a subsequent tweet[750] in which he considers this unworthy film to be educational in some respects, stating that: "The campaign against Netflix cannot be explained: there is no "scandalous sexualisation of teenagers" as some of the 600 thousand signatories of a petition have written."

And he adds: “The problem, therefore, is not these kids who grow up too quickly for certain things without having sufficient maturity or the necessary immune defenses. The problem is the world we have created around it... The director highlights all this well, even if the film cannot be given to everyone. But if read correctly and presented well, Mignonnes can become an educational film.”

The problem, in reality, are also these unworthy and immoral films which present certain images, certain dances, certain movements, and certain parts of the bodies of little girls even with particular enlargements which obviously have a clear relationship to sexual activity and its perversions.

When reality is presented in a film it must be presented with due caution, if one wants to truly do educational work.

First of all, a film like this, with certain images, dances, movements, shots, enlargements, etc. it shouldn't have been filmed and then it shouldn't even have been distributed.

That the world is full of perversions that even affect children is very serious, that they want to make films that make children perform similar perversions or gestures is equally very serious!

Undoubtedly the film presents an evident, scandalous and perverse sexualisation and, even with particular enlargements in the shots, in a certain way it promotes pedophilia and child pornography because it is obvious that certain scenes are an incentive to carry out certain acts and make certain videos, unfortunately; Furthermore, the film can also push other children to imitate the actions of the film's protagonists and can push parents to support this imitation, perhaps for further films, with a significant financial gain.

L'Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian Bishops, which should be radically in favor of healthy morality and holy respect for children, especially in this period, judges such a scandalous and unworthy film which, as you have heard, spreads the obvious and scandalous sexualization of teenagers and child pornography as well as promotes pedophilia!

Personally, I wrote to the director of Avvenire pointing out the scandal that the article and the tweet they published had caused but I received no response!

What to say?

That A. Fagioli and the leaders of the Avvenire newspaper learned very well from Pope Francis how to radically misrepresent the reality of the facts.

God intervene!

 

 

f) Focus on the Pope's absurd and scandalous words according to which the cause of sexual abuse in the Church is clericalism.

 

 

f,1) The cause of sexual abuse is concupiscence and lust, especially homosexual lust.

 

 

The Pope's words seen above that the cause of child abuse in the Church is clericalism appear completely absurd and scandalous.

We saw above that Cardinal Müller responded to Pope Francis by saying, regarding clericalism: “It is an equivocal term. What is clericalism? Who defines this concept? And who is clerical? The term originated in France and Italy in the 11th century and was used to attack the Church as the enemy of modern society. Do we really want to get into this controversy against ourselves? Or do we want to accuse Jesus who instituted the clergy? Clergy is the Greek term that we find in the Acts of the Apostles when the XNUMX apostles draw lots to replace Judas and transfer his “share” – cleros – to Matthias. Cleros is therefore not a group of people but is the participation in the authority of Jesus Christ which was transferred to the Apostles and their successors. It is certainly not this clericalism that can be considered guilty of sin against the VI commandment. The real abuses of power are simony, careerism or being a courtier in the Pope's court to receive the miter, to be rewarded. When Machiavelli is worth more than the gospel in the exercise of ecclesiastical politics, here there is the abuse of power. Talking about clericalism or criticizing celibacy is a false path that leads away from the real cause of the problem."

The Cardinal, in the same interview added “… we must take seriously the VI commandment, chastity as an attitude, as a virtue. … The Church indicates a path, we must resume our anthropology.” [751]

According to the German cardinal, in the same interview, more generally the cause of abuse is certainly the non-recognition of the dignity of the person but also an undominated sexuality: "Man is called to use his sexuality in the sense intended by the Creator, just as it is described at the beginning of Genesis.”

The Cardinal also said: “… there are those who want to deny the statistical truth that the vast majority of abuses committed by priests are homosexual acts. … The abuses committed against seminarians should also not be underestimated …”[752]

The Cardinal himself said that the sexual abuse of mainly homophilous offenders is not rooted in the sexual morality of the Church nor in the celibacy of priests, but, rather, in the laxity of morality and the violation of the commandments of God and the inability to live celibacy .[753]

I would add that Cardinal Müller was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so in carrying out this role he was deeply involved in sexual abuse, so his words have a particularly great value.

I add my consideration: the Pope, by stating that sexual abuse of minors is the effect of clericalism, radically distorts reality because the sexual abuse of minors by adults implies a sexual attraction of the former to the latter, this sexual attraction leads precisely to abuse. St. Augustine stated in the “Imperfect Work against Julian”: “The faculty of feeling is one thing, the vice of lust is another. Diligently distinguish these two realities and do not want to err deformed." [754] And again "The sense of the flesh is one thing, the concupiscence of the flesh is another, which concupiscence is felt by the sense of both the mind and the flesh... with the concupiscence of the flesh illicit actions and lawful actions are desired in no different way they judge themselves different from each other not with concupiscence, but with intelligence; nor does one abstain from illicit actions if one does not resist concupiscence. Therefore, evil actions cannot be avoided if evil concupiscence is not restrained... Therefore the concupiscence of the flesh, with which forbidden actions are desired, does not come from the Father. …Certainly, if lust does not come from the Father, neither does the concupiscence which, consented to, conceives and gives birth to lust.”.[755] Sensitivity belongs to the created good nature and must be distinguished from concupiscence, that is, that disordered force introduced as a vice into human nature with original sin, a force that pushes us to sin and which imposes continuous asceticism on everyone throughout their lives. Precisely behind the abuse there is abandonment to concupiscence and therefore lust.

This is confirmed by Cardinal Burke's words that: ""most acts of sexual abuse are actually homosexual acts committed with young adolescents."

The American Cardinal added: “There has been a studied attempt to ignore or deny this relationship with homosexuality.”

The same prelate then said: “It seems clear that in fact there is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but also within the hierarchy, which must be purified at its roots. It's obviously a trend that's messy." [756]

At the basis of such abuse there is therefore untamed concupiscence and therefore lust, especially homosexual lust.

This is so evident that only with a willful blindness in order to defend homosexuality and more fundamentally lust could the Pope and his collaborators make such blatantly false statements to the extent that they fail to recognize that clergy-related sexual abuse is an issue mainly of lust and in particular of homosexual lust!

Starting from such falsehoods, obviously, the root problem of abuse in the Church will never be resolved; the bad reputation of Pope Francis that we saw a few pages back expands due to the radical blindness with which he speaks about the cause of such abuses.

The Pontiff will answer before God for all this!

What I said in this paragraph about the cause of sexual abuse is confirmed by a document created by Benedict XVI specifically for the Vatican summit of February 2019 on this topic but published only in April 2019; in it Benedict read the abuse scandal: "... as a terrible crisis of faith, the distancing from God, which in turn had caused the collapse of moral theology, now heavily influenced by the culture of the world, distorted by the sexual revolution." [757]

 

 

f,2) A significant text by Benedict XVI and some statements by important prelates on the "sexual revolution" and sexual abuse among members of the Church.

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

In 2019, Benedict XVI, Pope Emeritus, published an important writing in a German magazine in which he shared his knowledge of the phenomenon that we could define as the "sexual revolution" and sexual abuse among members of the Church over the last sixty years. Summarizing his most important statements as much as possible, I report the following: “Among the freedoms that the 1968 Revolution wanted to conquer there was also complete sexual freedom, which no longer tolerated any rules. .... The fact that pedophilia was diagnosed as permitted and convenient is also part of the physiognomy of the 1968 Revolution... in the same period there was a collapse of Catholic moral theology which rendered the Church defenseless in the face of those processes in society. ... the thesis was widely established that morality should be defined only on the basis of the purposes of human action. ... Therefore there could not even be something absolutely good, much less something always evil, but only relative evaluations. ... At the end of the 80s and in the 90s the crisis of the foundations and presentation of Catholic morality reached dramatic forms. … Pope John Paul II, who knew the situation of moral theology very well and followed it carefully, ordered that work be started on an encyclical that could put these things back in order. It was published under the title Veritatis splendor on 6 August 1993, arousing violent reactions from moral theologians. Previously, there had already been the Catechism of the Catholic Church which had systematically expounded in a convincing manner the morality taught by the Church. … The Encyclical was published on August 6, 1993 and indeed contained the statement that there are actions that can never become good. The Pope was fully aware of the weight of that decision at that moment and, precisely for this part of his writing, he had once again consulted top-level experts who themselves had not participated in the drafting of the Encyclical. … There are goods that are unavailable. … Martyrdom is a fundamental category of Christian existence. That ultimately, in the theory supported by Böckle and many others, it is no longer morally necessary, shows that the very essence of Christianity is at stake here. … From all this it emerges that the authority of the Church in the moral field is radically called into question. Whoever denies the Church a final doctrinal competence in this area forces it into silence precisely where the boundary between truth and lies is at stake. Regardless of this question, the thesis developed in large sectors of moral theology that the Church does not have and cannot have its own morality. ... The process of dissolution of the Christian conception of morality, which has been prepared for a long time and is underway, in the 60s, as I have tried to show, experienced a radicality such as had never existed before then. … Homosexual clubs were formed in several seminaries which acted more or less openly and which clearly transformed the climate in the seminaries. … The issue of pedophilia has, as far as I remember, only became hot in the second half of the 80s. In the United States in the meantime it had already grown, becoming a public problem. [758]

As we can see, the cause of sexual abuse, according to Benedict XVI, is not to be found in clericalism, it is to be found, instead, in the terrible crisis of faith, in the distancing from God, which in turn "caused the collapse of theology morality, now heavily influenced by the culture of the world, overturned by the sexual revolution." [759]

Reading this document by Benedict XVI and looking at the current situation in the Church, it also appears evident that part of what the sexual revolution of the 60s asked for and what the terrible moralists with their false doctrines advocated is precisely what Pope Francis and his collaborators are implementing.

Pope Francis' "paradigm shift", similar to the false doctrines condemned by Pope Benedict, putting aside the doctrine that intrinsically evil acts are radically always forbidden and can never be carried out for any reason, (see in this regard, what I said in the first volume on pages 510-528) obviously weakens at a radical level the opposition to sexual abuse and therefore to pedophilia which are intrinsically evil acts.

Furthermore, the betrayal of sound doctrine that Pope Francis and his collaborators are implementing opens the door to the legitimization of homosexual acts and with it also to the abuse of minors, as seen above.[760]

May God intervene and free his Church from doctrinal errors and abuses.

 

 

7) The legitimization of the sexual acts that Pope Francis is implementing, summary and clarifications on what has been said.

 

 

What has been said so far allows us to see better, now, how Pope Francis is subtly and discreetly implementing a true legitimation of homosexual acts. To understand the subversive scope of things, which we have already said in large part in this book and which, in summary, we will repeat below, I remember that: he who does not resist manifest error, even though he can and must do so, is considered a supporter of the same error: “Qui errors manifesto non resistit, cùm possit et debeat, eum approbare censetur.”[761] In the same text cited by Bellarmine we read that he who does not oppose error approves it, he who does not defend the truth oppresses it[762]. The Pope is the Supreme Pastor of the visible Church and is obliged to intervene regarding errors that are spreading. If the error is known and he does not correct it and does not adequately sanction the one who makes the mistake, it is clear that he approves it.

I also remember what Msgr. said. Aguer: the style of dissimulation is typical of Pope Francis, he says things "without too much conviction, but in such a way as to be fully understood, contrary to Tradition. …” The Archbishop then stated that: “the current pontificate on numerous issues proposes a new position that corrects the doctrine of the Church. And her Tradition is unalterable.”[763] That is, the Pope is carrying out a subversion of Catholic doctrine in a discreet, hidden, subtle but real way.

We therefore review below in summary form many things said in these volumes which show how Pope Francis is subtly and discreetly implementing a true legitimation of homosexual acts.

1) First of all, as we saw in Volume I, Pope Francis, through "Amoris Laetitia" has put aside the doctrine according to which intrinsically evil acts are absolutely forbidden always and pro semper. Therefore even homosexual acts are not absolutely prohibited semper and pro semper. In this line, as we have seen, in Amoris Laetitia it is stated that the sincere conscience of man can recognize that God wants man to continue carrying out sinful actions (Amoris Laetitia n.303) which can also be homosexual acts, and if God wants such acts, obviously they are good.[764]

2) Furthermore, as we will see better in volume III, through a presentation of mitigating circumstances that does not conform to sound doctrine, Pope Francis and his collaborators practically consider venial sins and therefore legitimize homosexual acts and many other seriously sinful acts.

3) The texts of Amoris Laetitia which allow Communion for divorced and remarried people who have no real intention of not sinning are also extendable to homosexuals, as seen in this book. The moralist Guenzi, whom the Pope called to teach in Rome, explains that: "In Amoris Laetitia Francis, in the light of a deeper consideration of the sometimes difficult experiences of people, develops a "reconstructive" operation on the normative tradition of Church and the arguments supported, which could have overshadowed essential elements in the evaluation of action, as in the case of personal discernment and judgment of conscience."[765] Guenzi continues: "... if the tradition of the Church cannot be expressed only by the moral norm (see AL 305), the process of discernment on personal choices can be reconsidered not only for the so-called "irregular" situations within marriage. This is made clear in AL 250…”[766] That is, the process of discernment that is applied through Amoris Laetitia to divorced and remarried people can also be applied to those in a homosexual relationship. Moia then goes ahead and asks if the key words of Amoris Laetitia, that is, to accompany, discern, integrate, are also valid for homosexual people; obviously here we are talking in particular about those who practice homosexuality... Guenzi replies that these key words must also extend to homosexuals and in particular to those who practice homosexuality: "That they must also extend to other problems is expressly clarified by Francesco... such" evangelical logic" is referable not only "to divorced people living in a new union, but to everyone, in whatever situation they find themselves" (AL 297)".[767] Therefore the "openings" of Amoris Laetitia extend to other cases similar to those of the divorced and remarried and in particular to those who are dedicated to homosexuality... and also to homosexual couples... therefore also to homosexuals who do not have the intention of not sinning yes they can give the Sacraments in various cases.

In this regard it should be remembered that: “In the 2015 Synod on the Family, Cardinal Cupich supported the proposal to allow people living in adulterous relationships and sexually active homosexuals to receive the Eucharist in good conscience, in some circumstances. Pope Francis named him Archbishop of Chicago in 2014, cardinal in 2016, and member of the Congregation of Bishops and the Congregation for Catholic Education.”[768] The words of Cardinal Cupich also go along this line, according to which in his Diocese it is not foreseen that the Sacraments be denied to those who are known to live in homosexual union. [769]. In this regard it must be added that the current Pope has largely trampled on the rules of sound doctrine regarding the reception of the Eucharist to avoid scandal[770], in fact Pope Francis prevented the American Bishops from prohibiting the super abortionist Biden from receiving Eucharistic Communion[771], President of the United States, also a supporter of same-sex marriage; Pope Francis himself then told the same President that he is happy that he is a good Catholic and he can receive Communion; President Biden in fact stated: "We spoke with the Pope about the fact that he is happy that I am a good Catholic and that I continue to receive communion"[772] The Holy See has not denied the words of the American President. Likewise, Nancy Pelosi was given Eucharistic Communion in the Vatican[773] well-known exponent of the American Democratic Party, notoriously in favor of abortion and other immoralities.

I specify that these two characters receive the Eucharist without ever having converted from such notorious sins!

So if a well-known super abortionist who supports same-sex marriage, like President Biden or Nancy Pelosi, is considered a good Catholic and can receive the Sacraments without converting, how much more can a well-known adulterer or a well-known transsexual receive the Sacraments without converting from their sinful conduct, equally a transsexual or a notorious sinner can act as a godfather or godparent without proposing to change their life. Clearly this is scandalous at the highest level and radically contrary to sound doctrine which opposes the reception of the Sacraments by known sinners.[774]

Everything I have just said makes me believe that, contrary to sound doctrine, the Baptism and reception of the Eucharist and Confirmation of a transsexual who lives in a gravely sinful manner and has not truly converted and freed himself from such sins and does not have the intention of living according to the divine Law; this note fundamentally emerges in the document of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith entitled "Responses to some questions from HE Mons. José Negri, Bishop of Santo Amaro, regarding participation in the sacrament of baptism and marriage by transsexual people and homo-affective people ”.[775]

4) Pope Francis clearly supports Fr. J. Martin SJ who spreads, according to various important Catholic prelates, a teaching contrary to Catholic doctrine regarding homosexuality,[776]; in a 2022 video, Cardinal Müller questioned about Fr.'s claims. Martin clearly said that they are real heresies which obviously divert the faithful from the path that leads to Heaven and help in the damnation of the faithful themselves[777].

5) Pope Francis publicly praised Sister Gramick without even mentioning the condemnation she received for having supported doctrinal positions contrary to Catholic doctrine regarding homosexual acts; sent two letters to Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, founded by Sister Gramick, in May and June 2021: “… one of appreciation for the difficult history of New Ways Ministry and the other of great participation in the pastoral work of the LGBTQ group and of exaltation of the figure of Sister Jeannine Gramick ("a woman of value who makes her decisions in prayer").[778]

6) Pope Francis supports LGBTQ pastoral care and the SS. Masses for LGBTQ pride; in this regard it should be noted that "The "pastoral care for homosexual people" is, in many cases, an explicit support for gay ideology, starting from the iconography and denomination which slavishly follows the stereotypes of the LGBT community. [779]

7) Pope Francis allows Sister Forcades, a Benedictine nun, to spread very serious errors on these issues: she is in fact in favor of homosexual marriage and homosexual love[780]. Obviously it cannot be said that the Holy See does not know this nun given that Cardinal José Tolentino de Mendonça, Prefect of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, is "a fan of Sister Maria Teresa Forcades i Vila, a theologian known for his "queer" positions that in these days he is in Italy to present his book "We are all different! For a Queer theology” (Castelvecchi Editore).” The intellectual bond between the two is "founded on an evident commonality of thought attested by a book by the Catalan nun entitled, Atologia feminista na história, in which the priest-poet dedicated a flattering preface in which he sings the praises of the original ideas of the author ... Tolentino de Mendonça therefore underlines how the apostolate of Forcades must be taken as a model to "free" Christianity from the dogmatic bonds of the past and present."[781]

8) The current Pontiff supports Fr. Radcliffe op spreading clear teachings in favor of homosexual activity[782].

9) Pope Francis supports Msgr. In fact, Chiodi had him called to Rome to teach in an institute of excellence for moral subjects. In fact, the prof. Maurizio Chiodi, after the defenestration of Msgr. Melina and p. Noriega, was called to teach at the John Paul II Institute [783] and in his regard one of the professors of this study center significantly stated: "Now there are rumors that Professor Maurizio Chiodi will come to teach, who opens up to the legality of contraception and admits homosexual acts as "possible" in certain situations. If new professors of the same line are hired without following normal procedures, appealing to an "urgency" for which no reason is given, strong tension will be created within the Institute. With the powers that the Grand Chancellor now has and the intentions that he reveals by renouncing Melina and Noriega, it is only a matter of time before the teaching staff is replaced with another, foreign to the vision of Saint John Paul II. For the great Polish Pope, at the center there was always the faithfulness of the Church to the flesh of Christ, which summarizes the Creator's plan and therefore can heal the wounds and weaknesses of man."[784] The words just presented refer to an interview with Msgr. Chiodi which was released by Avvenire... therefore everything under the guidance and protection of the Pope... The interview was commented on various sites, highlighting elements of conflict with Catholic doctrine.[785] The words of the theologian Chiodi and the publication of the interview, certainly not clear and rather assessable in the sense of a discreet openness to the legitimacy of homosexual acts, have not been denied nor condemned by the Holy See or by the CEI.

10) The current Pontiff allows the priest and professor A. Fumagalli to be able to freely teach and spread his heterodox statements, according to which the homosexual act carried out in a stable relationship is not a sin, published in the book "L'amore possibili . Homosexual people and Christian morality.” Cittadella Editrice 2020; the text has a preface by Msgr. Semeraro, later elevated to the cardinalate; the book, although widely distributed and publicized with an article in Avvenire, the CEI newspaper, was not censored at all.

11) Pope Francis sent a letter in favor of an Argentine nun, Sister Mónica Astorga Cremona, who created a complex of 12 small apartments dedicated exclusively to the accommodation of men who declare themselves women and their partners; in this letter the Pope indicated with the term "girls" the males - between 40 and 70 years old - to whom the nun addresses her service[786]. Pope Francis' praise came following the opening of a new complex of 12 small apartments reserved exclusively for men who identify as women and their sexual partners. In his communication with Sister Cremona, the Pope referred to his transsexual users as “girls.” This is not the first time Pope Francis has made comments that run counter to what the Catholic Church traditionally teaches about rejecting one's God-given sexual identity. On October 2, 2016, Pope Francis referred to a woman who had undergone a “ sex change” as if she were a man. He referred to her as a man who had “married” another woman and admitted having invited and received her at the Vatican in 2015, describing the couple as “happy”. Clarifying his use of pronouns, the Pope said: “He was she, but it is he” [787].

12) Pope Francis supported the document of the Belgian Bishops to impart blessings to homosexual couples, obviously without condemning them in any way after its publication, with considerable scandal in the Catholic Church; according to Cardinal Müller in this way the Pope is promoting a "heresy of praxis" [788].

13) The current Pontiff supported the publication of the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission entitled “Who is man” which allows a new moral evaluation regarding homosexual acts; so the door is open to change that assessment.

14) Pope Francis has not publicly condemned the statements of Cardinal Jean Claude Hollerich, president of the Commission of the Episcopal Conferences of the European Union (COMECE) and general rapporteur of the Synod of Bishops who made several statements on homosexual acts, hoping for a change in doctrine in the Catholic Church with these words: “I believe that the sociological-scientific foundation of this teaching is no longer correct”; the cardinal added that “the way the Pope has expressed himself in the past [on homosexuality] can lead to a change in doctrine. […] I think it is time for a fundamental revision of the doctrine” [789] Cardinal Hollerich continued: “What was condemned in the past was sodomy. At that time it was thought that the whole baby was contained in the man's sperm. And this was simply transferred to homosexual men… there is no homosexuality in the New Testament. There is only mention of homosexual acts, which were partly pagan ritual acts. This was, of course, prohibited." It should be added that Card. Hollerich in a subsequent short interview seems to have stated that his thoughts on homosexuality are in perfect union with those of the Pope[790] … I repeat: the Pope did not intervene to clarify, deny and correct Cardinal Hollerich's statements, he evidently approves them!

15) Another close collaborator of the Pope, Cardinal Marx, in the first months of 2022 released statements contrary to sound doctrine regarding homosexuality, in fact he stated that: "... homosexuality is not a sin. And it is Christian behavior when two people, regardless of gender, defend each other, in joy and in pain.[791] …. In short, what Cardinal Marx intends to affirm is "the primacy of love, especially in sexual encounters". And the Archbishop of Munich seems to be in a hurry: «In recent years I feel increasingly free to say what I think, and I want the teaching of the Church to progress. The Church is also changing, together with the world: LGBTQ people are part of Creation and loved by God and we are challenged to fight discrimination." In the end, Cardinal Marx also confessed that he had blessed a homosexual couple in the past: «A few years ago in Los Angeles, after a celebration in which I had preached on unity and diversity, two people came to me asking for my blessing. And I gave it. After all, it wasn't a marriage."[792]Obviously we must think that the German Cardinal meant that homosexual activity is not a sin, in fact he was among the German Bishops who voted in the Synod of Germany for the change of doctrine regarding homosexuality[793]. The Pope has not publicly corrected or taken measures against this prelate.

16) The current Pontiff equally did not condemn the statements of the President of the German Bishops' Conference (DBK), Monsignor Georg Bätzing, who declared his desire to change the Church's teaching on sexuality. To the question: “Are homosexual relationships allowed?” mgr. Bätzing replied: “Yes, it is acceptable if it is done faithfully and responsibly. It does not affect the relationship with God” he says. And he gives an example: “Jens Spahn, for example, is a good Catholic.” [794]

17) In 2022 the German Synod, led by Msgr. Bätzing, caused real confusion and scandal in the Catholic world due to the requests of this assembly; the main requests of this Synod were:

1) female priesthood;

2) blessing of homosexual couples;

3) amendment of the Catechism on the subject of sexual morality and in particular on the subject of homosexual acts;

4) abolition of celibacy as a rule for priests. [795]

As regards the amendment of the Catechism regarding sexual morality, the Synod asked in particular, for the questions that interest us here, a reevaluation of homosexuality; homosexual orientation would, according to this Path, be part of man's identity as created by God, it should not be judged differently from any other sexual orientation from an ethical point of view. Everyone would be called to integrate their sexuality (even homo sexuality) into their lifestyle. From this perspective, numbers 2357, 2359 and 2396 (homosexuality and chastity) of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the corresponding numbers of the Compendium of this Catechism should be reviewed. [796]

In September 2022 the German Synodal Path and many Bishops in it approved a text that defines homosexual acts as "not sinful" and "not intrinsically evil"; Eight Bishops voted against the document: Cardinal Rainer Maria Woelki and Bishops Gregor Maria Hanke, Matthias Heinrich, Stefan Oster, Dominikus Schwaderlapp, Rolf Steinhäuser, Rudolf Vorderholzer and Florian Wörner.

Cardinal Marx, a great supporter of the Pope and member of the small group of Cardinals who help him, obviously voted in favor of the document. [797] More precisely, 40 Bishops voted in favor of the text, eight against and another eight bishops abstained. In the text we read that: homosexual orientation belongs to man as it was created by God, therefore it is not ethically different from heterosexual orientation. Furthermore, the document in question states that homosexual sexuality - even carried out in sexual acts - is therefore not a sin that separates from God, and must not be judged as bad in itself.[798] This colossal “apostasy” from the Catholic faith[799] it was signed, I repeat, by all the German Bishops except 8 who opposed it and 8 abstained[800] … the vast majority of German Bishops signed this heretical text!

In March 2023, the "Synodal Path of the German Church, in the ongoing work in Frankfurt, approved by a very large majority the text which opens the celebrations for the blessing of same-sex couples starting from March 2026. According to what was communicated through social media by the same Synod, the Assembly approved this text with 176 votes in favour, 14 against and 12 abstentions. A clear majority of Bishops also voted in favor of the final document: 38 bishops voted yes, nine bishops no and twelve abstained. Since the abstentions are not counted, this means that the consensus is formally 80 percent."[801]

The Pope did not publicly and immediately condemn these very serious errors!

The Pope expressed his concern in particular in a letter sent to some scholars who "had addressed a letter to the Pontiff on November 6, 2023 to express doubts and fears about the results of the German synodal path concluded in recent months". [802]

In his response the Pontiff stated that he is equally concerned about them: "about the now numerous concrete steps with which large portions of this local Church continue to threaten to move further and further away from the common path of the universal Church".[803]

Above all, what worries the four former delegates of the Synodal Weg and the Pontiff is "the idea of ​​establishing a synodal committee "aimed at preparing the introduction of a management and decision-making council""; the Pope specifies that this structure "in the form outlined in the relevant text of the decision, cannot be harmonized with the sacramental structure of the Catholic Church" therefore its constitution "was prohibited by the Holy See with a letter dated 16 January 2023, approved by me in specific form". [804]

“Il Timone” also writes that “the Vatican has informed the German bishops in writing that the ordination of women and the changes in the Church's teaching on homosexuality cannot be discussed in the next meetings with the delegates of the German Synodal Path in Rome." In particular, the letter threatens sanctions up to excommunication for those who wish to ordain a woman as a priest because "the Church has "no authority"" for these types of ordinations. Even regarding homosexual acts, the German Bishops and any local church cannot intervene on the doctrine because "even if it is recognized that, from a subjective point of view, there may be various factors that ask us not to judge people, this does not change in any way the evaluation of the objective morality of these actions".[805]

As we said above, the text of the letter is not countersigned by the Pope nor by the Prefect for the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts is not reiterated. Furthermore, the text states that a particular Church cannot change this doctrine, but not that it is absolutely intangible, so that the Pope, according to the text, could change it... The text, although laudable by Cardinal Parolin, taking into account what we have said and what we will say, is not reassuring because Cardinal Müller participated in the Synod on Synodality and clarified in this regard: in the end, all these so-called reflections of the Synod on synodality aimed at preparing us to accept homosexuality. There was no discussion of fundamental issues according to Catholic doctrine, everything was turned on its head to open the doors to homosexuality and the ordination of women. If we analyze everything carefully, the Synod is about converting us to accept these two errors. [806]

In line with Cardinal Müller's statements we must believe that the Pope made Cardinal Parolin go forward in writing to the Bishops and did not himself speak to the German Bishops nor did he make the Cardinal Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith speak because he wants to intervene perhaps with the Prefect just mentioned at a later time probably to fully legitimize homosexuality; on the other hand, the Declaration Fiducia supplicans made us understand the ease with which Pope Francis changes his statements and the "loopholes" he finds to do so: 2 years earlier the blessings of homosexual couples had been prohibited by him with the famous Responsum[807] , in the 2023[808]   thanks to a "loophole" without theological and biblical foundation he says precisely the opposite... therefore if the Pope can say the opposite with respect to a document signed by him, he can even more easily "deny" a text of the Holy See that is not his. God intervene.

13) Pope Francis had the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith publish and approve a document with which he "hypocritically" (as said by the Cameroonian Bishops) made blessings permitted to homosexual couples, to the great scandal of the Catholic faithful and also of others who follow biblical teachings and are against homosexual acts. Cardinal Müller clarified that in no case will the decision in favor of the "blessing" (blasphemous and contrary to Scripture itself) of homosexual couples" or the "ordination of women as deacons or priests" which are "heretical teachings", "or any other teaching that contradicts the Word of God in Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the dogma of the Church" can become doctrine of the Church, not even if the Pope supports such teachings; “Christ commissioned Peter to confirm his brothers in the faith in him, the Son of God, not to introduce doctrines and practices contrary to revelation. Teaching contrary to the apostolic faith would automatically deprive the Pope of his office. We must all pray and work courageously to spare the Church from such a trial.” [809] ; according to Cardinal Müller this blessing is blasphemous and unacceptable; the prelate argued that through Francis' implicit promotion and tolerance of homosexual "blessings" and Holy Communion for the divorced and "civilly remarried", the Pope is promoting a "heresy of practice" [810]; the German prelate also underlined that the Pope can neither officially introduce the "blessing" of homosexual couples because he does not have the authority to do so: "Well, if this were to happen, it would not be valid because the "blessing" [of sin] it would be blasphemy. Those who carried out or approved it would be gravely guilty.” [811]

15) The “Fiducia supplicans” Declaration on blessings also for homosexual couples is also a clear indication of the ease with which Pope Francis changes his statements and of the “loopholes” he finds to do so: 2 years earlier the blessings of homosexual couples had been prohibited by him with the famous Responsum[812] , in the 2023[813]   thanks to a "loophole" without theological and biblical foundation he says precisely the opposite... This also means that everything that the Pope states reiterating in a certain way Catholic doctrine regarding the condemnation of homosexuality can be easily overcome with some "loophole" to reach the full moral legitimation of homosexual acts, in full conformity with the statements of Sister Gramick whom the Pope praises and other authors in this line such as prof. Fumagalli and Cardinals Marx and Hollerich and Sister Forcades who significantly the Pope does not correct.

19) In various forms Pope Francis, as seen, "opens the doors" to let known gay supporters or people who are known to be in a homosexual relationship carry out tasks that were forbidden to them in the Church, such as that of educators[814] or readers[815] or godparents[816].

20) In some statements, Pope Francis, in addition to not reiterating the objective gravity of homosexual sin and its intrinsic disorder, compared it to lack of charity and said that in some cases the guilt could be non-existent, favoring the idea that it is a not a serious sin in itself.  [817]

21) On 3 April 2022, the undersecretary of the Synod of Bishops, Sister Nathalie Becquart ... gave a lectio magistralis in front of the audience of New Ways Ministry, the American LGBTQ organization whose goal is to change the Church's teaching on homosexuality. New Ways Ministry, an organization disavowed by the American bishops and condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 23 years ago, has as co-founders Sister Jeannine Gramick and Fr. R Nugent condemned for their statements by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approximately 23 years ago, to her Pope Francis incredibly wrote a letter of great appreciation for her work with LGBTQ people defined by the Pope as "in the style of God"[818]. It was Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, who "permanently" prohibited the two religious men just mentioned from "any pastoral activity involving homosexual people".[819]

22) Pope Francis also sent two letters to Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, in May and June 2021: "... one of appreciation for the painful history of New Ways Ministry and the other of great participation in the work pastoral care of the LGBTQ group and exaltation of the figure of Sister Jeannine Gramick ("a woman of value who makes her decisions in prayer").[820]

This association is among those of which Msgr. Chaput states that they “oppose or ignore the teaching of the Church.”[821]

Starting from this clear support from the Pope for this association, there has been an increasingly active involvement of the aforementioned organization in the preparation of the 2023 Synod, up to the event of 3 April 2022, "a true official recognition of the LGBTQ movement ”; the theme was "Synodality as a path of reconciliation" and the secretariat of New Ways Ministry indicates it as "a historic event". [822] Cascioli's final comment in the cited article is very interesting: the Synods of these years of Francis' pontificate served to promote and bring about the sexual revolution in the Church and while the two synods on the family of 2014 and 2015, with Amoris Laetitia, they paved the way for this revolution by presenting it as only pastoral, now it becomes clear that a real doctrinal change is taking place.

Cascioli himself defines the Synod in question as a triumph of the gay lobby; in particular, according to him, this can be seen in: "... the battle around the link of an American LGBTQ group on the Synod website - first placed, then removed, finally restored - reveals how influential the gay lobby is now at the top of the Church. It is the recognition of a group disavowed by the American bishops, condemned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith 22 years ago, and now promoted by Pope Francis.”[823]

More precisely: "The link we are referring to is that of a webinar (seminar held on the internet) by New Ways Ministry, an American organization of LGBTQ Catholics, which is on the resources page of the Synod website... no one had noticed it (i frequenters of the official Synod website must not be particularly numerous) until on December 6 a tweet from the ever-present Father James Martin, the greatest sponsor of the LGBTQ agenda in the Church, shone the spotlight on it: the webinar on the Synod website is «a small but historic step forward in the Church's relations with LGBTQ people", he wrote... the significance of the operation lies in the presence of an LGBTQ organization on the Synod website.

We talked about this organization a little further above, here we add that the then Cardinal Ratzinger was also referring to New Ways Ministry when in 1986 he denounced a powerful gay lobby within the Church, but with «close ties with those who act outside of it", which wants to "subvert" the teaching of the Church itself."[824]

23) Cardinal Müller participated in the Synod, his speech was published on some Catholic sites[825]; in the last days of the Synod the German Cardinal gave an interview to the National Catholic Register in which he stated very strong things[826]. The Cardinal said that that was not actually a Synod of Bishops because the laity have the same voice, they have the same time to speak, and they take away the bishops' possibility to speak, and he added: this is not the Catholic Church.

The German Cardinal explained that, while in previous Synods the bishops were the subjects who guided everything and all the bishops in the plenary could speak about what they wanted, in the Synod on Synodality everything was guided, pre-organised, everything was a little manipulated and very controlled.

The cardinal stated that in the Synod on Synodality even Jesus Christ was almost never mentioned in the Synod. According to Cardinal Muller in the Synod:

1) there was talk of openness to the Holy Spirit but the conception of the Holy Spirit was very superficial; we always talked about the Spirit, but in reality the Holy Spirit was abused because the Spirit was not presented in his bond with Christ, God-man, and with the Father and the Spirit was presented to introduce doctrines openly contrary to Sacred Scripture;

2) when Christ was mentioned, this was done only in a pedagogical way, without presenting Jesus as the Word of God, given to us, once and for all, as the Word of God made flesh.

Referring to the statements of a German Bishop present at the Synod who said that it is important to put Christ at the center but that, at the same time, we must put aside the apostolic Tradition, the Cardinal said that this shows that they are developing a doctrine that is not consistent with the Catholic faith.

The "red thread" of the interventions was precisely in the sense of abusing the Holy Spirit to introduce doctrines openly contrary to Sacred Scripture. In particular, the German prelate said, there was a strong influence of the "LGBT" ideology. The Cardinal was very clear and specified in this regard: in the end, all these so-called synodal reflections aimed at preparing us to accept homosexuality. There was no discussion of fundamental issues according to Catholic doctrine, everything was turned on its head to open the doors to homosexuality and the ordination of women. If we analyze everything carefully, the Synod is about converting us to accept these two errors.

St. Paul spoke out against homosexuality, but these “innovators” believe they have new insights, revealed by the Holy Spirit, that homosexual acts or the blessing of homosexual acts are a good thing. To do so is to abuse the Holy Spirit to introduce doctrines openly contrary to Holy Scripture and the Holy Spirit himself, and this is not strange given that many of the delegates were people whose theological views were opposed by Benedict XVI and St. John Paul II. Someone was misleadingly talking about Joseph Ratzinger, almost wanting to revitalize the old modernism by referring to Ratzinger, which is absurd!

These "novators" cannot openly say: "We want to contradict the Word of God", but in reality they are introducing a new interpretation with which they want to reconcile the Word of God with some anti-Christian ideologies.

The Cardinal strongly specifies: we cannot, however, reconcile Christ and the Antichrist; homosexual ideology, “LGBT”, is, at its core, an anti-Christian ideology, the spirit of the Antichrist speaks through those who spread it; it is an ideology that is absolutely against creation.

The prelate adds that the "innovators" mix the pastoral care for these LGBT people with the anti-Christian LGBT ideology, almost as if this ideology can solve the problems of these individuals but the solution to the problems of sinners, of people, is in Jesus Christ.

Unfortunately these “innovators” are changing the definition of sins; it seems that there are no sins. They practically do not believe in original sin, nor in sin as an act; they do not deny them theoretically, but practically.

The Church, which reiterates the Truth of Christ, is the aggressor for them, and therefore the Church is responsible for aggression towards them.

We are the ones who hurt Christ with our sin but for some of the participants in the Synod, Christ is hurting some people, which is absurd and radically contrary to the Truth: the teaching of Christ through the Church saves us and does us good, it does not hurts and damages!

According to the Cardinal, the objective of the Synod is to make the Church more compliant with the international Agenda 2030, this is highlighted in the politics of those who are invited to publicly visit the Pope: they are not normal families with five children, they are never invited ; instead bisexuals, transsexuals and so on are usually invited, and this is all a provocation, this is all propaganda of what is against the faith.

Jesus said to go throughout the world, towards everyone, but to make them disciples of Christ; we must therefore go throughout the world to help him in his conversion; we must not invite the world into the Church by letting everyone be what they want to be.

A clear action of subversion of sound doctrine is underway and the Pope is carrying out this action!

The Cardinal himself also stated[827] “The criteria of Catholic ecclesiology have been lost, (…) it is not said openly but the path taken is that of Protestantisation” and he added that at the Synod there was much talk about the LGBT agenda and the female diaconate and “very little about the issues essentials of the faith", there have been "many interventions on homosexuality, and all one-way", that is, in the line of legitimization of such acts, therefore those who offer a testimony of liberation from homosexuality, such as "Daniel Mattson, for example, (author of "Why I don't define myself as gay. How I reclaimed my sexual reality and found peace", Cantagalli 2018, ed.) ... Father James Martin was there, he was only there to spread propaganda. He never spoke of grace and salvation for these people, only that "the Church must accept, the Church must..., he must...., He must....". … It is not the Church that must change, but it is we who must convert.”!

The German Cardinal added that, according to Cardinal Hollerich, general rapporteur of the Synod, homosexuality should not have been the theme on which the synod would have concentrated, but then "this was talked about and clear gestures were also made" like the Pope's meeting with Sister Gramick “And the Pope always shows up with these people. The justification is pastoral, but in this way is pastoral care favored for these people or is this condition accepted as a legitimate expression of human nature and Christian faith? The question is left open, but clearly a certain interpretation is favored.”[828] That is, an interpretation in favor of the legitimization of such homosexual acts.

24) Already around 2009, the then Cardinal Bergoglio clearly stated that homosexual couples must be legally recognized as civil unions and as Pope he equally acted in this line[829], contrary to sound Catholic doctrine[830] and obviously making it clear that there is no change in doctrine[831].

Various Cardinals and Bishops have clearly and strongly opposed the Pope's statements regarding this legal recognition of homosexual couples. [832]

Conclusion: the Pope, subverting sound doctrine in various ways, is legitimizing homosexual activity at various levels, first of all by downgrading it in various cases to a sin, without specifying it as serious and therefore making people think that it could be venial, then by allowing it to be carried out and therefore by allowing give the Sacraments to those who carry out such behaviors and do not intend to avoid them, furthermore the Pope favors in various ways the activities of people clearly aligned in favor of the gay ideology or who live in a homosexual couple in roles that are not theirs in the Furthermore, the Church has made blessings lawful for homosexual couples, has become an accomplice of those who say that homosexual acts are lawful and more generally the Pope is in various ways "opening the door" to achieve the complete moral legitimation of homosexual acts.

God intervene!

 

 

8) Important final clarifications regarding Catholic doctrine on homosexuality and similar issues: the Pope is not developing sound doctrine but is betraying it!

 

 

God enlighten us better and better.

Returning to what we saw in the first volume when we discussed the difference between the development of doctrine and its change, we must remember that the Magisterium, as mentioned, is called to interpret Tradition and Scripture and that the Magisterium is not superior to Tradition or Scripture but it serves it, therefore it must interpret and not destroy or distort the deposit of faith.

In the letter to the Galatians we read: “I marvel that, so quickly, you are turning from the one who called you by the grace of Christ to another gospel. But there is no other, except that there are some who disturb you and want to subvert the gospel of Christ. But even if we ourselves, or an angel from heaven, announce to you a gospel different from the one we have announced to you, let him be anathema! We have already said it and now I repeat it: if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one you have received, let him be anathema!” (Galatians 1, 6ff)

St. Vincent of Lerins affirmed: “In the Catholic Church it is necessary to have the greatest care in keeping what has been believed everywhere, always and by everyone. This is truly and properly Catholic ... But this will certainly happen if we follow universality, antiquity, consensus.
We will follow universality in this way: if we confess as the true and only faith that which the whole Church professes throughout the world; (we will follow) antiquity in this way: if we do not retreat at all from the judgments which our holy ancestors and fathers evidently proclaimed; (we will follow) the consensus equally thus: if, in this same antiquity, we accept the definitions and doctrines of all, or almost all, the Bishops and Masters.”[833]

The text of s. Vincent also adds that if a part of the Church moves away from the universal faith it is necessary to prefer the health of the entire Church to some group that has become perverted; if heresy wants to infect the whole Church, the Christian must commit himself to adhering to the ancient doctrine which is unassailable by heresy; if it is discovered that in the past an error has been spread by a large group of people it is necessary to enforce the decrees of a universal Council against it; if a new opinion arises, never addressed before by the wise men of the Church, it is necessary to remain firm to what was unanimously affirmed by all the true Fathers of the Church, approved by the Church itself.[834]

St. states again. Vincent of Lerins that: “Therefore, announcing to Catholic Christians something different from what they have received has never been lawful, is absolutely not lawful and will never be lawful; and to anathematize those who announce something other than what was once received has always been necessary, is absolutely necessary and will always be necessary.”[835]

The same saint further explained that there will be progress in sound Catholic doctrine and it will also be very great but we must however be careful that it is a true progress of faith and not a change and therefore alteration. Just as a child develops while always remaining the same person, so too the doctrine develops but "the genre of the doctrine, the doctrine itself, its meaning and its content must always remain the same"; the dogma of the Christian religion progresses but must always remain absolutely "intact and unaltered" and, for true development, there must be no contradictions between the doctrine that precedes and that which follows.[836]

In the Dogmatic Constitution “Dei Filius” we read that: “… that meaning of the sacred dogmas that Holy Mother Church has declared must be perpetually approved, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning under the pretext or appearance of a more complete intelligence . Let the intelligence and wisdom, both of the centuries and of men, as well as of the whole Church, grow and progress vigorously throughout the ages and centuries, but only in its own sector, that is, in the same dogma, in the same meaning. , in the same statement [Vinc. Lir. Common., n. 28].”[837] The rule established by the First Vatican Council also applies to the Pope: "that meaning of the sacred dogmas that Holy Mother Church has declared must be perpetually approved, nor must one ever withdraw from that meaning with the pretext or appearance of a more complete intelligence.” ... indeed the Pope should give an example of implementation of this rule ... the Bull "Ineffabilis Deus" of Pius IX reiterates this rule  [838] and with it the Declaration “Mysterium Ecclesiae” regarding the Catholic doctrine on the Church to defend it from some contemporary errors published in 1973 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [839]

Cardinal Müller said that, as confirmed to him by Pope Francis in some personal letters, the three essential criteria with which s. Irenaeus distinguished and, therefore we must distinguish, Catholic truth from the errors of heretics or schismatics were and are:

1) its foundation in the Bible;

2) fidelity to the doctrinal Tradition of the apostles;

3) the agreement of all the local churches in doctrine, liturgy and life with the ecclesiastical teaching of the bishops in the official succession of the apostles – headed by Peter and Paul (see Adversus haereses III, 3, 2f). [840]

St. John Paul II stated “The Church is neither the author nor the arbiter of this norm [of the Divine moral law]. In obedience to the truth, which is Christ, whose image is reflected in the nature and dignity of the human person, the Church interprets the moral norm and proposes it to all men of good will, without hiding its demands for radicality and perfection."[841]

The same Pontiff also wrote: “It is the principle of truth and coherence, for which the Church does not accept calling evil good and good evil. Based on these two complementary principles, the Church can only invite her children, who find themselves in those painful situations, to approach divine mercy through other ways, but not through that of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, until have reached the required dispositions of the soul"[842]

The Polish Pontiff also stated “The Church's firmness in defending universal and immutable moral norms has nothing mortifying. It is only at the service of the true freedom of man: since there is no freedom outside or against the truth... Faced with the moral norms that prohibit intrinsic evil there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. Being the master of the world or the last "miserable person" on the face of the earth makes no difference: when it comes to moral demands we are all absolutely equal" (VS 96).

In line with these statements we remember that modernism with its errors was also condemned by the Church for: "... the heretical invention of the evolution of dogmas, which pass from one meaning to another, different from what the Church previously believed ” [843].

The development of the doctrine implies that the faith remains substantially the same and that the doctrine must be understood "in the same sense and always in the same content" ... otherwise there is no development but a deformation and betrayal of the doctrine ...

Pius XII said in this regard: “As for the very substance of truth, the Church has, before God and men, the sacred duty of announcing it, of teaching it without any attenuation, as Christ revealed it, and there is no no time conditions that could reduce the rigor of this obligation. It binds in conscience every priest who is entrusted with the care of teaching, admonishing and guiding the faithful"[844]

I underline that, as we saw in the first volume, to verify that the interpretation of dogmas and the development of doctrine is carried out correctly and is not a deformation or destruction of the truth spread by Christ, Saint JH Newman, famous English theologian and Cardinal, has offered seven principles: “

1) Preservation of the type ...

2) Continuity of principles ...

3) Power of assimilation ...

4) Logical consequence ...

5) Anticipation of the future ...

6) Preservative influence of the past ...

7) Lasting vigor ... "[845]

Yes said. JH Newman: “There is no corruption if it retains one and the same type, the same principles, the same organization; if its beginnings anticipate its subsequent phases, and its later phenomena protect and subserve its earlier; if it has a power of assimilation and revival, and a vigorous action from first to last.”[846]

There is no corruption if it retains the same type, the same principles, the same organization; if its beginnings anticipate its subsequent phases, and its subsequent phenomena protect and preserve those preceding them; if it has a power of assimilation and rebirth, and vigorous action from first to last.

Yes said. Thomas Aquinas: “Dicendum quod hoc pro firmo est tenendum, unam esse fidem antiquorum et modernum: alias non esset una Ecclesia.”(De veritate, q. 14, a. 12c). ... it must be firmly maintained that the faith of the ancients and the moderns is one, otherwise the Church would not be one. To always be one, the Church must profess one faith; the unity of the Church implies the unity of faith.

What the Pope is doing in the sense of the legitimization of homosexual acts, as said in particular in the previous paragraph, is not a development of sound doctrine but a change of the same, in fact it does not present itself in the sense of the continuity of the principles, it does not develop as logical consequence and does not achieve a preservative influence on the past, it is simply a betrayal of sound doctrine which undermines in particular a truth clearly established in Holy Scripture and unanimously reaffirmed by Tradition, that is, the doctrine of the illicit nature of homosexual acts, which is clearly linked to the Commandments divine and immutable, such acts have been defined, as seen, by the Church as intrinsically evil.

This legitimation carried out at various levels is opposed to the biblical and Tradition norms regarding the contrast of scandal, regarding the object of the blessing and regarding the semper et pro semper obligatory nature of the negative norms of the Decalogue.

Cardinal Newman said “A development, to be faithful, must retain both the doctrine and the principle with which it started.”[847]

A development, to be Faithful, must maintain both the doctrine and the principle with which it began.

It seems obvious to me that the aforementioned doctrinal perversions of the Pope maintain neither the doctrine nor the principle with which this doctrine began.

I underline that Cardinals and Bishops of the Catholic Church have branded various errors regarding homosexual acts and the blessings of same-sex couples, which Pope Francis in various forms approves, as heresies, this is a radical subversion of Catholic doctrine.

The "paradigm shift" evidently also includes the "clearance" of homosexual acts, blessings for homosexual couples and other activities, prohibited by sound doctrine, but permitted by Pope Francis; precisely regarding this "paradigm shift" Cardinal Müller said: "Behind the pseudo-intellectual discourse of the 'paradigm shift', there is only undisguised heresy that falsifies the word of God."[848] In 2018 the Cardinal himself stated: “Now, chapter VIII of Amoris Laetitia has been the subject of contradictory interpretations. When in a similar context some speak of a paradigm shift, this seems to be a relapse into the modernist and subjectivist way of interpreting the Catholic faith. … Those who speak of a Copernican turn in moral theology, which transforms a direct violation of God's commandments into a laudable decision of conscience, speak quite clearly against the Catholic faith. Situation ethics remains a false ethical theory, even if someone claimed to find it in Amoris Laetitia.

…it is impossible for a Catholic to receive the sacraments in a worthy manner without deciding to abandon a way of life that is in opposition to the teachings of Christ.”[849]

In an interesting article from Bussola Quotidiana we read that the Pontifical Academy for Life is leading the Church to capitulate in the face of the sexual revolution[850] ... what we have said so far makes us understand that it is first and foremost the Pope who is leading the Church to capitulate in the face of the sexual revolution ...

This betrayal of sound doctrine is not permitted to the Pope... the many statements by Prelates and theologians who in recent years, after Amoris Laetitia, have strongly reiterated the traditional doctrine and in some cases have even stated that the current Pope is opening the doors to heterodox doctrines and practices and even heresies; in our journey, also in this volume, we have seen various of these public statements by Cardinals, Bishops and theologians.

The Pope is not above the Word of God and Tradition but at their service.[851] The Roman Pontiff must not decide according to his own will, but according to the will of the Lord, who speaks to man through the Holy Scripture lived and interpreted by Tradition; the ministry of the successor of Peter has the limits that proceed from the law of God and from the inviolable divine constitution of the Church contained in the Revelation. [852]

The Pope does not have absolute power.[853]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in n. 85 that the Roman Pontiff must interpret the written or transmitted Word of God [854]; the interpretation of which the text just quoted speaks is precisely interpretation, not betrayal and not alteration [855].

In this line the German Bishops, at the time of Pius IX, stated that: “The Pope is subject to divine right and bound by the order given by Jesus Christ to his Church. The Pope cannot change the constitution that the Church received from its Founder.... The Constitution of the Church rests its cornerstones on a foundation that comes from God and therefore cannot be at the mercy of human arbitrariness…. As the Vatican Council explained with clear and understandable words and as the very nature of the thing manifests itself, infallibility is a property that refers only to the supreme Magisterium of the Pope; and this coincides precisely with the scope of the infallible Magisterium of the Church in general and is linked to what is contained in Holy Scripture and Tradition, as well as to the definitions already issued by the ecclesiastical Magisterium"[856].

In particular, as explained by s. John Paul II “8. The Roman Pontiff ... has the "sacra potestas" to teach the truth of the Gospel, administer the sacraments and pastorally govern the Church in the name and with the authority of Christ, but this power does not include in itself any power over natural or positive divine law .” [857]

All this has been beautifully trampled on by the current Pontiff in various ways through Amoris Laetitia, which presents itself in opposition, in many points, to the two-thousand-year-old Catholic Magisterium and presents itself as a modification of the constitution that the Church received from the Lord, in particular in the moral field ... therefore the famous Oxford professor, John Finnis, former member of the International Theological Commission of the Holy See from 1986 to 1991, member of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace (from 1990 to 1995) and of the Pontifical Academy Pro Vita (from 2001 to 2016), significantly stated in comment on a book: “With admirable lucidity and a wealth of evidence and argument, this timely book collects the main published documents making the case that heresies designedly put about by Pope Francis are today a primary cause and manifestation of Christianity's worst crisis ever.”[858] Which we can translate like this: With admirable clarity and a wealth of evidence and argument, this timely book collects the main published documents demonstrating that the heresies engineered by Pope Francis are today a primary cause and manifestation of Christianity's worst-ever crisis.

I remember that some great theological experts and professors at Pontifical Universities, such as Professor Rist, Professor Livi, Professor Aidan Nichols op, and I with them, have defined some of Pope Francis' positions as heretical.[859]

Along these lines we read: “In his latest article for The Spectator, Cardinal Pell bluntly defined the Synod document as a «toxic nightmare», «one of the most inconsistent documents issued by Rome» which does not place definitive positions on «abortion, contraception , ordination of women to the priesthood, homosexual acts". Even his judgment on the papacy, defined as "a catastrophe", is drastic, as emerges after the revelation that the 81-year-old cardinal who died in Rome on Wednesday was behind the memorandum sent to the cardinals under the pseudonym Demos."[860]

Bishop Schneider significantly stated that Pope Francis is promoting heresy “de facto”.[861].

In November 2023 Cardinal Muller gave an interview[862] in which he stated that “some of Pope Francis' statements are worded in such a way that they can reasonably be understood as material heresy, regardless of their unclear subjective meaning; in that interview he reiterated that a Pope who teaches formal heresy could theoretically lose his office, but added that such a case has not yet occurred in the history of the Church.

According to the German prelate, Pope Francis did not commit formal heresy and, therefore, did not lose his papal office.

Cardinal Müller argued that: “through Francis' implicit promotion and tolerance of “blessings” for same-sex persons and of Holy Communion for the divorced and “civilly remarried,” the Pope is promoting a “heresy of practice"…

Müller emphasized that the desired “modern” changes in the Church are always introduced through a “pastoral path” rather than through the teaching of a formal heresy…

The German cardinal told LifeSiteNews that Fernández said the faithful “must accept this statement of the Argentine bishops and their interpretation [of Amoris Laetitia regarding the reception of Communion by divorced people] with religious obedience of mind and will.”

“This was already heretical, but it wasn't the Pope who said it”.”[863]

Cardinal Müller also stated that: “At the moment, there is a heretical but career-boosting position that God reveals himself only to Pope Francis through direct information in the Holy Spirit, and that bishops need only blindly repeat these celestial illuminations and transmit them mechanically like talking puppets. The bishop, however, by virtue of his consecration, is the successor of the Apostles and authentic teacher of the Gospel of Christ, but in the college of all bishops with the Pope as the ever-present and visible principle of the unity of the Church in revealed truth and in its sacramental communion. This is the true doctrine of the primacy of the Pope and not the neo-papalism of those who want to hand over the Church of Christ to the ideology of atheistic and anti-human capitalism of Davos. … Every Catholic believes in the divine and Catholic truth that in Peter the bishops of Rome are installed as his legitimate successors. But as a theologically enlightened disciple of Christ, he opposes the caricature of the papacy both in the anti-Roman polemics of the reformers of the time and in the parrot-like understanding of neo-papalism or non-Catholic Papagayism..."[864]

The words of the German Cardinal define the statements of Msgr. as heresy. Fernandez according to which for the custody of the deposit of faith there is a particular charism, a unique charism, which the Lord gave only to Peter and his successors, a living and active gift, which operates in the person of the Holy Father; if it were said that some bishops have a special gift of the Holy Spirit to judge the doctrine of the Holy Father, we would enter into a vicious circle and this would be heresy and schism; the Argentine Archbishop added that heretics always think they know the true doctrine of the Church and that not only some progressives but, paradoxically, also some traditionalist groups fall into this error of judgment of the Pope.[865]

Cardinal Muller's words are particularly enlightening and strong but require some clarifications:

1) the statements of Cardinal Fernandez that Cardinal Muller indicates as heretical were approved by the Pope or were not condemned by him, as was his duty;

2) formal heresy occurs when the subject, after having made heretical statements and having been warned of the contrast between his statements and the deposit of faith, persists in such heresies; the perverse will and intention are manifested in this obstinate perseverance in 'error as the Gospel fundamentally indicates (Mt 18,15-17) and as Cardinal Burke highlighted in a famous conference.[866]

Pope Francis has repeatedly been publicly warned, directly or indirectly, of the contrast between his actions and the deposit of faith[867] and despite this he persists in the error, in fact even after these warnings and after the statements of Cardinal Müller, which we are seeing, the Pope has not changed his statements and has not intervened with Cardinal Fernadez to withdraw the widespread errors.

I would like to point out that Cardinal Müller is the Prefect Emeritus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

We will return and delve deeper into the theme of heresy in the next volume but what has just been said seems to me to lead to saying that, on the basis of the statements seen, we are actually faced with a formal heresy on the part of the Pope.

For the Pope to lapse from his office for heresy, however, as Cardinal Burke explained, the Cardinals must intervene by activating the procedure that leads to the Pope's declaration of heresy and therefore to his "deposition" [868]; this procedure has: "... two phases: in the first, the correction of the alleged error or abandonment of his duty should be addressed directly to the Roman Pontiff; and, then, if he continues to err or does not respond, a public declaration should be made.” [869]; such a declaration would make clear the Pope's decline from his office and would open the doors to a Conclave for the election of the new Pope. The first phase could be considered already concluded given the numerous warnings sent publicly in various forms to the Pope; considering the first phase already concluded, the second could begin directly.

May the glorious Mother of God intercede for us, who annihilates heretical doctrines, crushes the power of error and unmasks the snare of idols[870], and which since ancient times has been invoked by the Christian people "in "defense" of the faith".[871]

Footnotes

[1] Pontifical Biblical Commission “What is man?” 30.9.2019, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20190930_cosa-e-luomo_it.html

[2]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual persons”, www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[3]Pontifical Biblical Commission, Profile www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_it.html

[4]Pontifical Biblical Commission, Profile www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_pro_14071997_pcbible_it.html

[5] P. Bovati “What is man? The new document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission.” In “La Civiltà Cattolica.” 171 (2020) I, p. 209

[6] Card. Luis Ladaria “Presentation” in the Pontifical Biblical Commission “What is man?” 30.9.2019, www.vatican.va, https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20190930_cosa-e-luomo_it.html

[7]A. de Carolis “Pietro Bovati: Scripture tells the truth about man, a fragile and divine being.” 16 December 2019, www.vaticannews.va https://www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2019-12/bibbia-uomo- anthropologia-pietro-bovati-libro-studio.html

[8] H, Witczyk “The sin of homosexual relations in Holy Scripture. Media accusations and the real message of the question “What is man?” of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (Ps 8,5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology (2019).” Verbum Vitae, 39 (2021) (1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.31743/vv.12674; M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022).. 415-430. 10.31743/biban.13542; G. de Virgilio “Analysis and theological perspectives of the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: What is man? (Ps 8,5) an itinerary of biblical anthropology.” RivB LXVIII (2020) pp. 547-570; M. Tabet “Presentation of the document “What is man” Itinerary of biblical anthropology.” Annales Theologi 34, 2020. pp. 93-111

[9]A. de Carolis “Pietro Bovati: Scripture tells the truth about man, a fragile and divine being.” 16 December 2019, www.vaticannews.va https://www.vaticannews.va/it/vaticano/news/2019-12/bibbia-uomo- anthropologia-pietro-bovati-libro-studio.html

[10]See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. “Dei Verbum”, 11: AAS 58 (1966) 822-823 https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[11]See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. “Dei Verbum”, 12: AAS 58 (1966) 823 https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[12]See Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution. “Dei Verbum”, 16: AAS 58 (1966) https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_it.html

[13]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people”, n. 6 www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[14] Immanuel Jakobovits “Homosexuality.” Encyclopedia Judaica second. Edition 2007 vol. 9 p.m. 516

[15]See Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people”, n. 6 www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[16]O. Michel “μισέω” in Great Lexicon of the New Testament vol. VII ed. Paideia 1971, columns 321ff

[17] JL Briere “Hatred” in XL Dufour “Dictionary of Biblical Theology.”, ed. EDB 2021, coll. 793 ff.

[18]   See St. Thomas Aquinas “Summa Contra Gentiles” ,l.1 chapter. 89.

[19]   See ibid.

[20]   See ibid.

[21]St. Thomas Aquinas, "The perfection of the spiritual life", in "Compendium of theology and other writings", UTET, Turin, First edition eBook: March 2013, c. 11, p. 644

[22]See.  III q. 18 a.2.

[23]   See.  III, q. 15 a.m. 4 in c.

[24]   See ibid. to. 6.

[25]   See ibid. to. 7.

[26] IIIrd q. 15 a.m. 9 in c. “Respondeo dicendum quod, sicut in secunda parte dictum est, ira est effectus tristitiae. Ex tristitia enim alicui illata consequitur in eo, circa sensitivam partem, appetitus repellendi illatam iniuriam vel sibi vel aliis. And sic ira est passio composite ex tristitia et appetitu vindictae. Dictum est autem quod in Christo tristitia esse potuit. Appetitus etiam vindictae Quandoque est cum sin, Quando scilicet aliquis vindictam quaerit sibi absqueordine rationis. And sic ira in Christo esse non potuit, hoc enim codicit ira per vitium. When true such an appetite is without sin, immo est laudabilis, puta cum aliquis appetit vindictam secundum ordinam iustitiae. And hoc vocatur ira per zelum, codicil enim Augustinus, super Ioan., quod zelo domus Dei comeditur qui omnia perversa quae videt cupit emendare; and if he cannot amend, he tolerates and groans. Et talis ira fuit in Christo”.

[27]   See.S.Th., III q.15.

[28]   See. S.Th., I q. 95 y. 2 in c.

[29] T. Rotondo “The Eucharist as the cause of Christian life and its theological resonances in the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas." https://www.academia.edu/97652923/L_Eucaristia_come_causa_della_vita_morale_cristiana_e_le_sue_risonanze_teologico_nella_doctrina_di_st_Thomas_d_Aquino

[30]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[31]See Heinrich Denzinger "Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum" edited by P. Hünermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003, n. 1676

[32]S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori, "The love of souls", in "Ascetic Works" Vol. V, CSSR, Rome 1934 p. 56s. c. VI, www.intratext.com, http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/__PZ.HTM

[33]John Paul II "Letter to Cardinal William W. Baum on the occasion of the course on the internal forum organized by the Apostolic Penitence" [22 March 1996], 5: Insegnamenti XIX, 1 [1996], 589, www.vatican.va, https: //w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/it/letters/1996/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_19960322_penitenzieria.html

[34]Daniel A. Keating,.. “First and Second Peter, Jude” (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture) (pp.162-163). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle 2011 edition

[35]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people”, n. 3.7 www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[36] S. Augustine, “Commentary on the letter of John”, homily 2,1 www.augustinus.it https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/commento_lsg/index2.htm

[37] Saint Maximus the Confessor, “Ambiguorum liber” PG 91, 1156.

[38] Saint Athanasius of Alexandria, “De Incarnatione”, 54, 3: SC 199, 458 (PG 25, 192).

[39] St. Thomas Aquinas, “Officium de festo corporis Christi”, Ad Matutinas, In primo Nocturno, Lectio 1: Opera omnia, v. 29 (Paris 1876) p. 336.

[40]St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori “Abridged Sermons”, Sermon XLV http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_P32C.HTM

[41] M. Gilbert “What does the New Testament say about homosexuality.” in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Pastoral care of homosexual people. Letter and comments.” LEV 1995 p. 61

[42] F. Zorell “Lexicon graecum Novi Testamenti.” Pontifical Biblical Institute Publishing Rome 1990 col. 828s

[43] F. Zorell “Lexicon graecum Novi Testamenti.” Pontifical Biblical Institute Publishing Rome 1990 col. 183

[44] F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Editrice Pontifical Biblical Institute Rome 1990 col. 1106

[45]F. Hauck and S. Schulz “ πóρνη” in “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1975 vol. X, p. 1467 ff.

[46] Romano Penna “Homosexuality and the New Testament” in L'Osservatore Romano of 12 March 1997

[47] Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition, © Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 2012, https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read- the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/75/10001/19999/ch/68ad9123297cd884ee226ed9340d4b07/

[48] Ecumenius “Commentary on Judas” text quoted in “The Bible commented on by the Fathers” XI, Ed. Citta Nuova 2005, vol. 11, p. 294.

[49]Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). “Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains.” (electronic ed. of the 2nd edition., Vol. 2, pages 176 r 220). New York: United Bible Societies

[50]See Thayer, J. H. (1889). “A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti” (p. 199). New York: Harper & Brothers

[51] JH Neyrey “2 Peter, Jude” in “The Anchor Bible” vol. 37 C, Doubleday, 1993

[52] JH Neyrey, “The Epistle of Judas” in Nuovo Grande Commentario Biblico, Queriniana, 2014, p. 1204

[53] G. Marconi “Letter of Judas. Second letter of Peter." EDB 2005 p. 60s.

[54] HL Strack, P. Billerbeck “Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch.” München, 1926 III pp.785s.

[55] GL Green “Jude & 2 Peter.” Baker Academy 2008 pp. 70-73

[56] F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Rome 1990 col. 1106

[57]F. Hauck and S. Schulz “ πóρνη” in “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1975 vol. X, p. 1467 ff.

[58]Facultad de Teología Universidad de Navarra “Sagrada Biblia: Universidad de Navarra” (Spanish Edition) EUNSA. Kindle edition p. 10381s.

[59] F. Zorell “Lexicon Novi Testamenti Graeci.” Romae, 1990 p. 522.1193

[60] M. Zerwick, M. Grosvenor “A grammatical analysis of the Greek New Testament.” Gregorian and Biblical Press 2010 p. 739

[61] U. Vanni “Letters of Peter, James and Jude.” Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1974 p. 183s

[62] “Book of Jubilees” c. XX in P. Sacchi “Apocrypha of the Old Testament” (Classics of religions) (Italian Edition) . UTET. Kindle edition, Kindle 4999s locations.

[63] F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Rome 1990 col. 1106

[64]F. Hauck and S. Schulz “ πóρνη” in “Great Lexicon of the New Testament”, Paideia, Brescia 1975 vol. X, p. 1467 ff.

[65]Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland), 28. Edition, © Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart 2012, https://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/novum-testamentum-graece-na-28/read- the-bible-text/bibel/text/lesen/stelle/71/20001/29999/ch/1e057bf6d3f886f90a19363720aade73/

[66] U. Vanni “Letters of Peter, James and Jude.” Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1974 p. 104s

[67] F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Rome 1990 col. 183

[68] O. Bauerfeind “ἀσελγείᾳ” in Great Lexicon of the New Testament, Paideia 1965, vol. I col. 1303s

[69] JH Neyrey, “The Epistle of Judas” in Nuovo Grande Commentario Biblico, Queriniana, 2014, p. 1203

[70] See F. Zorell “Lexicon Graecum Novi Testamenti” Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico 1990 entry “σάρξ” col. 1193; voice “ἐπιθυμίᾳ” col. 484 s.

[71] F. Zorell “Lexicon Novi Testamenti Graeci.” Rome 1990 p. 522.1193

[72] JH Neyrey, “The Epistle of Judas” in Nuovo Grande Commentario Biblico, Queriniana, 2014, p. 1203

[73] Catechism of the Catholic Church 1854-1861; 2357; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration “Persona Humana” n.10, 29.12.1975 “…according to Christian tradition and the doctrine of the church, and as right reason also recognises, the moral order of sexuality entails for human life such high values ​​that any direct violation of this order is objectively serious.” www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_it.html; Cf. Innocent IV, Ep. Sub catholicae profession, 6.3.1254; Pius II, Propositions condemned in the letter Cum sicut accepimus, 14.11.1459; Sant'Offizio, Decrees of 24.9.1665 and 2.3.1679; Pius XI. Enc. “Casti connubii”, 31.12.1930: 22(1930), 558-559; EE 5/497-499; Cf. Leo IX, Ep. Ad splendidum nientis, a. 1054; Sant'Offizio, Decree of 2.3.1679; Pius XII, Allocutions of 8 October 1953 and 19 May 1956: AAS 45(1953), 677s and 58(1956), 472s; Sant' Offizio, Decree of 18 March 1666; Paul VI, Enc. “Humanae vitae”, nos. 13 and 14: nos. 65-69; EV 3/599s. See Heinrich Denzinger “Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum” edited by P. Hunermann, Edizioni Dehoniane Bologna, 2003 nn. 687-688, 835, 1367, 2045, 2060 and 2148, 2149.

[74] JB Edart “Recent herméneutiques bibliques sur l’homosexualité.” In L. Melina, S. Belardinelli “Loving in difference.” Cantagalli 2012 p. 266 and 270; M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p. 94

[75] M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p. 78ff

[76] M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p. 94

[77] M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p.84s

[78] M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p.84s

[79] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 420, note 27, 10.31743/biban.13542.

[80] RJ Clifford SJ – RE Murphy “Genesis” in “New Great Biblical Commentary” 1997, Queriniana, pag. 29

[81] J. Skinner “A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis” T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh, 1912 p. 307

[82] J. Skinner “A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis” T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh, 1912 p. 307

[83] Lynne C. Boughton “Biblical Texts and Homosexuality: A Response to John Boswell”

Irish Theological Quarterly 1992 58:2, 142ff

[84] Victor P. Hamilton “The book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50.” William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1995 pp. 33-37 RM Davidson, “Flame of Yahweh Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007 p. 148.

[85] J. Skinner “A critical and exegetical commentary on Genesis” T. & T. Clarke, Edinburgh, 1912 p. 307

[86] RJ Clifford SJ – RE Murphy “Genesis” in “New Great Biblical Commentary” 1997, Queriniana, pag. 29

[87]See H. Ringgren “ r“ ” Great Lexicon of the Old Testament ed. Paideia, Brescia 1988, see VIII coll. 502 ff

[88] RJ Clifford SJ – RE Murphy “Genesis” in “New Great Biblical Commentary” 1997, Queriniana, pag. 29

[89]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle 2016 edition, chapter 7, Kindle locations 2264s.

[90] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 420-4. 10.31743/biban.13542

[91]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle 2016 edition, chapter 3 at the end, Kindle locations 1066.

[92] BN Peterson “The sin of Sodom revisited: reading Genesis 19 in light of Torah. ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59/1 (2016): p. 19 https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/59/59-1/JETS_59-1_17-31_Peterson.pdf

[93]Pontifical Biblical Commission, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, III www.vatican.va 15.4.1993 http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19930415_interpretation_it.html

[94] See Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution. on the divine Revelation “Dei Verbum”, 10.

[95] Pope Benedict XVI Exhort. Ap. “Verbum Domini.” n. 7 30.9.2010 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/it/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini.html

[96]Pontifical Biblical Commission, “Interpretation of the Bible in the Church”, III, A, 2 www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19930415_interpretation_it.html

[97]Pontifical Biblical Commission “Inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture” of 22.2. 2014 n. 106 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20140222_associazione-verita-sacra-scrittura_it.html#2._Prima_sfida:_Problemi_storici

[98]Pontifical Biblical Commission “Inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture” of 22.2. 2014 n. 107 www.vatican.va 1982 https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20140222_associazione-verita-sacra-scrittura_it.html#2._Prima_sfida:_Problemi_storici

[99]See Pontifical Biblical Commission “Inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture” of 22.2. 2014 n. 107 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20140222_associazione-verita-sacra-scrittura_it.html#2._Prima_sfida:_Problemi_storici

[100] Paedagogus III.8;

[101] “Lot amoenam elegit, quae cito praedonum oculos incurrit. Hinc bellum inter reges, adversariorum victoria, incolarum captivitas. Itaque etiam Lot infirmioris consilii pretium luit, non terrarum infecunditate, sed amoenitatis invidia deceptus, ut etiam ipse captivus abduceretur; quoniam vitio servilis nequitiae a potiore deflexerat, et partem flagitiosissimorum elegerat; Sodom enim luxuria atque lascivia est. Ideoque declination latina interpretatione dicetur Lot, quod is vitia eligit qui a virtue declinat, et ab aequitate deflectit.” (“De Abraham” PL XIV col. 426)

[102] “Clamor, inquit, Sodomorum et Gomorrhae impletus est (Ibid., 20). Magna Domini patientia, ut non statim sinnerm punitiat, sed diu differat exspectans correctionem; nec commoveatur ad ulciscendum, nisi sinner mensuram excedat. Unde et Dominus Jesus in Evangelio ad Judaeos ait: Implete mensuram patrum vestrorum (Matt. XXIII, 32).” (“De Abraham” PL XIV col 438s.)

[103] “ Quem clamorem autem ait, nisi forte quia ei quem nihil latet, clamant omnia, clamare videntur singulorum crimina? Denique ad Cain codicil: Sanguis fratris tui ad me clamat (Gen. IV, 10), hoc est, non latet, sed clamat parricidium tuum. Itaque velut excitatur Deus flagitiorum nostrarum clamoribus; ut aliwhen vindext, qui libenter ignoscit”(“De Abraham” PL XIV col 439s.)

[104]In Mattheum PG 58, 565 https://books.google.it/books?id=DH_YAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y

[105]“The city of God” c. XVI, 30 https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/cdd/cdd_16_libro.htm

[106]Epistula LV, PL v. XXII col. 562 https://books.google.it/books?id=4ag6WQIQ8fYC&redir_esc=y

[107]St. Jerome “In Isaiam prophetam.” PL v. 24 col. 65 https://books.google.it/books?id=M_kUAAAAQAAJ&redir_esc=y

[108]Saint Gregory the Great, Moral Commentary on Job, Città Nuova Editrice, Rome 1992-2001, vol. II, XIV, 23, p. 371

[109] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 266

[110]Taius Cesaraugustanus “In Genesi scriptum est: Pluit Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem. » Quid in sulphure nisi fetor carnis, et quid per ignem, nisi ardor carnalis exprimitur desires? Cum ergo habitantium Sodomis vel Gomorrhæ carnis scelera punish Dominus decrevisset, in ipsa qualitate ultionis notavit maculam crimes; sulfur quippe fetorem habet, ignis ardorem. Here it is that perverse desire ex carnis burning stench, dignum fuit ut simul sulphure et igne perirent, quatenus ex justa {{? discerent ex injustodesire quid fecessent..” (PL LXXX, 946. 947)

[111]S. Pier Damiani “Liber Gomorrhianus” PL vol. CXLV col. 162

[112]S. Pier Damiani “Liber Gomorrhianus” PL vol. CXLV col. 176 “Hoc vitium a choro ecclesiastici conventus eliminated, et cum energumenis ac dæmonio laborantibus orare compellit, a Deo animam separat, ut dæmonibus jungat. Hæc pestilentissima Sodomorum regina suae di lei tyrannidis legibus obsequentem, hominibus turpem, Deo reddit odibilem; adversus Deum nefanda bella conserere, nequissimi spiritus imperat militiam bajulare; ab angelorum consortio separat, etassociazionem animam sub proprieæ dominationis jugo a nobilitate di lui captivat.”

[113]See JD Mansi and H. Welter (eds.) “Conciliorum Oecumenicorum nova et amplissima Collectio”, 1927 vol. XXII, col. 224 ff

[114]“De contemptu mundi” PL vol. CCXVII col. 725-6

[115] ““Poena docuit, quid hæc culpa promeruit, « Pluit enim Dominus super Sodomam et Gomorrham sulphur et ignem de cælo (Gen. XIX). Noluit enim Dominus cuiquam angelorum vel hominum exsecutionem hujus poenæ committere, sed sibi ipsi vindictam hujus sceleris reservavit, secundum illud: Mea est ultio, et ego retribuam (Deut. XXXII) Et ideo pluit Dominus a Domino, videlicet a seipso non imbrem vel rorem, sed sulfur et ignem . Sulfur super ſetorem luxuriæ, ignem super ardorem libidinis, quatenus poena similis esset culpæ. Nec mississe dicitur , sed pluisse , quatenus ipso verbo magnitudem et abundantiam poenæ notaret . Nemini pepercit oculus ejus , sed omnes simul exstinxit . Uxorem quoquc Loth, quia retro respexit, statuam salis mutavit, nec solum urbes, sed et omnes circa regions in mare mortuum et valleym salinariam convertit. « Horrendum est enim enim incidere in manus Dei vivis (Hebr.

[116]S. Caterina da Siena, Il Dialogo, edited by G. Cavallini, Siena, Cantagalli, 1995, 2nd ed. (Cateriniani Texts; I), chapter CXXIV http://www.centrostudicateriniani.it/images/documenti/download/download-gratuiti/4-Il_Dialogo.pdf

[117] Constitution “Horrendum illud scelus” of 30 August 1568 in Bullarium Romanum, Romae 1738, t. IV c. III, p. 33

[118]Tridentine Catechism, ed. Cantagalli, 1992, https://www.maranatha.it/catrident/31page.htm n. 335

[119]Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “Letter to the Bishops of the Church on the pastoral care of homosexual people”, n. 5 www.vatican.va http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_it.html

[120] “La Genese” Les Editions du Cerf 1962 pp. 95-6

[121]  EA Speiser “Genesis” the Anchor Bible, Doubleday & C., 1964, p. 142

[122] Giuseppe Ricciotti “History of Israel”, SEI, 1964, vol. The p. 150

[123] G. von Rad “The Book of Genesis.” Ed. Sigueme, Salamanca 1977 p. 267.

[124] C. Westermann “Genesis.” Piemme 1995 p. 151.

[125]A. Rolla “Pentapolis”. Biblical Dictionary, Studium 1963, pp. 449

[126] F. Asensius “Pentateuch.” Publishing Library of the Gregorian University 1970, p. 63

[127] U. Vanni “Letters of Peter, James and Jude.” Rome: Edizioni Paoline, 1974 p. 104s

[128] T. Fretheim “The book of Genesis.” in “The new interpreter's Bible.” Abingdon Press, Nashville 1994 v. 1, p. 473s

[129] MJ Mulder “sedōm” in “Great Lexicon of the Old Testament.” Ed. Paideia 2006 vol. VI col. 86

[130]Facultad de Teología Universidad de Navarra “Sagrada Biblia: Universidad de Navarra” (Spanish Edition) EUNSA. Kindle edition. p. 4699s. “Because of this biblical passage, homosexual relationships also receive the name of «sodom». Here the severity of this sin arises, increased also, in this case, to constitute violence against the right of asylum which accompanies the hospitalisation. In the Sacred Scripture, the sins of homosexuality are presented as grave depravities: the Law of Moses punished him with death (see Lev 20,13:1,26), and, in the New Testament, they are considered the culminating point of human degradation when men no quieren vivir according to the law of God (see Rm 27-1; 6,9 Cor 1; 1,10 Tim 8). Based on the Sacred Writing, Tradition has always declared that «homosexual acts are intrinsically evil» (Congregación para la doctrina de la Fe, Persona humana, n. 2357). «They are contrary to the natural law. They tell the sexual act to the don de la vida. They do not proceed from true emotional and sexual complementarity. No one can receive approval in any case” (Catecismo de la Iglesia Católica, n. XNUMX).”

[131] Maurice Gilbert “La Bible et l’homosexualité.” In Nouvelle Revue Theologique 109-1 (1987), p. 82

[132] MJ Mulder “Sodom and Gomorrah” in “The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary.” Yale University 2008 p. 100

[133] Victor P. Hamilton “The book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50.” William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1995 pp. 33-37

[134] Victor P. Hamilton “The book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50.” William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1995 p. 35 note 29

[135] Victor P. Hamilton “The book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50.” William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1995 pp. 33-37; R. M. Davidson, “Flame of Yahweh Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007 p. 148.

[136] G. Wenham “Genesis.16-50” Word Books, Dallas 1994, p. 55

[137] G. Wenham “Genesis.16-50” Word Books, Dallas 1994, p. 63 “Homosexual acts between consenting adults, though condemned in the OT as incompatible with the creator's plan, were tolerated in most other societies in the ancient Orient. But homosexual rape was not: in Assyria it attracted the death penalty, and elsewhere it was used as a demeaning punishment for prisoners of war. But Lot's visitors were not prisoners but guests, and all the rules of oriental hospitality demanded their protection, not abuse. The men of Sodom are thus portrayed as transgressing not simply Israelite moral standards but the universal rule of behavior accepted throughout the ancient Orient.”

[138] RJ Clifford “Genesis” commentary on Gn. 1-25,18 in the “New Great Biblical Commentary” of 1997, of the Queriniana, on page. 29

[139]See E. Cortese “Homosexuality in the Old Testament” in AA. VV. “Christian anthropology and homosexuality.” Vatican City 1997 p. 28

[140]J. Bergsma and S. Hahn “Noah's Nakedness” Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005) p. 31“Likewise, Niditch, Steinmetz, Kunin, and many others see thematic links between Gen 9:20–27 and Gen 19:30–38, the story of Lot's daughters and the procreation of Moab and Ammon. Calum M. Carmichael notes, … (Law, Legend, and Incest in the Bible: Leviticus 18–20 [Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997], 15). See also Gagnon, Homosexual Practice, 70; and Steinmetz, “Vineyard,” 199 n. 13.) The similarities between the two pericopes are numerous: in the aftermath of a calamitous divine judgment, instigated by the wickedness of men—particularly sexual wickedness (cf. Gen 6:4; 19:5), which destroys the earth or a large part of it—an aged patriarch gets drunk, facilitating intercourse between parent and child, giving rise to one or more of the traditional enemies of Israel (Canaan, Moab, and Ammon). (For a thorough examination of the similarities of the passages, see Niditch, Chaos, 53–55.) The parallels hardly seem coincidental.”

[141]See Facultad de Teología Universidad de Navarra “Sagrada Biblia: Universidad de Navarra” (Spanish Edition). EUNSA. Kindle edition. p. 5209

[142] F. Giuntoli (ed.) “Genesis 12-50.” Ed. S. Paolo 2013 pp.68s

[143] BN Peterson “The sin of Sodom revisited: reading Genesis 19 in light of Torah. ” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59/1 (2016): 17–31 https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/59/59-1/JETS_59-1_17-31_Peterson.pdf

[144] “… the central problem for the men of Sodom and Lot's family was their failure to abide by God's divine decrees, especially those related to God's moral standards. … As Torah, the author presents Genesis 19 as a narrative picture of what happens to a society that breaks these laws—death, destruction, and familial chaos. The account of Lot's family serves to reinforce this picture. This is made even clearer by the larger context of Genesis 4–20. We may conclude that when Sodom's sin is viewed within both the immediate and larger contexts, sexual depravity best defines the reason for their destruction. In the same way that sexual depravity was the impetus for the Canaanites to be destroyed/spewed out of the land (Lev 18:3, 26–30), so too the Sodomites lost their land and their lives predominantly due to the one sexual sin singled out as an abomination—homosexual acts.”

[145] BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah”. Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition 2016, chapter 10

[146] J. Chukwuma Okoye “Genesis 12-50” Cascade Books, Eugene Oregon p. 117

[147]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” (Kindle locations 2269-2271). Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition 2016“ … scholars have also noted that the Sodom narrative is purposefully placed between the promise and fulfillment of the birth of the promised child, Isaac (cf. Genesis 18 and 21), to highlight the problem of “sterile” sex, which same-sex relations embody.”

[148] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 422. 10.31743/biban.13542

[149] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 420-4. 10.31743/biban.13542

[150] R. Tamisiez “Le livre des Juges.” in “La Sainte Bible” ed Letouzey et Ané, Paris 1949 volume III p. 283

[151] A. Vincent “Le livre des Juges” in “La Sainte Bible traduit sous la direction de l' Ecole Biblique de Jerusalem”Ed. Du Cerf 1958, p. 129

[152] G. Flavius ​​“Jewish Antiquities.” 5,2,8

[153] M. Gilbert “The Bible and homosexuality” in Nouvelle Revue de Theologie 109 (1987) p. 81s

[154] BG Webb “The book of Judges” W. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 2012, p. 466-468

[155] T. Fretheim “The book of Genesis.” in “The new interpreter's Bible.” Abingdon Press, Nashville 1994 v. 1, p. 473s

[156] Facultad de Teología Universidad de Navarra “Sagrada Biblia: Universidad de Navarra” (Spanish Edition) (p.5642). EUNSA Ediciones Universidad de Navarra. Kindle edition. 2016 “ The scene of the men of Guibeá soliciting the Levite who was hospedaba in the house of the elder of Ephraim recuerda to the of the inhabitants of Sodom to the rededor of the house of Lot (see Gen 19,1-14). Some Israelites retaliated in the same abominations that the most perverse Gentiles, and acabaron mistreated until the death of the Levite's concubine. The corruption of moral sentiment was linked to such a point that the Benjaminites, instead of punishing the guilty, organized themselves to defend them.”

[157]See E. Cortese “Homosexuality in the Old Testament” in AA. VV. “Christian anthropology and homosexuality.” Vatican City 1997 p. 28

[158] P. Sacchi “The Judges.” Ed. S. Paolo 1968 p. 231

[159] M. O'Connor, “Judges” in Nuovo Grande Commentario Biblico, Queriniana, 2014, p. 187s

[160] I. Jakobovits “Homosexuality” in Encyclopedia Judaica Second Edition, 2008. The Gale Group, Volume 9 p. 516; Jewish Virtual Library “Homosexuality in Jewish Law” www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/homosexuality

[161] HF Fuhs “harag” in Great Lexicon of the Old Testament Paideia 2002, vol. II col. 522

[162] F. Zorell “Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti.” Ed. PIB, Rome, 1989 p. 210s

[163] F. Zorell “Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti.” Ed. PIB, Rome, 1989, p. 494

[164] F. Zorell “Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti.” Ed. PIB, Rome, 1989, p. 494

[165] Gershon Bacon / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.) “Judges” book of, in Encyclopedia Judaica second edition 2007 Volume 11 p. 565 “The people of Gibeah, surrounding the house in which he lodged, demanded that the Levite be sent out to them for homosexual acts (19:22). (One point of the story is to show that the Benjaminites of Gibeah shared the values ​​of the ancient Sodomites. The many elements common to Judges 19 and Genesis 19 were already pointed out by Naḥmanides to Gen. 19:8.)”

[166] Victor P. Hamilton “The book of Genesis. Chapters 18-50.” William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids-Cambridge 1995 pp. 33-37

[167] F. Zorell “Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti.” Ed. PIB, Rome, 1989, p. 494

[168] Robert A. J. Gagnon, “The Bible and Homosexual Practice” 385, 418–420; DM Halperin, “Homosexuality,” OCD 723.

[169] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 423, 10.31743/biban.13542.

[170] M. Healy “Homosexuality in the Pontifical Biblical Commission Document “What Is Man”?” The Biblical Annals. 12 (2022) p. 423, note 31, 10.31743/biban.13542.

[171]Rite for the Baptism of a child http://www.liturgia.maranatha.it/Battesimo/b2/3page.htm

[172]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 300

[173]S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 164s

[174] S. Antonio di Padova "I sermoni" ed. Messenger of Padua, Padua, 2002 p. 405

[175] I, q. 114 a. 3; Super Mt. [rep. Leodegarii Bissuntini], chap. 7 l. 2

[176] Mons. G. Zenti “The principle and origin of every sin is pride.” 22.4.2021 https://www.veronafedele.it/Rubriche/Condiscepoli-di-Agostino/Principio-e-origine-di-ogni-peccato-e-la-superbia

[177] St. Augustine of Hippo” Discourse 354” n.4,4 www.augustinus.it https://www.augustinus.it/italiano/discorsi/discorso_516_testo.htm

[178] N. Cavatassi “Superbia” in S. Spadafora (ed.) “Biblical Dictionary”, Ed. Studium, 1955, p. 561

[179]See S. Alfonso M. de Liguori “Instruction to the people” in “Works of S. Alfonso Maria de Liguori”, Pier Giacinto Marietti, Vol. VIII, Turin 1880 p. 939s http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ITASA0000/_PVH.HTM

[180] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 106

[181] See U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 105

[182] See U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 105

[183] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 106

[184] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 107

[185] Biblical Dictionary, Studium 1963, entry “Deluge”

[186] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 107s

[187] Facultad de Teología Universidad de Navarra “Sagrada Biblia: Universidad de Navarra” (Spanish Edition) p. 4639f. EUNSA. Kindle edition. 2016 ““ Therefore they were interpreted as the just men, the descendants of Set, who would indiscriminately return women descendents of Caín, called the hijas of the men. Thus they included San Agustín (De civitate Dei 15,23), San Juan Crisóstomo (Homiliae in Genesis 22,4), San Cirilo de Alejandría (Glaphyra in Genesis 2,2) and other Holy Fathers. The perversion of humanity through its abrogance and abuses in marriage prepares the subsequent event of the flood.”

[188]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” (Kindle locations 586-589). Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition. 2016 ““ … the flood narrative is bookended by short accounts about people transgressing God's creation order through sexual impropriety.(Of course some biblical scholars have seen this link. Eg, J. Bergsma and S. Hahn, “Noah's Nakedness,” 30– 31. ) The first sin is one of the causes of the flood. Presented in the cryptic account about the marriage between the sons of God and the daughters of men (6:1–4), it points to sexual impropriety.”

[189]J. Bergsma and S. Hahn “Noah's Nakedness” Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005) 30–31

[190]J. Bergsma and S. Hahn “Noah's Nakedness” Journal of Biblical Literature 124/1 (2005) p. 31

[191] See quote in U. Neri (ed.) “Genesi” ed. Gribaudi, Turin, 1986, p. 105

[192] AA.VV “Bereyit Rabba. Commentary on Genesis” (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) . UTET. Kindle edition 2013, chap. 31,1, Kindle location 4268.

[193] AA.VV “Bereyit Rabba. Commentary on Genesis” (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) . UTET. Kindle edition. 2013, chap. 31,2, location of Kindle 4275.

[194] AA.VV. “Bereyit Rabba. Commentary on Genesis” (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) . UTET. Kindle edition. 2013, Ch. 36,5, Kindle location 3838.

[195] “Testament of Naphtali” c. III P. Sacchi “Apocrypha of the Old Testament” (Classics of religions) (Italian Edition) . UTET. Kindle edition, Kindle locations 18038.

[196]  Alan Soble, Philosophy of Sex and Love. Paragon House. Kindle edition. 2011, Kindle locations 584ff.

[197]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” Conclusion, Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition. 2016, Kindle locations 3290: “ … the central problem for the men of Sodom and Lot's family was their failure to abide by God's divine decrees, especially those related to God's moral standards set forth in the creation narrative. Nowhere are these sexual decrees clearer than the presentation of Leviticus 18 and 20 and Genesis 1 and 2.”

[198]See BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah.” Conclusion. Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition. 2016. Kindle 3299 Locations.

[199] BN Peterson. “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” Conclusion, Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition. 2016. Kindle Locations 3294. “As Torah, the author presents Genesis 19 as a narrative picture of what happens to a society that breaks these laws—death, destruction, and familial chaos.”

[200] “And the idea subdit that sin contrary to the kingdom of the Gods excluded, in that alone charitas introducit, says neither fornicarii, nor idolis servientes, nor adulterers (de quibus dicitur Hebr. ult. fornicatores et adulteros iudicabit Deus), nor soft, id est, mares muliebria patientes, neque masculorum concubitores, quantum ad agents in illo vitio, de quibus dicitur Gen. XIII, 13: homines Sodomitae pessimi erant et sinners coram domino nimis.” (Super I Cor. c.6 l.2)

[201]See H. Ringgren “ r“ ” Great Lexicon of the Old Testament ed. Paideia, Brescia 1988, see VIII coll. 502 ff

[202]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah” Part I, Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle Edition 2016. Kindle Locations 1008 “Interestingly, whenever the word for “sin” (chatt'at) is used in Genesis where God is the one being sinned against it is always in the context of sexual sin

[203]BN Peterson “What was the Sin of Sodom: Homosexuality, Inhospitality, or Something Else?: Reading Genesis 19 as Torah”Part I. Resource Publications, an Imprint of Wipf and Stock Publishers. Kindle edition, 2016. Kindle locations 1030

[204] See Zorell “Lexicon hebraicum Veteris Testamenti.” Ed. Pontifical Biblical Institute 1989 p. 892; HD Preuss “to'eba” in Great Lexicon of the Old Testament, Paideia 2009 vol. IX col. 1010ff; MP Faggioni “Sexuality Marriage Family.” Ed. EDB, Bologna 2017 p. 276; DS Bailey “Homosexuality and the western tradition.” London, 1955, p. 30.

[205] F. Giuntoli (ed.) “Genesis 12-50.” Ed. S. Paolo 2013 pp.68s

[206]St. Gregory the Great “In septem Psalmos poenitentiales expositio” PL 79, coll. 560s “Nam quod peccatum clamor sit testatur Scriptura quæ dicot: Clamor Sodomorum et Gomorrhæorum ascendit ad me (Gen. XVIII, 20). Et iterum: Descendam videre utrum clamorem qui venit ad me, opere compleverint (Ibid. 21). Peccatum quippe cum voci, culpa est in actione: peccatum cum clamore, est culpa cum libertate. Dum clamarem tota die . Tota die clamat, qui pro omni bono opere quod agit, laudari affectat; vel etiam tota die clamat , qui publice peccare non trepidat.”

[207]See E. Cortese “Homosexuality in the Old Testament” in AA. VV. “Christian anthropology and homosexuality.” Vatican City 1997 p. 28

[208]AA.VV. “Bereyit Rabba. Commentary on Genesis” (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) (Kindle positions 7899-7903). UTET. Kindle edition. 2013

[209] AA.VV. “Bereyit Rabba. Commentary on Genesis” (Classics of religion) (Italian Edition) (Kindle positions 7653-7656). UTET. Kindle edition. 2013

[210]Daniel A. Keating “First and Second Peter, Jude.” (Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture) (p.162). Baker Publishing Group. Kindle edition. 2011

[211] Giuseppe Ricciotti “History of Israel”, SEI, 1964, vol. The p. 150

[212] “Bereishis: Genesis, a New Translation With a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources.” Mesorah Publications Ltd., Brooklyn 1978, Volume II, p. 682

[213]See Pontifical Biblical Commission “Inspiration and truth in Sacred Scripture” of 22.2. 2014 n. 107 www.vatican.va https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20140222_associazione-verita-sacra-scrittura_it.html#2._Prima_sfid