Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Just How Evil is Sodomy? The Saints Weigh In.

7th-circle-dantes-inferno-sodomites
Brunetto Latini among the Sodomites (Illustration by Gustav Doré); Circle 7, Inferno 15

In light of recent events, a theological concept that I’ve seen dusted off and put back into use with increasing frequency is that of a “sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.”

There are four such sins – murder, sodomy, oppression of the poor, and defrauding a worker of his wages. Each of these is considered especially egregious to God. While there were, until recently, civil legal restrictions on all four, the first two in particular have been losing battles in the courts for at least half a century, with sodomy making huge legal advances in both Ireland and the United States in the past sixty days.

But just how bad is sodomy, really? If you listen to those sympathetic to those in homosexual relationships, you’d be led to believe it’s just a little harmless affection between people who are “in love.” So, on the scale of the serious sins, where does sodomy fall?

At the blog, Musings of a Pertinacious Papist, Philip Blosser cites St. Peter Damian, doctor of the Church, as excerpted in a 2002 article by Randy Engels. The below begins with commentary from Engels, then transitions to St. Peter Damian in the double block-quoted portion:

Among St. Peter Damian’s most famous writings is his lengthy treatise, Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus), containing the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual practices. His manly discourse on the vice of sodomy in general and clerical homosexuality and pederasty in particular, is written in a plain and forthright style that makes it quite readable and easy to understand.

In keeping with traditional Church teachings handed down from the time of the Apostles, he holds that all homosexual acts are crimes against Nature and therefore crimes against God who is the author of Nature.

… Damian decries the audacity of men who are “habituated to the filth of this festering disease,” and yet dare to present themselves for holy orders, or if already ordained, remain in office. Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asks. Quoting St. Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Eph 5:5) he continues, “… if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in Heaven, how can he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is surely the kingdom of God?” [15]

… According to Damian, the vice of sodomy “surpasses the enormity of all others,” because:

“Without fail, it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind … It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise … It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity … It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things …

“This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church … it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons…. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence.

Looking to other sources, St. Peter Canisius explains not just the atrocity of this sin, but its origins. Does this sound familiar?

As the Sacred Scripture says, the Sodomites were wicked and exceedingly sinful. Saint Peter and Saint Paul condemn this nefarious and depraved sin. In fact, the Scripture denounces this enormous indecency thus: ‘The scandal of Sodomites and Gomorrhans has multiplied and their sins have become grave beyond measure.’ So the angels said to just Lot, who totally abhorred the depravity of the Sodomites: ‘Let us leave this city….’ Holy Scripture does not fail to mention the causes that led the Sodomites, and can also lead others, to this most grievous sin. In fact, in Ezechiel we read: ‘Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me; and I took them away as thou hast seen’ (Ezech. 16: 49-50). Those unashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this never sufficiently execrated depravity.” (Emphasis added)

St. Catherine of Siena writes of sodomy in what appears to be not her own mind, but God’s:

But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason, when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin.

Imagine that: the sin of sodomy is so unnatural that it is even repellent to the very demons who tempt men to engage in it.

Returning to St. Peter Damian, we are offered advice on how to deal with those who favor this sin and who resent our Christian condemnation of the same:

“… I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers’ foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God’s fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2:4) … Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another’s soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God’s judgement? … How, indeed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart? … “So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother’s well-being. “Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses’ words, ‘Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me.’ (Ezek 32:26)

There are many more such quotes from the saints – too many to include here. St. Bernardine of Siena offers perhaps the most succinct verdict on the issue:

“Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others. He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is the greatest sin.” (Emphasis added)

171 thoughts on “Just How Evil is Sodomy? The Saints Weigh In.”

  1. Steve: Could you point us to where the four most deadly sins were first listed? It would be good to publish more articles along the lines of this one. There is so much sentimental claptrap in the air these days that Catholics in the pews are likely to be overwhelmed and assume they have some kind of duty to praise sodomy instead of condemning it as the abasement and ignominy it really is.

    Reply
    • Steve of course may do a better job than I. In the meantime, cf. Penny Catechism #327 [http://www.catholictreasury.info/catechism/cat25.php]: 1) Wilful murder (Gn 4); 2) The sin of Sodom (Gn 18); 3) Oppression of the poor (Ex 2) 4) Defrauding labourers of their wages (Jm 5)
      *
      Please note that they are “four sins crying to heaven for vengeance” and not “four deadly sins”. On the page from the link above, seven capital sins and vices are listed.

      Reply
      • The rectum of Christ has remained a mystery to most for nearly two millenia. But why is something so essential to one of the most important men who has ever lived still cloaked in mystery in the modern era? After all, most of us use our rectums on a daily basis, whether for the purpose of excreting excrement or as a conduit for experiencing deep anal pleasure.

        Recent scientific investigation in the way of rectal analysis has shed illumination not only on the rectums of modern humans, but also Christ Himself. And it turns out that the rectum of Christ was not so unfamiliar and mysterious as it is to most modern contemporary humans of today as it was in His own time. Not only were many of Christ’s contemporary comrades intimately familiar with the internal topography of His holy tunnel, many of his closest accomplices “knew” the full extent of His rectum in the Biblical sense. That is, they inserted their hard cocks into His rectum and engaged in rectal fornication until the achievement of Holy ecstasy whereupon their massive creamy load would be squirted into the rectum of Christ.

        Reply
    • The current Catechism offers this (albeit somewhat strangely phrased):

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

      I say strangely phrased because of the bit that says “the catechetical tradition also recalls…” This comes across to me as a self-consciously uncomfortable admission of an understanding so well-entrenched that it can’t be completely thrown out as antiquated. You’ll also note that the words “for vengeance” are dropped, but vengeance is precisely what we see transpiring at Sodom and Gomorrah; this is also expressed in the Marian warnings of God’s inexorable anger and retribution against unrepentant sin at Fatima and Akita.

      The Douay Catechism of 1649 is more direct:

      CHAP. XX.

      The Sins that cry to Heaven for Vengeance Expounded.

      Q. HOW many such sins are there?
      A. Four.
      Q. What is the first of them?
      A. Wilful murder, which is a voluntary and unjust taking away another’s life.
      Q. How show you the pravity of this sin?
      A. Out of Gen. iv. 10. Where it is said to Cain “What hast thou done? the voice of the blood of thy brother crieth to me from the earth: now, therefore shalt thou be cursed upon the earth.” And Matt. xxvi 52, “All that take the sword, shall perish with the sword.”
      Q. What is the second?
      A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.
      Q. What is the scripture proof of this?
      A. Out of Gen. xix. 13. where we read of the Sodomites, and their sin. “We will destroy this place because the cry of them hath increased before our Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them,” (and they were burnt with fire from heaven.)
      Q. What is the third?
      A. Oppressing of the poor, which is a cruel, tyrannical, and unjust dealing with inferiors.
      Q. What other proof have you of that?
      A. Out of Exod. xxii. 21. “Ye shall not hurt the widow and the fatherless: If you do hurt them, they will cry unto me, and I will hear them cry, and my fury shall take indignation, and I will strike thee with the sword.”
      And out of Isa. x. 1, 2. “Wo to them that make unjust laws, that they might oppress the poor in judgment, and do violence to the cause of the humble of my people.”
      Q. What is the fourth?
      A. To defraud working men of their wages, which is to lessen, or detain it from them.
      Q. What proof have you of it?
      A. Out of Eccl. xxxiv. 37. “He that sheddeth blood and he that defraudeth the hired man, are brethren,” and out of James v. 4. “Behold the hire of the workmen that have reaped your fields, which is defrauded by you, crieth, and their cry hath entered into the ears of the Lord God of Sabaoth.”

      http://biblelight.net/DouayCat.htm#chapter 20

      Reply
    • After Sunday service, I like to go into the church bathroom and offer my rectum to as many men as possible. Once I am filled to the brim with many loads, I open the Bible to one of my favorite verses and fart out all that pure Catholic seed onto the page.

      Reply
    • Thanks for the comment JohnnyCuredents. I would also like some articles providing more clarification. For example, does sodomy include when my wife drops a big stinky dump on my chest in a nonsexual context?

      Reply
  2. Wait, so the sin of sodom is pride? Fullness of bread (gluttony)? Abundance? Idleness (sloth)? Not giving to the poor (greed)? Where is sodomy in that list? Not saying it wasn’t there, but even the citation above makes it clear that’s not the only or primary problem.

    Certainly Scripture is clear that sodomy is an abomination to God, but so are many things that most of us personally find less distasteful. The problem comes, morally & theologically, when we single sodomy out as somehow worse than other sins. That some saints did so does not change this. Every utterance of a saint is not by any means infallible. The sin of sodomy among priests is most certainly heinous, more so than in your average ill-formed contemporary in our society. St. Catherine had choice things to say about popes even that had nothing to do with sodomy. Grave sin is grave.

    The problem also comes when we do not look for the abominations in our own lives but are all to happy to call them out in others. Scripture is pretty clear on that point, too. Why be so quick to call out sodomy when pride is equally an abomination? Sowing discord among brethren, too..

    http://romishpotpourri.blogspot.com/2010/08/speaking-of-abominations.html

    Reply
    • Ambrose, nowhere else in scripture does it recount a city being violently overturned and obliterated by God for any sin except that of sodomy. The sin of sodomy is not pride. It is a sin against nature and God. It is a blow to that faculty in men and women whereby human beings cooperate with God in the creation of an immortal soul. It is numbered among the four sins that “cry to heaven for vengeance”: You already knew that, though…

      Reply
      • Midwester,

        The “sin of Sodom” should actually be understood to be a group noun–it encompasses a number of sins. And biblically speaking, it is difficult to make the case that it specifically means homosexual behavior.

        Ezekiel, quoted above, doesn’t even mention sexual sin! But it does mention other serious sins, including oppression of the poor. One thing that most of us modern, non-Jews don’t appreciate is the importance of hospitality in Jewish culture and, particularly, ancient Jewish culture. It is broadly applicable in that region as well. That carries over into Christianity in the counsels to charity and generosity, “give to him who asks” and so on. And such generosity is especially important with regards to the poor.

        The NAB RE has these notes on the related Scripture in Genesis:
        * [18:20] The immorality of the cities was already hinted at in 13:13, when Lot made his choice to live there. The “outcry” comes from the victims of the injustice and violence rampant in the city, which will shortly be illustrated in the treatment of the visitors. The outcry of the Hebrews under the harsh treatment of Pharaoh (Ex 3:7) came up to God who reacts in anger at mistreatment of the poor (cf. Ex 22:21–23; Is 5:7). Sodom and Gomorrah became types of sinful cities in biblical literature. Is 1:9–10; 3:9 sees their sin as lack of social justice, Ez 16:46–51, as disregard for the poor, and Jer 23:14, as general immorality. In the Genesis story, the sin is violation of the sacred duty of hospitality by the threatened rape of Lot’s guests.

        Now many point to Jude as biblical proof that the sin(s) of Sodom are about homosexual activity, but here’s the NAB RE note on that:

        * [7] Practiced unnatural vice: literally, “went after alien flesh.” This example derives from Gn 19:1–25, especially 4–11, when the townsmen of Sodom violated both hospitality and morality by demanding that Lot’s two visitors (really messengers of Yahweh) be handed over to them so that they could abuse them sexually. Unnatural vice: this refers to the desire for intimacies by human beings with angels (the reverse of the example in Jude 6). Sodom (whence “sodomy”) and Gomorrah became proverbial as object lessons for God’s punishment on sin (Is 1:9; Jer 50:40; Am 4:11; Mt 10:15; 2 Pt 2:6).

        For a more thorough exploration of this, I’d suggest this short article on the subject:

        https://nwanglicanblog.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/sodomy-a-biblical-word-study-that-might-surprise-you/

        I suspect the readers on this site might favor more the writing of Fr. Longenecker on the subject:

        http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/the-sin-of-sodom

        I think he underplays the other sins involved, which are clear from Ezekiel (and which he inexplicably leaves out of his treatment). But even if we grant the more modern understanding of it that has come to us in our now popular definition of sodomy, he makes it clear that the sin is more than simple homosexual behavior. It is a particular, violent kind.

        Let me be perfectly clear. None of this is contradicting the plain truth that our Faith teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and grave. There is no question about that.

        What I am debating is this use of a somewhat obscure “catechetical tradition” to imply that we should, in effect, exercise unjust discrimination towards homosexual persons–something our same Catechism explicitly counsels against.

        I leave you all with the post on my original comment above. It elaborates where I am coming from, so if you didn’t read it, you should. The point is, we need to keep this in context and deal with homosexuals in a just manner AND not become so consumed with the political drama that we obsess over that particular sin while missing so many of our own, including but not limited to our own pride, our own lust, and so on.

        The Catholic message about sex is so much more than a list of prohibitions and denouncements of abominations. We need to move beyond that and towards a holistic, positive expression of our theology while maintaining humilty and true charity for others.

        Reply
        • I find your exegesis incomprehensible. But I guess it isn’t really yours, it’s the unfortunate NAB notes, which very predictably fit the modern narrative on this sin.

          Isaiah 1 does not implicate Sodom on social justice, but a “sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a wicked seed, ungracious children: they have forsaken the Lord, they have blasphemed the Holy One of Israel, they are gone away backwards.”

          Isaiah 3 says that God will remove his graces from Jerusalem, and “the effeminate shall rule over them.” It speaks of “devices against the Lord” and a proudness of sin, “as Sodom.”

          Ez. 16 mentions a litany of “iniquity,” but as a prelude to the true crime: “they…committed abominations before me.”

          Jeremiah 23 isn’t about “general immorality” but sexual sin: “And I have seen the likeness of adulterers, and the way of lying in the prophets of Jerusalem: and they strengthened the hands of the wicked, that no man should return from his evil doings: they are all become unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrha.”

          The argument that “unnatural vice” means “went after alien flesh” is so contrary to the understanding of the doctors and saints of the Church that it doesn’t even merit further discussion.

          Msgr. Charles Pope does an admirable job of putting these specious and novel arguments to rest in a clear and straightforward fashion; these are not Catholic understandings of the sin of Sodom.

          http://blog.adw.org/2012/12/the-sin-of-sodom-and-gomorrah-is-not-about-hospitality/

          Reply
          • They are, actually, the ancient understanding, as is clear from Ezekiel. Cherry picking the bit about abominations and presuming that is strictly about sexual sin is not useful. Pride is an abomination. Sowing discord among brethren also.

          • It so happens that the Catholic Church, which alone has authority to interpret scripture, has through the centuries seen Sodom & Gomorrah’s
            destruction as primarily from the abomination of homosexual sin.

            It doesn’t matter what anyone else things is there or not there in the text. That settles it.

          • 1) the Church is not a monolithic entity and certainly allows for various interpretations of Scripture that are not in discord with fundamental dogma.
            2) this interpretation is not fundamental dogma, not infallibly defined, and the alternate proposed is not in contradiction to known dogma
            3) Holy Scripture itself interprets the sin of Sodom as more than what we call sodomy today, as already pointed out numerous times and highlighted by the OP in Ezekiel, and that my friend is indeed infallible.

            That definitely settles it.

          • Bullshit.

            See Council of Trent session IV which teaches that one can not exegete Scripture in contradiction to the existing exegesis of the Saints in Catholic Tradition.

          • I find feces to be the best lubricant, as it is God’s natural lubricant. My advice is to eat a large can of red beans about 2 hours beforehand to prepare the rectum with sufficient lubricant. Then you’ll be ready for a real fudge packing! And afterwards you’ll have enough leftover to take a big stinky shit on your favorite verses in the Bible.

        • Ambrose, I read both articles you cited. I accept neither as authoritative and I stand by my original comments. Thank you for the response, though.

          Reply
        • Now I’m a big gal with a fat cunt, but I love to get my stinky pussy eaten out. My brother told me it smells like rotten trout mixed with roadkill that’s been laying on the side of the road on a hot afternoon. Put your tongue deep in my cave and slurp out all those smelly pussy juices!

          Reply
      • Yes, as is commonly understood. Interestingly enough, sodomy as defined in, e.g., the Oxford dictionary includes both anal and oral copulation. And I dare say that more heterosexuals (just by sheer numbers) engage in it than homosexuals. So even if we take the modern definition of the term, we can’t really use it to single out homosexuals for special scorn, as seems to be the desire here.

        Reply
        • That homosexuals are in the tiny statistical minority means you’re playing at a numbers game. It is true that many heterosexuals now engage in these practices (largely due to the mainstreaming of pornography) and that these sins are equally grievous when committed by a man and a woman.

          That said, homosexuals are *never* capable of natural sex, and thus, those who are active in the “gay lifestyle” engage in these behaviors with staggering frequency. So yes, we can use it to single them out as a group, because as a group, most engage in these practices. From the Family Research Institute:

          “Homosexuals fellate almost all of their sexual contacts … many contacts occur between strangers (70% of gays estimated that they had had sex only once with over half of their partners19), and gays average somewhere between 1020 and 11021 different partners/year…

          […]

          Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly.22 In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,23 gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.”

          The data on these practices and their detrimental health effects is ugly:

          http://www.familyresearchinst.org/2009/02/medical-consequences-of-what-homosexuals-do/

          Reply
          • Well I am certainly not “playing” a numbers “game.” This is serious stuff, not something to toy with.

            The point is simply that while you seem to be casting this issue as a purely homosexual one, the reality is that it is far more broadly applicable and widespread even among heterosexuals, as you apparently admit. Not talking percentage wise within a population but as a whole. Again, I am addressing the issue of unjust discrimination against homosexuals, nothing more.

          • “This is serious stuff, not something to toy with.”

            Good. We agree on that much.

            “The point is simply that while you seem to be casting this issue as a purely homosexual one…”

            Except the language I used in this post does not indicate that. I *am* concerned that this is a principle homosexual issue, and with the homosexual agenda in full legal assault mode, most of us are fielding arguments and questions *specifically* about the nature of homosexual relations, and why we think they are so problematic. This is timed to deal with that issue. Context matters here.

            Also, from a biblical perspective, sodomy is about homosexuality. “And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? Bring them out hither that we may know them…” (Gen 19:5)

            Dealing with the heterosexual adoption of these practices is something that I am realizing is going to have to be addressed separately.

          • The New Testament teaches those cities were destroyed because of sodomy. See Jude 7

            You have posted quite a bit in defense of sodomites, pleading with all that they not be treated unjustly when there has not been one person here advocating they be treated unjustly.

            However, what is clear is that your mind has been cultivated by the sulphurous perverts who are the enemies of truth and normal sex relations twixt a married man and woman and why that is so clear to IANS is that you have not written one word complaining about the actions of the sodomites who have ruint the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church causing her adolescent male children untold woe and sorrow – driving not a few of them to suicide and causing uncountable others to lose the Faith – as those innocent adolescent males have been, overwhelming in numbers and by percentage, the victims of the sodomitic sex crimes visited upon them by clerical queers and covered-up by Ordinaries who were easy blackmailed into silence owing to their own previous descent into that vilest of sins.

            You plead with us not to become westboro church -like while you never demand the sodomites leave innocent male adolescents alone. You have not written word one about defending our innocent adolescent male sheep. No, you are all about protecting sodomites and trying to rationalise away the cause of the destruction of sodom and the surrounding cities and you try that process of elimination by addition – you add this minor sin and that minor sin to the unspeakable act of sodomy so as to minimize its grave evil.

            Are you an active sodomite or are you just one of the innumerable modern-minded men whose intellects have been cultivated by sodomite propagandists who tirelessly cite ezekiel and claim sodom was destroyed due to the folks there being inhospitable?

            If the sin being talked about in here was cannibalism and you were dropping posts expressing concern that the Jeffrey Dahmers of the world must not be unjustly discriminated against while you were silent about his poor victims, one would have cause to question you about your diet.

          • Hi Steve, do you prefer to leave the jism in your rectum after being penetrated by another man, or fart it out?

    • Well, if St. Catherine and other saints weren’t necessarily guaranteed infallibility, what about St. Paul? He was very clearly not referring to “pride” when he wrote the following:

      “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Rom 1:24-27)

      I’ve seen elsewhere the wan attempt to deny or downplay the fact that perverted sex acts were “the sin of Sodom.” It’s part of the generalized modern campaign to paper over the graveness of this sexual perversion. Usually those who espouse this mistaken view try to enlist Ezekiel 16:49-50, but while this passage does note that other sins were prevalent in Sodom, it does not deny that sexual perversion was among them. In fact it uses the same Hebrew word for “abomination” used in Leviticus 18:22 where we read “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.” Then there is Jude 7:8 where we find that “…Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion.” That certainly appears to be clear enough.

      Sodom and Gomorrah have been linked since biblical times with this revolting sin against nature for very good reason. And pointing to this sin rather than others, “calling it out” in other words, in the same week that the US Supreme Court in effect said this perversion is “marriage” makes perfect sense.

      Reply
      • Johnny,

        Of course homosexual behavior is gravely disordered and sinful. Scripture is clear on that. Catholic Tradition is clear on that. And besides that, Catholic understanding of sex excludes it as being anything other than that. I’m not sure how you got that I was saying anything otherwise from my comment.

        I do debate the fruitfulness of suggesting we should single homosexual actions out for extra special attention over other equally and, in some cases, graver sins. And more to the point, as I elaborate on in my post, there are many things that are an abomination from a theological point of view.

        It is right to be clear about the immorality of homosexual behavior, especially now and in the future as it becomes more accepted as normal and good. At the same time, we should always try to put it in the context of our holistic, positive view on sex and what it is for, while at the same time acknowledging that we all have fallen short of the glory of God.

        About “the sin of Sodom” in particular, I’ll reply to another comment to add some clarity on that.

        Reply
        • I don’t think we disagree much, at least concerning what you write in your answer. For logical reasons, certain sins are singled out for special treatment at different times. It was logical that the Church talked about human equality just before and during WW II, for example; indeed, she should have talked more and more pointedly about the matter. Now the main question has to be sodomy because it is precisely on that front that the enemies of the Church have decided to attack.

          Reply
        • Ambrose, I’d be interested in your opinion on the relationship between Jesus and Paul. Do you think Jesus was the one who squirted his Holy Fluid into Paul’s anus, or the other way around? Considering that Jesus probably has a much more massive cock, I would assume Jesus to have done a majority of the fudge packing.

          Reply
      • It seems that the root iniquity (sins) of Sodom and the surrounding cities were:

        “49 Now this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and complacent; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them, as you have seen.” – Ezekiel 16:49-50

        So, the abominations (homosexuality, violence) were committed as a result of their pride, abundance, and complacency. It is important to recognize the root heart cause of outward actions, so we can see where the real problem stems from.

        Reply
    • Sin of Sodomy is included in the (sexual) capital sin of LUST.

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

      Reply
    • Ignoring or appearing to condone Mortal Sin of any kind is a sin against Charity.

      If you love your neighbor you will want him or her to get to Heaven, not Hell.
      Un-repented Mortal Sin will surely send anyone to Hell

      CCC: “1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
      – by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
      – by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
      – by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
      – by protecting evil-doers.”

      Reply
      • Agreed, Mike. And hopefully we are all as equally vigilant about sin in our own lives as well as other grave sins–not just homosexuality, because we find it more personally distasteful or are overly sensitive due to the political atmosphere.

        Reply
          • As long as we are following the exhortation of Matthew 7:5, I agree. I gotta say I don’t see that in the vast majority of what gets posted online about this subject.

            I would also question the effectiveness of trumpeting from a distance our doctrine at people as a way to make them more sensitive to the dangers of mortal sin. Very likely it will rather just harden their hearts more.

          • I’m not sure about your example regarding trumpeting from a distance. Teaching the Faith accurately anywhere – is spreading Gospel.
            Even many Faithful Catholics do NOT know the Faith.
            We are only on earth a short time, Saving Souls is the goal. And this includes TEACHING whenever and wherever possible.

            As we know regarding JUDGING –
            Jesus said to judge with right judgment – Jn 7:24; and
            to make certain we take the log out of our own eye first so we will see clearly to take the splinter out of our brothers eye – Mt 7:5; and Lk 6:42..

          • Matthew 7:5 applies to those who lack humility, who are like the the Pharisee in his self-elevation above the publican.

            It does not apply to a general assessment of sins, their gravity, or their affects.

            Further, one cannot engage in evangelization on a personal level without an exposition of doctrine to fall back on. Many Catholics not know these things, and thus have no means by which to understand or explain them to others. This leads to acquiescence to immorality because of ignorance. Since our audience is overwhelmingly Catholic, essays like this are educational in nature, not evangelical.

          • I’m glad that you are claiming you are humble, so the Matt 7:5 counsel does not apply to you. 😉

            The problem I see here is that you are educating Catholics to unjustly vilify homosexuals. I fully support ensuring Catholics understand our doctrine on these issues. I don’t support what you seem to be going for here.

            In another comment, you quote from an old catechism, which also uses the modern, narrow definition of the sin of Sodom, and you further illustrate my point that sodomy is not only homosexual sex:

            “carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.”

            Need I point out that this includes masturbation? It includes any form of fornication, even. It makes no distinction about homosexual sex, although we readily know that homosexual sex is by definition included. The point is, sodomy even in this usage is broader than how you are presenting it here–as dealing exclusively with homosexual behavior.

            So again, trying to use the “sin of Sodom” and this catechetical tradition to support the notion that it is just about homosexuality is imprecise, at best, and misleading and just plain wrong at worst.

            There are far better ways to get the message out, brother.

            Peace.

          • I didn’t say *I* was humble. I said you’re using that passage incorrectly – one of the most commonly abused pieces of scripture in the “weaponization of piety,” as a friend of mine recently put it.

            I’m educating Catholics on the (literally) damnable and serious nature of this sin, particularly because so many Catholics fail to understand the nature or gravity of it and thus, either don’t object to it or don’t understand why it is so serious. This is not about vilification. It’s about accurately portraying evil as evil.

            I posted in another comment a link to Aquinas’ taxonomy of sins of the flesh. He places masturbation at the lowest level of gravity in he sins against nature, and sodomy at the top. There is a difference in gravity, although both are grave. (Worth noting: God never destroyed another city over other masturbation.)

            I already said previously that sodomy is equally grave when it is practiced by straight couples; but that homosexuals universally engage in sodomy so they are uniquely subject to the proscriptions against this sin.

            Why is this so troubling for you?

          • I hope I’ve been clear about what my concern is. I’ve said it several times now. I wouldn’t say “so troubling.” It is concerning that I keep seeing social conservatives erring towards unjust discrimination. It is readily apparent in how keen people are to loudly condemn them.

            To put it another way, I am concerned about creating more Westboro baptist stereotypes. We can communicate the truth about this issue and better than what you have done here.

          • I don’t understand your preoccupation with “unjust discrimination.” Homosexual sex is deeply unnatural and offensive to God, as is reiterated throughout the scriptures, tradition, and the writings of the saints. It is not “unjust” in any way to point out why this is such a significant problem.

            Neither do I see any realistic connection between an authentic Catholic understanding of the sin of Sodom and how serious it is and arriving at a Westboro baptist-style rhetoric. What I have communicated here has been on the nature of the sin – not, as you keep implying, the nature of those who commit it.

            I would offer a caveat, however: while sodomy is gravely disordered no matter who commits it, that doesn’t mean there is parity between the same-sex attracted but chaste man and the opposite-sex attracted but chaste man. The Church has traditionally understood that same-sex attraction is a “grave moral defect” that disorients the passions and prevents the formation of an authentic masculinity. This is why it is inappropriate for homosexuals to be ordained to the priesthood: without that authentic masculinity, they cannot be spiritual fathers.

          • My preoccupation as you put it has to do with teaching Catholics to not treat homosexual persons with contempt and disgust. I’ve seen it over and over and over again online.

        • There are many ways for a couple to demonstrate affection toward one another without engaging in sodomy. For example, my wife enjoys taking a large dump on my chest and massaging the feces into my skin so that I am reminded of her smell for days!

          Reply
    • That quote mentions the iniquities of Sodom, which led to them committing “abominations” before God. It is the latter part which is indicative of the more serious sin, for which Sodom was so severely punished.

      God uses this same language in his communication with St. Catherine of Siena: “it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it.”

      Reply
    • “The problem also comes when we do not look for the abominations in our own lives but are all to happy to call them out in others.”

      I don’t believe that Steve or anyone else who is truly practicing the Catholic Faith is happy about pointing out grave sin. That said, it is the acceptance of this grave sin by society that is the biggest issue here, not the individual practicing it. It represents a mass blindness wherein all of society contributes to the sin of sodomy by giving it public/social affirmation.

      Reply
    • I did not read the mention of pride and abundance as stating it was the same as sodomy. In ezekiel’s quote I think God implies that sodomy comes about from man’s pride and abundance. To me this implies that the pride and abundance leads to a rejection of God which in turn leads them to sodomy and to be blind that it is a most abject sin. Most societies that have become unabashedly sodomite tend to be at a high degree of wealth and civilization whether t g s greek, Roman, sodom, or our own western civilization. This leads to an arrogance that they have it all and know it all. Therefore who needs God? It is not by chance that the legalization if sodomy is happening in the more advanced countries where the is little faith in God. In fact thus legalization of this heinous sin comes with the emphatic denial that it is not a sin because supposedly we know so much better than any civilization that came before us. To conclude then sodomy is the rock bottom sin only comparable to murder as both are objective rejection of God. Both comes from man’ s arrogance or pride

      Reply
      • I sorely miss the days gone by, in which I would regularly engage in rectal sodomy with my colleagues Newt Gingrich and Tom Foley. How fondly I look back upon meeting so many other Congressmen in the bathrooms at Reagan airport to satisfy the sexual needs that our wives could not provide.

        Reply
  3. Can someone please write articles clearly explaining why sodomy is the sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance but no equivalent condemnation seems to be heaped on the practice of contraception. To my mind, so much emphasis is placed on condemning homosexuals, but there is no condemnation also issued for men and women who deliberately sterilize their sexual acts. I would guess methods of contraception have been around since the beginning of time, but I also suspect none of the saints lived during a time when methods of contraception were so easy and so accepted by so much of the human population. Homosexuality has also always been a problem, but that is an easier sin to see in action. Most contracepting men and women meanwhile can hid their sin from public eyes, but that shouldn’t mean those actions aren’t also sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, because just like the sterile sex of homosexuals, those couples too are turning away from God by misusing their sexual organs.

    Reply
    • All un-repented MORTAL SINS send Souls to HELL.

      Intrinsic evils include: Abortion, Euthanasia, Contraception, Homosexual Acts/Marriage, Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

      Reply
    • Perhaps this will help:

      “The following listing from Aquinas proceeds from the most serious to the least serious. I will discuss some potentially surprising rankings at the end.

      The most serious sexual sins (leaving out circumstances such as violence, which compound the sinfulness) are sins contra naturam, sins contrary to human nature, and thus contrary to God the author of human nature.

      The most obviously unnatural sin is “bestiality,” i.e., sexual intercourse with animals – a sin which offers an affront to the human species. Next in seriousness is sodomy, which is an affront to the natural relationship between male and female.

      In third place are unnatural coital relationships between men and women – for example, anal intercourse, coitus interruptus, or other contraceptive measures – all of which are sinful because they do not observe “the right manner of copulation.” In hisSumma contra gentiles, Aquinas compares such relationships to homicide: “After the sin of homicide whereby a human nature already in existence is destroyed, this type of sin appears to take next place, for by it the generation of human nature is precluded.” By taking measures to prevent a human life from emerging naturally, such non-procreative sex constitutes an action against the potential human soul that might result.

      The least serious “unnatural” sexual sin is masturbation, in which pleasure is intentionally sought in isolation from natural social relationships. Aquinas is careful to distinguish this from “nocturnal pollution” or other unintentional emission of semen, which is not sinful. In our era, we would include pornography, as a means to excite prurient sexuality, as connected with this sin.”

      Taken from: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/human-nature-and-aquinas-taxonomy-of-sexual-sins

      Reply
      • Huh… I always heard the onanism was equivalent to contraception, not lesser. I’ve even heard it listed as one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance, on account of God slaying Onan for doing it. I know it’s considered greater than fornication (assuming no contraception in the fornication).

        Reply
        • I love to jerk off and my priest told me that masturbation is not a sin as long as you are thinking about God’s love. So I usually try to visualize Jesus’s loose gaping asshole after Mary Magdalene pegged him with a big thick 12 inch dildo, and that really helps me to cum a huge load. If I’m having trouble orgasming, I pray to Jesus that he drops a big stinky dump on my chest and uses it to stroke my cock and that always gets the job done.

          Reply
      • Okay… but focusing on a ranking of sin risks making those who are committing the lesser sins to feel good because at least they aren’t engaging in the “evil of sodomy” and second, I just have to wonder who has managed to covert a homosexual by stating to that person that they are committing a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance. Maybe that has happened, and if so I’d love to hear that first hand account. I just don’t see how constantly taking this approach will effectively evangelize any homosexuals. Sure doesn’t seem like it’s worked so far.

        Reply
        • It’s not just homosexuals that need evangelizing, Kim. We all need to understand the true nature and consequences of sexual sin. The ranking of these acts, to me, constitutes the slope whereby human beings slip into deeper and deeper into vice.

          There is no feel-good attached, rather a clear delineation of the progression of sins against our human nature. Kind of like gateway drug usage. We all need to hear it and begin to speak to it.

          Reply
          • Yep, this is exactly right. Our slip into depravity all started with contraception. Humane Vitae was the most prophetic Encyclical of our time and rightly predicted what would happen to society if we began using artificial contraception. What the wide spread use of artificial contraception did was to remove the life issue from the sex act entirely giving way to sexual depravity of the lowest magnitude. Like a drug, sex for pleasure alone begged for a ‘deeper’ and ‘deeper’ satisfaction sliding lower and lower into the darkness we now find ourselves. The acceptance and wide spread use of artificial contraception, even among ‘practicing Catholics’ was the beginning of the end of all sexual morals. I do think Humane Vitae was THE Encyclical of our time……and Churchmen scoffed at it and refused to adhere to it leading Catholics further and further into depravity. Talk about a ‘sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance’!!

          • ….aided and abetted by social media and the u.s. postal service (wherein it used to be a crime to use the postal service to spread such filth).

            That is why the doe-eyed, how-did-this-happen is so patently unbelievable.

    • [Please see other relevant comments here]. From Church teaching, sodomy is one of the “four sins crying to heaven for vengeance”. The labeling comes from scripture and to me, it simply means “God will respond”.
      *
      To understand this as condemning homosexuals is to fall for narrative of those who do not want the Church to condemn the sin [not the individual who should be nontheless be admonished for his sin/behavior].

      Reply
    • PROVE IT.
      Supply a link to any OFFICIAL document of the Catholic Church that teaches anyone to HATE anyone.
      Please include in your documentation the name of the book or document, page number, and verse or paragraph number.

      Officials Church Documents include:
      A Catholic Bible,
      the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, second edition” ;
      and other documents which can be found on the Vatican web site.

      Reply
      • MIKE, relax. I realize irony and sarcasm sometime come across badly in writing, but the tip-off should have been the part that said “.” I was merely parroting the typical response of advocates for the radical homosexual agenda.

        Reply
          • DAMN Mike, sounds like you’re still sore from the buttfucking you got last night. Chill out and maybe try jerking it to some lesbian porn or something.

        • You know, Mike, given the current atmosphere, it’s really hard to find the right voice for sarcasm. For instance, if you read Judge Kennedy’s ruling from the other day, and if you know anything at all about English prose, you’d have to assume the whole thing was a clever joke. But no, that inane, pompous, and tortuous screed actually came from the mind of a sitting US Supreme Court judge!

          Reply
      • Mike, sounds like you need to allow yourself to be filled with Jesus and His big meaty eight inch cock. Why would you reject Jesus and not allow Him to fart in your face or shit in your mouth?

        Reply
    • O Lord, let us all be filled with the love of Jesus, let His big meaty eight inch cock fill our rectums with His Holy Fluid. Let us all have the opportunity to get fucked and sucked by Christ our Lord, who is bisexual, which means that he fucks and sucks both men and women, Amen.

      Reply
  4. What is the worst sin there is?
    *
    A number of ways to approach this question. In May, 1P5 ran this: The Greatest Commandment: Did a Council and Two Popes Teach Error? Therefore approach #1 is to see that “one is to love the Lord their God with all their heart, and with all their soul, and with all of their mind. This is the great and first commandment.” [cf. Matt 22:36-38(RSVCE)]. Therefor the worst sin is hate the LORD their God with ….
    *
    Second approach is to look at the 10 commandments and the first 3 deal with God and therefore the greatest sins are violations of these with the worst being the first. And not worshiping the true God is idolatry, a thing that evokes horror to a true worshiper of the true God, and an abomination to the true God.
    *
    It is this sin that brings with it a slew of others. To recognize the true God meant also to act according to His will, and consequently to live a moral life. [cf. Worship, Idol | Jewish Encyclopedia].
    *
    Conclusion: Therefore just as love of God necessarily leads to and is proven by love of neighbor, the opposite is true, idolatry/hatred of God [behind every idol there is a demon] is manifested by a progressively immoral life toward that end of the spectrum are the unnatural sins. My take on this is that the demon[s] inciting and the people who have given themselves to him/them hate God so much, they can’t kill him, they will be content to disfigure/mutilate/destroy his image in creation, hence homosexuality.
    *
    Endnote:
    1) Other articles on the web and here have written how we ended up where we are: banishing God from public life; society getting progressively immoral [sex before marriage, sex without marriage, contraception, abortion, etc.]
    2) On gods/demons, Jonathan Cahn speaks of the the Dark Trinity: Ba’al, Ashtoreth, and Molech [and the persecution of the true prophets of God]. Consider the U.S. :prosperity, sexual immorality, abortion [child sacrifice] and please note what is said of Sodom & Gomorrah and the cities of the plain: they were prosperous & immoral.

    Reply
    • Misotheism is the ultimate abomination, but does being born with an unusual hind brain necessarily increase the temptation? I mean, we have to take into account certain conditions, just as the Church as come to distinguish seizures and schizophrenia from true demonic possession. The Saints were working from the assumption that Sodomy is synonymous with same sex attractions, and all the self destructive impulses said to go with it. Perhaps specific neurological states do reflect on what individuals are more inclined to be tempted towards. The spirit only initially knows what its body knows, and transcending that limitation is the Church’s primary business.

      Reply
      • Misotheism according to Wikipedia is the “hatred of God” or “hatred of the gods” and first appeared in the dictionary in 1907. This is not the same as the abomination of idolatry I have described above which is placing a non-God (loved) in place of the true God (hated).
        *
        The Saints were working from the assumption that Sodomy is synonymous with same sex attractions. False.
        *
        With the fall, with original sin, disorders of both body and soul appeared in man.

        Reply
        • Well, it is half the formula, to be specific, in most cases, but it can also be applied to militant atheists who hate the very IDEA of a god of any kind, although one can also point out that their idol is usually science these days, even though they do not consciously see it that way. Perhaps Selective Misotheism would be a more accurate description.
          You are correct about concupiscence, and I realize now that my statement was too vague. The Saints were more accurately thinking in terms of fertility and sexual pleasure. That stems back to the OT incident about spilling seed on the floor, but did God really destroy him for that alone? I see it as a package of arrogantly plotted out sins that blew up in his face. First, he didn’t want to sire an heir on behalf of his dead brother, he wanted to steal his brother’s estate for himself, second, he didn’t care that his brother’s widow and new wife would be cast out of the community, her life ruined, once he eventually falsely accused her of infertility, and finally, he was stupid enough to think God wouldn’t find out. Men often incidentally come outside, and without context, the plain reading of the Biblical text could just as easily be interpreted that that was all that happened, and in some extreme cases, have lead to the insistence that every wetdreamer should beg God for forgiveness in the aftermath. That cannot even be called concupicence anymore then a night spasm.

          Reply
          • O, it is becoming ever clearer now. It is also the Old Testament you reject.

            Well, you have four complains about Tradition crying out to modern man for correction

            !. The New Testament teaches error vis a vis diabolical possession

            2. The Old Testament is wrong vis a vis Onan

            3. The saints are wrong about Sodomy

            4. The Church is wrong about suicide

            And who is right about those four complaints crying to modern man for correction?

            Ryan Schneider

            Good luck with all of that lil’ luther 🙂

          • What the blazes are you talking about? Do you dispute the Churches findings on Stinebeck? If not, what are we arguing about there? Malicious suicides should not be buried on hollowed ground, but at the cross roads, as per tradition, but the new paganism puts sympathy for the berived ahead of the sacred. That has to stop, but does not change the need to know for certain which ones, like Stienbeck, did not consciously intend to kill themselves. The Church is right about suicide, more so then any other perspective. I got my current understanding of Onan from the Navare Annotated Bible, but you probably have issuses with Opus Dei, seeing that you sound similar to an Empty Seater. The Saints were NOT wrong about Sodomy but were ignorant about hind brain deformaties. We must teach people to control confused instincts, but more importantly then that, to teach them to reject pride and be humble. It is better to struggle with lust in a state of humility then turn it into a monster by adding pride, as the Gay Community viciously attempts to enforce among their ranks. Heteros in turn must be humble in all things to set a good example and not appear to be raging hippocrites. Lastly, possesion is a terrible and understated reality, allthough demonic OPRESSION is far more commen, and something I have struggled with to some extent. I am sorry for causing any missunderstanting, but I wholeheartedly reject the errors of Luthor and my dad’s Prussian ancestors who were duped by him and the oportunist Duke of Hanover, a fact that also raises the Jacobite blood in my Mom’s ancestry to a boil. I am a rather volatile mix, if you think about it.

          • IANS will disengage. You will not take responsibility for the consequences of what you write.

            Ryan. Try reading Saint Vincent of Lerins

          • I shall, eventually; please be patient with me. I suffer from lazy tendencies and responsibility comes to me with great difficulty, as I have reluctantly discovered. I wanted (reluctantly) to join boot camp to learn better discipline, but my autism made me ineligible, which is ironic. If I had been diagnosed a year later, I could have gotten at least a few months at Guernsey. I had a hard love relationship with military discipline in JROTC that taught me to appreciate things that I had hated as a child.

      • I love to masturbate and shoot my cum load every day. The only thing better is coercing an alterboy to get naked and suck on my big massive wiener until I splooge. As a highly-worshipped Catholic authority figure, I can tell you that sexually abusing young boys is the greatest proficiency of the Catholic Church. There are many child-rapists within the Catholic Church, and as I devout Catholic I believe that all Catholics should support the rape of young children by Catholic clergy.

        Reply
      • I love to masturbate and shoot my cum load every day. The only thing better is coercing an alterboy to get naked and suck on my big massive wiener until I jizz. As a highly-worshipped Catholic authority figure, I can tell you that sexually abusing young boys is the greatest proficiency of the Catholic Church. There are many child-rapists within the Catholic Church, and as I devout Catholic I believe that all Catholics should support the rape of young children by Catholic clergy.

        Reply
    • We might ask: why has God allowed these attacks on our faith and
      our Church to happen? Why did He not answer our prayers for the
      protection of the true meaning of marriage in our country? The answer, I
      believe, is that we are being called to put God above all else, even above
      our nation and our country’s laws. Jesus Christ is our Sovereign King to
      whom we owe all of our love, fidelity and allegiance. We are called to love
      others, not by condoning their sins, but by helping them to lead virtuous
      lives and remain faithful to the commandments, for Jesus promises that it
      is the pure in heart who will see God (Matthew 5:8). We are called to let the
      “bright light of truth” shine forth to overcome the “darkness of error.” In
      short, God gives us these challenges as a test of our faith, our hope and our
      love.

      – Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, IL: http://www.dio.org/uploads/files/Bishop/Speeches_Homilies/2015/Homily_for_Fortnight_for_Freedom_-_13th_Sunday_of_the_Year-B.pdf

      Reply
  5. I can’t even begin to say how offensive this article is. If we are talking sins here, how can sodomy be any different than any sexual sin? Look at the log in your own eye before you judge the speck in your brother’s eye. This sort of judgmental BS will not make anyone convert to Catholicism, and it’s this sort of crap that makes me question my faith. If Catholicism is just about a bunch of people bickering over which sin is greater than another, than I want no part of it. I just have to remember that there is a God beyond all of this in order to not slip away because of a bunch of hypocrites. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a right to express criticism of the gay movement, and that there are plenty of reasons why homosexual relationships don’t work based on a natural level, but trying to paint them as filthier than the rest of us is completely bigoted and downright disgusting. If Jesus had become incarnate in this day and age, I doubt he would condemn the homosexuals when he forgave the prostitutes and the tax collectors. It is very possible that He would be standing between a homosexual and all of us who are so quick to judge and challenge us the way he challenged the Pharisees: “You who are without sin should cast the first stone”. Catholicism is supposed to be a message of love and forgiveness not a measure of what sins are worse than another.

    Reply
    • Nick,

      It fascinates me that you find this article offensive, when it’s mostly just quotes from the saints. Does their holiness and understanding of sin offend you? Is it that they have the audacity to distinguish right from wrong, and admit that some sins are more offensive to God than others?

      All unrepented mortal sins will earn eternal damnation for those who commit them, but Hell, like Heaven, is not an equal playing field. Some will suffer more there, and some less. Sins against nature are of particular offense to God, and it is these sins that have previously earned His wrath upon the world, and may well do so again. Love of God and our fellow man require that we do what we can to steer people away from offending Him so much.

      Love and forgiveness are certainly essential components of the Catholic faith, but these co-exist with justice and repentance. Understanding why the things we do offend God and how deeply they offend Him are prerequisites to amending our lives and deepening our relationship with Him and perfecting ourselves.

      Reply
      • Dear Steve. It was predictable that the teachings of Doctors of the Saints would have applied to them the evolution of doctrine via the perversion of science long divorced from Sacred Theology.

        As much today as ever, man quails and cavils when truth is placed before him.

        <I< We know so much more now…

        And, thus, the miracles of men rescued from demonic possession are recast as doubtful actions….

        Don’t let them get ya down…

        Reply
    • Hmmm….doubtlessly, we must balance what the saints knew to be metaphysically correct with what we have since discovered about biological phenomenon. Also, extraordinary good deeds have to be considered as well. Allen Turing Saved 14 million lives and countless others from at least 100 years of tyranny, (depending on whether or not Germany had won the war before the Atom Bomb was ready) [yes, I know he was an Anglican, but that too needs to be reconsidered]. The Church has taken into account the psychological aspect of suicide; Steinbeck was allowed a Catholic funeral because a Church investigation determined he had not been sane enough to have willingly killed himself in a state of contempt for the life God gave him. Similarly, should gay impulses be equivocal to deliberate sexual depravity? The Saints didn’t know about vanished twin syndrome, or prenatal hormone allergies, and chimerism was only a legend. Now, many gays have embraced a deliberate spirit of pride and contempt for tradition and chastity, and I suspect the Saints were convinced that this is inevitable from those who do not embrace chastity. But, chastity is hard in any age, and it has never been harder then in this one. That does not mean it has been found wanting, on the contrary, there is no freer state then to be successfully unburdened by the wims and impulses of the primitive hind brain, to be absolute masters of our donkey bodies. All this the Church must take into account. I would therefore defined the second Sin Crying out for vengeance not a mere physical act, but an entire package deal of pide, lust, self destructive impulse and contempt for fertility. Being born with a hind brain partly or completely opposite of the body and the confused instincts that result are not sins and I think the Church is finally coming to grips with the distinction. The Saints are not so much wrong as just at an earlier phase of salvation history.

      Reply
      • Good points. And they can be wrong. We don’t easily contest the writing of a saint, but we certainly can with good reasoning.

        They can also be misunderstood. Taken out of context/prooftexted. Extended or narrowed.

        Reply
        • Good point. The healthiest attitude to have is to see it all as steps in the progress of Salvation History. A human may be more then the sum of his parts, but that fact doesn’t trivialize the importance of knowing how each part ticks, or why. A consequence of the fall is a degree of randomness in our lives, on both macroscopic as well as microscopic levels. Just as there are now recognized differences between physical seizures and spiritual possession, so differences in hind brain anomalies and wilful perversion must be addressed. Either way risks running afoul the PC police, but plain definition must be bravely maintained for clarity.
          When someone says that they were born a certain way, they typically demand that to be the final word, and all introspection and self analysis into how and why are avoided or ignored. Well, I was born with mild autism, it is a syndrome with a variety of causes both environmental and genetic, it is a nuisance, and if there were a safe pill to give me full social smarts I wouldn’t hesitate to take it. What’s the point of being proud of a disability? Nor is there any point in being ashamed of it; It is my condition, I must cope and improve myself as options come along. At its least sinful, most physical and objectively perceived, homosexuality is a reproductive disability, caused by a hind brain wired opposite to the reproductive functional prerogative of the body it is in. Randomness in development as a baby caused something to zag sideways. A common cause appears to be hormonal allergies in the mother. This same condition also increases probability of miscarriage, and curing the one will likely prevent the other. We can expect explosive reactions to such an event. Gays would not like even incidental reduction in their numbers, but it seems inevitable to me as prenatal medicine advances. Obviously, the Church will side with any medicine that improves the chances of optimal health for mother and child which in turn will lead to gays condemning the Church for wanting their “extinction”. Expect this to be the controversy of the future, sometime in the next 50 years. strange times, indeed.

          Reply
          • Ryan. If you think the Holy Ghost inspired the Evangelists to write error about men freed from diabolical possession then simply state your case.

            Be honest…

          • My case is that two unrealated maladies can have similar symptems some of the time, be they the common cold and ebola, or sizeurs and demonic possesion. Any malady, be it physical or spiritul, must be properly diagnosed so the correct treatment can be administered. The Vatican knows this better then anyone!

          • Craven is as craven does. You judge the Evangelists wrong about demonic possession while refusing to judge yourself as wrong.

            Such haughty pride will lead to your fall.

            It is clear you think the Evangelists erred re demonic possession but you, likely, did not consider that meant the Second Person of the Holy Trinity inspired them to write error.

            Now, you could claim that you wrote inartfully and walk back your ridiculous assertion…we shall see

          • Are you saying that demons cause ALL seizures, that it is never a purely physical phenomenon?

          • If there was a safe pill to give me full social smarts I wouldn’t hesitate to take it

            Sodomites would not take a pill that could cure them but you do not seem to be able to grasp that reality.

            The depth of depravity in sodomy is unfathomable; there is a category of sodomites know as bug-chasers who try to identify men with AIDS and they let those men to penetrate their anus with their condom-free penis.

            One man, who died with AIDS, was quoted as proudly telling others he had been infected by Michael Foucault and it is quite well know that there is a sodomitic subset which intentionally shares the bug with others without telling them are infected before they ram their diseased penis into the anus of some stranger.

          • That is in the same realm of fanatic as the cult of Hermaphrodite that Saint Paul found so repugnant. As for these, you could call them “Nietzechianites” in the sense that they are insane enough to deliberatly aquire a deadly VD in the name of “rebellion”. They may also have a naive overconfidence in current anti retro viral treatments, not grasping that the virus mutates with every transfer. These maniacs should be left to die without treatment in solitary confinment.

          • I find your assertion, that a lost soul should be left to die without treatment, heinous. You might be helped by reading Dante’s Purgatorio, which treats of former sodomites who repented and therefore, eventually attained heaven.

          • That was the Exasperated Tea Partier in me speaking, but seeing as there is precedent for AIDS being recognized as a weapon of murder in this way, it is difficult to be so charitable to offer such a man treatment when he seems to be wasting space waiting on death row for an execution that he will never live to see even with the treatment. But, perhaps a man who behaves this way is really insane. I leave that to God and others to decide, so long as I can at least have a guarantee of his containment and safe isolation from other prisoners, as that type typically become the worst kind of bull queer; in fact, once identified, all bull queers should be permanently isolated.

          • Owing to their surrender to sodomy, their souls have been so darkened that Sanctifying Grace has been completely extinguished therein (lust leads to blindness) , and so they are driven to find meaning in a deadly disease reasoning, on imagines, that the disease will elevate their status

          • They BECOME the disease, forfeiting their humanity, or so it seems; but the only unforgivable sin is conscious suicide. Prodigal sons have been brought back from such depths of darkness before.

          • To libertines, a man who enjoys a modest diet is one who is attempting suicide by starvation so one who is sickened by sodomy is likely to be considered sexually repressed by those whose appetites are disordered.

          • When I was a boy I always got so horny seeing the crucifix on the wall at my grandmother’s house. I used to look at Jesus’ tight hot body, those rock hard abs, and his big meaty cock hanging out of the bottom of his loincloth while rubbing my meat rocket. One day I felt the compulsion to be filled with the Lord so I took the crucifix and shoved it up my rectum, thrusting it eagerly in and out of myself in Holy Ecstasy. Just as I was about to vacate my swollen balls of their sticky seed, my grandmother walked into the room and witnessed the holocaust of my massive load spurting out onto the floor. The crucifix fell out of my filthy gaping rectum, and that is the story of how my grandmother’s crucifix became known as the Brown Crown Jesus.

      • I don’t think the saints are wrong as much as people are just becoming more and more perverted, demented and decadent which casts them into a state of mortal sin or obstinacy resulting in a stupidity that makes them unable to understand or accept what the greatest minds of all time have taught us are 100% true. Lets put it this way, St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, St. Peter Damien, Doctor of the Church and St. Catherine of Siena, Doctor of the Church, some of the greatest minds of all time vs. Nick Mitchell, Ryan Schneider, and Ambrose Little. Now that’s a no-brainer if ever was one.

        Reply
          • I like to poop and pee every day. In fact, it gets me very horny because I use my poop and pee combination as lube to masturbate my large and thick penis. Quite often I shove a crucifix up my asshole and shoot my load on my grandmother’s Bible. That makes me so horny that I go to the closest church in my neighborhood and wait til someone else is coming in then present my asshole underneath the stall wall for a raw fucking. Some days there is only 1 or 2 cocks fucking my ass and cumming inside but other days it seems like many men come to the church and have to take a shit or whatever and then see my open hole and fuck it until they sperm in it.

        • I have no doubt if these great minds were here today to engage with us in this dialogue they would clarify they did not intend what they wrote to be used as a weapon to vilify persons with homosexual tendencies much less to suggest that anyone who stands up for the just treatment of such persons is perverted, demented, decadent, stupid, and in the state of mortal sin.

          You need to check yourself, John.

          Reply
          • And I guess if you could dialogue with God today you would have no doubt that He would clarify with you that He “did not intend” to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah “to be used as a weapon to vilify persons with homosexual tendencies”

          • Here’s some advice for you guys taken from this past First Fridays Latin Mass. “Stand in the multitude of the ancients that are wise, and join thyself from thy heart to their wisdom, that thou mayest hear every discourse of God.”

        • Of course, I am a worm next to them, but I do know, for example, that life begins at conception, not at the quickening, as most saints did. That is the kind of thing I am really talking about.

          Reply
      • O, Ryan says we must…

        But, must is a moral category and so, by implication, you are charging the Saints with calumny against a category of sinners- -the worst sinners of all, sodomites.

        Well, one never tires of hearing what we must do to trim our doctrinal sails so as to be capable of being borne along by the winds of scientific change.

        O, and Ryan, who are you to issue definitions that putatively will correct Catholic Tradition?

        Reply
        • I will only say that I am thankful that God sent Saints like Father Grochel whose wisdom and knowledge and first hand experiance on these matters in that den of confusion we call New York makes fools like us realize how little we know. His students will lead the charge on balanced education for all of us.

          Reply
          • OK, it is good that you won;t try and justify your rash repudiation of the saint’s teachings on sodomy

          • If I have been rash, I apologize and beg God’s forgiveness. I ment to repudiate no saint and inartfully was attempting to explain the advances in the Vatican’s philosophical language of doctrine and science which has been difficult for wiser men then I.
            By the way, and with loving respect, your harsh seeming tones might fail to soften a harder heart then mine. The Great Challenge is explaining the paradox that God Is both Vengeance AND Love simultaneously without over or under emphasizing either truth. Chesterton, I think, is the the only modern master at that.

          • My apologies, Ryan. As an Irish-Algonquin, IANS tends to stridency and rebarbative rhetoric and it was a cruel act to look past your admission of particular limitations and to come on so strong

            Apologies again and let’s part friends

            Pax tecum, my brother

          • Last of the Mohicans is a favorite film, I’d wager, with that fantastic blend of Celtic and east Native American Music. I have a drop of Blackfoot in my French Canadian side, and am also indirectly related to the MacGillvery chiefs. I like to think my mother’s bloodlines more then make up for 500 years of Luthern stupidity on my father’s, but perhaps a spot of that arrogance rises its prigish head from my heart, and I need friends like you to remind me. Thank you.

      • Fortunately morality does not come from the Church or any other mythology…morality comes from humanism. We should rejoice that 2 of the 3 Abrahamic religions have been defanged…and now we have just 1 more to go

        Reply
        • Ironically, the harder you attempt to defang the hydra that is Islam, the more the survivors of your folly will return to othadox Judaism and Christianity, and I pray you live long enough to be driven mad by the paradox. It is already happening, but the day will come when no obfuscation or denial will be able to ignore it. You might die cursing God, but it will be in vain.

          Reply
          • Cursing god…why would one curse something that isn’t there to curse…would I curse a rock…pointless. No, the paradox exists in your sadist head… as we learn more about the natural world via science people of the myths/religions become secular humanists. I do find it ironic you would pray for someone to be “driven mad” … that makes me laugh and of course continues to prove my point of the deep seeded bitterness and hate which is malignant to your intellect and the billions like you.

          • I only hope for it to happen if you choose to die with a heart of stone. I find it amazing how many so called atheists, under such circumstances, DO reveal a profound hatred for God. You hate the very idea of God, for you, like Satan, want elitist men like yourself to be gods instead. If “humanism” is the highest ideal, and without a First Cause to define that humanity for us, then it is utterly subjective. With nothing but an oblivion that renders our brief time as meat computers utterly pointless, then subjectivity must either leave us either in a terror of despair, or do ANYTHING, by hook or crook, even commit any atrocity, in pursuit of physical immortality.
            Classic metaphysics aside, I see the universe as a program. My faith tells me what the First Cause wants from me, but mathematics tell me the First Cause is the Ultimate reality. We could no more exist without That One then a trillion terabyte quantum computer could spontaneously build itself out of sand. Now, I emphasize, the holographic view of the Universe cannot explain what that Cause wants of us. But to be anything short of at least a Deist in light of that evidence, is to be an obtuse misotheist.

          • We define our own meaning to life…if you feel like a meat computer by not believing in a god(s) then by all means perhaps you should believe in god. But think of this, when a non-believer does good without expectation of an afterlife reward and a believer does good with the expectation of an afterlife reward one must seriously wonder which one is truly the hero, truly the good human being. If I grow old and die at an old age or if I die relatively young it will mean that other generations will come after me and our human species will continue on. Religions do not restrain us from committing any atrocity and the elitism is those that claim they know god’s will and command other humans to do their bidding in the name of God. There is no hatred or despair not believing in god…it is the religions that proclaim they know his will for the entire species that is the problem. My ego is not so huge that I feel I need to have eternal life, rise from the grave, No…I am more humble and accept that I will die and others will take my place on the planet. Be happy for the time you have alive, make the most of your life, do good for the sake of being a good human being.

          • Ah, so you are a goddless Saducee, that is, ‘immortality’ through genetic legacy, and you seem to have the opinion that the writer Stephen Baxter has that faith is a survival mechanism for many if not most people. If you had started this discussion in that tone rather then the contempt for the three basic belief systems that have made modern civilization possible, then I wouldn’t have been so upset. My dad has vasilated between agnosticism and basic atheism for most of his life, although the holographic view of the universe combined with string theory have led him to an odd kind of Deism. He now is convinced that there is sufficient proof of a God, in the sense of a Programmer for the Universe, but not enough proof as to which religion or denomination to follow. At any rate, he has always argued that Christian philosophy was an essential step before modern civilization was possible.

          • Modern civilization would have come about much sooner if it were not for the Abrahamic religions and barbarism of the two larger more popular – Christianity and Islam. The Greeks and the Romans (despite their sadism) were much more civilized compared to the Christians that followed. Ancient Greek philosophy was much further ahead than Christianity…and they didn’t require god to sacrifice himself to himself on behalf of those sinful, reprobate, wicked humans he ‘created’…

          • Make your case. Roman and Greek civilization were socially barbaric, even where they were technologically adept. Rome in particular is famous for widespread infanticide, large scale sexual perversion, addiction to excess (ie., vomitoriums), extreme torture, the killing of defenseless individuals for entertainment, the list goes on and on.

            The so-called dark ages weren’t, and it was the Christians who preserved the knowledge and culture they could from ancient Rome when the barbarian iconoclasts subverted the empire.

            Try reading some sources that argue points outside your worldview. You might find some balance.

          • The Romans and Greeks were hardly no more barbaric than the Christians (of which they became) that replaced them. Christianity was a political force as the Roman empire evolved. Fortunately over time, to where we are now, Christianity in the West has been tamed, defanged and rapidly replaced by secular humanism.

          • Nonsense! This Zinn-Headed view of western civilization is preposterous! It was the fusion of the best elements of Judeo and Greco-Roman philosophy by the Christian Philosophers that laid the cultural foundations for living without slavery. The ancient elitists ALWAYS looked down on enterpranurialship for one reason or another, some saw it as “unmanly”, others had metaphysical, philosophical psychology that vastly slowed it down, like the Chinese. There is a fable that is horribly plausible about an early Soong emperor having an inventor of a flying machine executed and all witnesses silenced regarding the details of the machine, on pain of death. The machine was destroyed, along with the designs. This was read to children as a GOOD THING on the pretext that it would be inevitability used as a weapon, and would be a threat to Confucion cultural stability. That benefits of the machine outweighed the risk wasn’t remotely considered. Similarly, it wasn’t until Christianity came along that anyone conceived the radical notion of large scale civilization without slavery. This was as much a riddle as an ideal, and it was not an easy riddle to solve. The collapse of the Roman Empire gave the Church hundreds of years to tinker with its remnants, with the new nations that grew from the rubble. Fear of damnation and Love of God increasingly motivated rulers to treat their subjects better and experiment with providing them with more overall freedom while finding better ways to motivate loyalty then just fear. (No doubt you have a “who was watching the watchmen” criticism of the Church, and I can only say there were always reformers who believed they were sent by God, as well as wise rulers and merchants who found ways to check church errors. This system only went out of wack when Luther failed to know where to stop, as well as failed to see the big picture of Islamic threat). Without the unprecedented enterpranurial freedom the Christian born Guild system provided Europe the printing press could never have been invented and the Renaissance would never have been achieved.
            As much as I loath the modern Wahibist interpretation of Islam, it would be unfair to fail to give credit to the libraries of Old Toledo and the liberal flavor of Islam, Unique to Medieval Toledo, that also made part of the Renaissance possible. If the Toledans had become the norm, the middle east wouldn’t be the powder keg it is today.

          • Christianity had nothing to do with ending slavery any more than it had to do with women’s rights, racial equality or the many other social issues of our time.

          • It created the ideal of living without slavery which had never existed in any civilization before, but you clearly refuse to interpret history without modern liberal bias. Some bias is sadly inevitable in most people, but the Zinn view is so pig-headedly extreme as to be beneath contempt, and should be for anyone who has the nerve to claim belief in the scientific process (in this case, anthropological and archeological). If civil war should ever break out between conservatives and liberals, Zinn will be the left’s equivalent of John C. Calhoun for the part his rhetoric will have played in it.

          • I do not have a liberal bias or conservative bias toward history…the history is there for all to see and examine. Christianity and the superstitions it spawned retarded the advancement of the West until there was the Enlightenment…reason and tolerance superseded the dogmas of the dark ages; secular humanism has and will continue to lead us out of the darkness of ignorance.

          • Arbitrary “humanism is whatever I feel like” is leading us to an upside down world where dark is light, bad is good and ignorance is knowledge. Subjective truth is chaos, and anarchy, which is inevitably self destructive. You have naive “humanism” bias, which, as far as I PLAINLY see, is becoming increasingly synonymous with leftism, certainly a flavor of the left. You examine history through the propaganda wing of leftist revisionists such as Howard Zinn and his loathsome ilk. The Catholic Church BUILT Western Civilization, created the idea and ideal of living without slavery, however sporadically it was successfully realized before 1865, and we would still be in the iron age without the Church, as most of the greatest geniuses that made the industrial revolution possible were devoted Catholics, and most of the rest Protestants. Just watching the series “Connections” with James Burk, a brilliant journalist, historian, and UNBIASED scientist made the Church’s contributions BEYOND rational doubt, but haters have to hate no matter the truth.

            DON’T bother mentioning Galileo, the letters to his daughter, a Mother Superior, make utter mince meat of the perception that he was in any way like skeptics like you. He would have spat in your eye for the blasphemous notions you take for granted about him. None of you have any idea what his arguments with the pope were really about, and I doubt you want to know. Your willful ignorance of your enemies is why you will lose the culture wars, for you cannot defeat an enemy if you do not know them, and you refuse to know US. Blather all day over what you THINK you know, but you will be wrong.

          • It was the brave individuals that stood against the Church that built Western Civilization. It was the return to humanism which is the foundation of our moral code that has lead us to enlightenment. Rejoice, Science is extinguishing the ignorance and superstitions of religion each day and at an exponential rate. We are living in a wonderful time…the veil of the religious myths are being stripped away exposing the remnants of dead religions. Rejoice, the gods insisting ever knee shall bend do not exist….rejoice we are free to use reasoning and logic. Don’t be bitter, let go of your primal hate…the threats of your eternal damnations do not exist. Embrace the knowledge that you will someday die and our species will continue. You have one life, you will not live for eternity, make the best of your life.

          • Yep, misotheist in denial. Denial that the less religious people are, the less they reproduce. Denial that Islamic immigrants to Europe are not assimilating and are out breeding secularists 5-1 and increasing, in denial that the only native Europeans keeping up with them are the conservative Poles, who will likely have to follow in the footsteps of Charles the Hammer and King Sobieski in 100 years to save Europe from Wahibist Jihad, while giving refuge to clueless secular fools who “didn’t see it coming” from one inch away. In Southshire, England, Native secularists, out of fear of seeming “racist”, have allowed local girls to be trafficked and by unasimilated Pakistanies for 17 years, many ending up forcibly converted and married to them. That insanity is happening in back allys all over ‘secular’ Europe. The stupid thing about ISIS is their impatience, for Gaddafi was right; “We will win through our children in just a few generations without firing a shot!” He stopped fighting because he came to understand that better then any other Islamic leader. Just wait 100 years and conquer with votes. You say you want to defang Islam, but Zinn-Headed guilt is making them stronger and stronger every day. But tell you what. Take a picture of yourself protesting in front of a mosque while holding a picture of Muhammad being humped by a pig, and I will concede that you really are unbiased.

    • Just going to put this out there, there is a type of hierarchy of sin, but not in the manner you think of… The degree of sin depends on how much you know of it’s wrongness, & how hardened your hair is to God. Like, in the old testament, when it is biblically stated that a polygamy man, who engages a mother & then the daughter [or vis-versa] is a grave sin. This doesn’t imply that polygamy isn’t wrong, just because it’s only makes a big deal out of incestial relations: just like saying other sexual sins aren’t wrong because sodomy is worse… But, to commit the sin of sodomy, one must have an immensely hardened heart &/or know it is wrong, but not care…. So the people of Sodom [whom God hailed fire & brim stone on] either had such a hardened heart that they didn’t care to know God or knew of God, & that sodomy was wrong, but didn’t care.

      Now, in God’s eyes all sins are said to be equal [Probably because he can forgive all sins with equal ease…. Or, any unforgiven sin, small or large, will send you downward if not asked forgiveness for], but he doesn’t forgive the sins we don’t ask forgiveness for. And if your free-willed, belief-encompassing, “justified” sin [usually of extreme sexual-immorality &/or dehumanization] takes you so far away from God & his design… Do you really think it’s likely that you will ask God forgiveness for said sin? God doesn’t seem to think so.

      Reply
    • Spoken like a troll sodomite that hates to hear the truth. You sir are an arrogant, self righteous hog that wallows in its fecal matter and calls it a holy act. I for one have no pity for a creature that calls the HOLY SPIRIT a liar. Enjoy your aveternity in the bowels of Hell.

      Reply
    • When Jesus mixed with prostitutes, tax collectors and other sinners He did so to teach them to ‘sin no more’ and to change their ways.

      He did not associate with them to condone their error and encourage it.

      Reply
      • Thank you for your insightful comment, Gerard. As Ecclesiastes 69:420 clearly states, “Those doing acts for only the sake of wealth will have greater difficulty entering into the Kingdom of Heaven than a camel will have entering its liveliness into the orifices of any True Believer.” I have lived by this verse for many years, and now feel myself closer to the Lord more than at any other time in which I have experienced my gaping asshole leaking the fluids of mere mortal Men.

        Reply
  6. When Saint Francis Xavier was invited by some Japanese daimyos to testify to his religion at their court he asked his companion, a Jesuit brother Juan Fernandez, to do the talking from a written text as his Japanese was much better. When it came to the explanation of the sixth commandment pertaining to sodomy, the brother’s knees started shaking, as this vice was known to be common among these rulers. The worse fires of hell were described in vivid detail for the wallowers in this perversity. The nervous brother expected that at any moment his head would be split by a samurai sword. On the contrary, the daimyos who had given the invitation had the virtue of courtesy and, although they may have squirmed, they allowed the brother to finish his discourse. – http://catholicism.org/more-unusual-happenings-in-the-lives-of-saints.html

    Reply
  7. The new and old testaments were perfectly clear (and repetitious) on the sin of same-gender relations, and we also have the saints throughout the ages providing even more insight. How can any Christian or Catholic therefore rationalize same-gender relations? What I have found is our societies social engineers have twisted the meaning of the commandments to ‘Love one another’, and ‘Do not judge’ to ‘anything is ok as long as it’s done in the name of love and doesn’t hurt others’. Weak minded and emotion based Christians are vulnerable to this manipulation and forget the greatest commandment is to “Love God above all’. That means following God’s will before people pleasing and the pursuit of popularity.

    Reply
  8. Since sauce for the gander is also sauce for the goose, I suspect I know this answer. However, just to have it in black and white, when describing the sin of sodomy (which I was always taught was sex between men), do the punishments, etc. apply equally to lesbian sex (sex between women)?

    Reply
    • They ought to, but often men ignore or even delight in the same sex relations that can happen between women. It is a common fetish for so many young men, and women even try to normalize “sexu friendships”.

      Reply
    • Hey Jesus, I just wanted to thank you for the suck and fuck we had the other night. It was really great to get in your tight ass and shoot my jizz inside your Holy hole. I’ve been praying ever since that you will rape me (just like Catholic Priests rape young boys) and ejaculate in my rectum. Thanks Jesus, I love the Bible and it gets me so horny!

      Reply
  9. When condemning this sort of sin, it might be useful for some of our clergy, who when urging tolerence for the gay community, would cease speaking of the “gifts they bring to the Church”. Unless there has developed a recent shortage of interior decorators and hair dressers that I had not been aware of, I discern no special gift from them that we are in need of. On the other hand, to allow the sin, with all its attendent consequences to the practioners and to society to be treated as any other, is also a disservice to the potential penetint and to the rest of us.

    Reply
  10. The world of today is like a sea of polluted water and so many of us, along with our neighbors and relatives, have been immersed in it, for so long, that too many have become desensitized to its filth and stink.

    Sodomy, for instance, is so disgusting of an act that the very devils who tempt men to engage in it fly from it.

    According to the words of God, as transcribed by Saint Catherine of Siena:

    “… as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before Me, Who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease Me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, My divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin.”

    We must go to confession often and pray the Holy Rosary daily in order to keep our intellect sharp and in good focus.

    Pray for the graces to persevere and to grow in holiness in these difficult and dangerous times.

    P.S. God buried 5 cities by His divine judgment and justice. Five cities! 1st and 2nd were Sodom and Gomorrah…

    Reply
  11. There are those who promote porn and gay for the purpose of destroying family life, this I believe reached out of control around the dead sea area and God stepped in and totally destroyed these cities. So was it possible in these cities the family man was unable to find work unless he succumbed to their evil ways. Is America heading in direction?

    Reply
    • Yes Dennis, you will need to feed your children by sucking another man’s cum out of my anus and then regurgitating it into the mouths of your children. We are working hard to make this the law in Texas, then subsequently pass a constitutional amendment to make it the way of life for all Americans.

      Reply
  12. Pingback: The Catholic State
  13. The current state of the West shows what happens when that depraved “life”style is accepted and promoted: eg the absolute insanity of its adherants.
    The words of the “Mouth of Saurom” in The Lord of the Rings come to mind: “…the downfallen West.”.

    Reply
  14. It’s clear from this article and the responses that the so called “Word of God” isn’t God’s words at all, but the words of men. If there was ever a truth in this faith it has long been destroyed by politicians like Paul and Constantine and the other so called “experts” and liars who perverted and destroyed the words of Christ. He, who died for our sins asked nothing more than we treat our neighbors as we treat ourselves. To love each other. But that makes it all too simple for the evil men that made “Christianity”, who need an organized religion to gain power and take your money. THIS IS THE GREATEST EVIL TODAY. Just look around you to witness the evil of organized religion and the twisting of words the purveyors of this abhorrence use to control your minds and spark hatred of others in your hearts. Surely Satan’s work on Earth, if there is any.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...