Msgr. Charles Pope dismantles a tedious meme

Msgr. Charles Pope dismantles a tedious meme December 6, 2012

The lie that the “true sin of Sodom” was “inhospitality”. As Scott Hahn pointed out to me in passing once years ago, the threat of homosexual gang rape is a particularly acute form of inhospitality. The attempt to wring some sort of glorious affirmation of gay sex out of Scripture is the work of liars and suckers who believe liars. Tertullian was much more clear-eyed when he asked “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” It’s much more honest to just face the fact that, while the Christian tradition has a huge amount of room for those strugglng with same sex attraction (as there is room in the tradition for those struggling with all the other forms of–typically heterosexual–sexual derangement to which our fallen flesh is heir), there is simply no quarter given to the idea that sex is intended by God to be indulged anywhere outside the bounds of marriage between one man and one woman. It’s extraordinarily hard for post-moderns to hold on to that simple fact. But that simple fact exists since sex is ordered toward love and fruitfulness and the family is the place where that is to happen.

We are currently in the midst of a vast social experiment in which we will continue to discover the truth of this by suffering the consequences of denying the truth of this. Our descendents will curse us for attempting the experiment.

"What a sweet comment, --and not at all a bad idea now that the younger ..."

Being as How It’s Around Graduation ..."
"I agree with your first 2 sentences. However it does not mean that Democrats are ..."

Abortion: Realpolitik, Kulturkampf, and Evangelization

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • “Our descendents will curse us for attempting the experiment.”

    The few descendents who managed to make it to birth, that is.

  • Norris

    Some of us descendents are already here and already cursing the experiment.

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    Part of the unfolding tragedy is how the media is propagandizing and brainwashing the younger generation of Americans on this issue. And the worst offenders–because so insidious –are the entertainment shows (especially the comedy shows) which provide disguised moral hemlock between laughs. One comedy actor had had enough of what he called such “filth” and urged people not to watch his show. And, wow, did the hammers come down on him

  • When my OT class got to this story, I dutifully explored the various interpretations of the gang’s motives (homosexual rape vs. inhospitality). I pushed my students to do the Dominican thing and embrace the broadest possible interpretation: rape is always inhospitable.
    Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  • And, of course, some of the people hurt worse by the whole thing are those who struggle with same-sex attraction/desire for somone not their spouse/just plain old unchastity in any form who try to live the life in the Spirit. Makes the whole thing more miserable by a thousand times.

  • It’s frightening how these Scripture re-interpreters work. Paul is ignored (homophobic or closet gay himself), the OT is either flat-out rejected or turned into a riff on inhospitality. Jude 7…well, I’m not sure what they say about that…I suppose either Judas Iscariot truly wrote the book, or Jude was another homophobe.

  • obpoet

    Imagine, the audacity of attempting to rewrite God’s moral law. Just stop and think about that. How can anyone revise God’s law? In the end you will always know you are living a lie. Isn’t the better strategy to just capitulate and say, “Have mercy on me, O God, a sinner,” no matter what the sin?

  • Hans-Georg

    There is one passage stating the sin was satiety of bread, inhospitality and abomination.
    Of course abomination was the worst and means sodomy.

  • Observer

    I think the argument reminds of similar grounds how the argument went between the Bible vs. Evolution. First, evolution does not have anything to do with sanctification of man and his return to God through sanctifying grace. Because, the fall was the birthing point of sin. So, God, out of love, works to rescue man and save him from the fall (not lizards and other creatures evolving, if you will.) Second and last, the Bible is a matter of Salvation (God’s love for man; love letters) and a history where he embraces the task to save all to know him, to love him, and to serve him (not in a sense of laborious slavery like mere servitude. Rather, what it means to truly love – giving one’s self to another: “…He gave his only begotten son…”) Sripture is a bunch of love letters and the extent of God’s love through history. Comparing evolution with scripture is quite literaly expressive of what Christ warned: “Don’t throw perls before swine.” Especially when the evolved argument goes from swine into prideful men who act as creatures which charaterize their behavior from the extent of an evolving biology with out a soul of a person and the means of sanctifying grace where one lives in God’s presence.

    Likewise, inhospitality is the extent of God’s nature (love) being totally un-accepted by the men of Sodom and Gomorrah. God’s presence was with the angels; and, accordingly toward Lot’s family (He was there.) Yes, there was inhospitality to God in his love (his merciful presence.) He permitted the disease of lust – as a doctor tries to reveal to a patient of what he or she is sick with – to show how fallen men are and were at that time. He was allowing, in his love, their sinful passions as a sign of what they are lacking and missing – in his presence: His love and salvific desire to return them into his covenant (Abraham repeatedly asked him to find enough people to spare the people and the city.) God’s mercy was there.

    Rather, men out of pride, re-acted violently and wickedly, because their pride hidden under the lustful wicked attractions and desires of sodomee could not relinquish them to know, to love, and trust in God – he was granting his assistance and his love as a promise to Abraham. So, these men, in their hearts – rebelling against God’s mercy and assistance – hated God so much to the point they hated the existence of men (because, God was freeing the family – particularly Lot’s – from the perpetual enslavement towards sodomee.)

    Think even further, you aren’t dealing with mere sodomee. Wouldn’t a population of men merely dwindle? How did a population of men continually exist? Not because of mere sodomee and a dwindling population. Here’s a clue: Lot’s family co-created (or, as a given and obvious sign, many families that lived in the same city to were under the same enslavement.) It was the most wicked form of sodomee that existed through encouragement of hetero relations. The men wanted to keep Lot and many other families into the clutches of Sodom and Gomorrah to co-produce offspring to exist for their continual desires and lustful passions (it was giving life to something that was really dead.)

    In other words, their sinful nature thrived on the existence of men born out of non-sodomic relations. As such, Lot’s family was a sign of what families – being enslaved under sodomic rule – had been under; and, a culture that compromised the family into perpetual servitude of sin. Thus, you had families in hetero relations becoming a living cell for its’ existence.

  • Thomas R

    I did get into a bit of an argument with a Catholic elsewhere on these kinds of issues. He was more than a little perplexed as he is straight and I’m not exactly straight. (Some SSA, 40-60% or so)

    He didn’t really re-interpret the Bible as such. What he did was more like “Science and God can’t really contradict, we either misunderstand one or other. Science says homosexuality is good. God would know this. Therefore everything in the Bible that indicates sex is limited to conjugal marriage is just God tolerating their ignorance or speaking to them where they were then. Similar to how the Bible doesn’t talk about banning slavery.”

    What made it awkward to me is I really liked the guy. (But not like that) He’s a nice guy. To him Catholicism is only about being a nice person, pretty much what he said, nothing more or harder than that. And I was a bit aghast so didn’t respond well to him.