The Sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is not about “Hospitality”

Late last week on the blog the I made mention of the sins that “cry to heaven for vengeance.” The traditional list, is summarized in the Catechism which states 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 (# 1867).

It probably does not surprise you that I got push-back from certain homosexuals who wrote in to “remind” me that the sin of Sodom “has nothing to do with homosexual acts, or homosexual rape. Rather,” they said, “It is only about violations of hospitality rules of the ancient near east.”

I did not post these comments since I did not have time then to deal with this oft heard but very mistaken notion about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 19. But the meaning of the story is not unclear, and attempts to radically reinterpret the fundamental issue at the core of the story, tell us more about the struggle of the “interpreter” than of the story which has a rather plain, unambiguous meaning. The sin, the abomination, of Sodom, while not excluding any number of injustices, is clearly set forth as widespread homosexual practice.

When interpreting the meaning of a passage we do well to look not only to the plain meaning of the text, but also to other Biblical texts that may refer back to it and help clarify any ambiguities. In this text we can do both.

Then the Lord said, “The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.” The men turned away and went toward Sodom….The two arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. “My lords,” he said, “please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.” “No,” they answered, “we will spend the night in the square.” But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house. They called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.” “Get out of our way,” they replied. And they said, “This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge! We’ll treat you worse than them.” They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door. But the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house and shut the door. Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, young and old, with blindness so that they could not find the door. The two men said to Lot, “Do you have anyone else here—sons-in-law, sons or daughters, or anyone else in the city who belongs to you? Get them out of here,because we are going to destroy this place. The outcry to the Lord against its people is so great that he has sent us to destroy it.” (Genesis 18:20-22; 19:1-13)

Now those who want to argue that this text is vague in meaning, begin by stating that the phrase “have sex with them” is more literally rendered from the Hebrew as “that we may know them.” And it is true that the Hebrew word יָדַע (yada) is rendered “know.” But this word is also a Hebrew idiom for carnal knowledge. For example in Genesis 4:1 we read: Now Adam knew (yada) Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gotten a man with the help of the LORD.”

That the carnal knowledge meaning is intended here is also made clear in the context of what follows. Lot first calls their proposal a “wicked thing.” But just getting to know someone, or to greet a stranger, is not a wicked thing. Further that unlawful carnal knowledge is meant is also made clear in that Lot (horrifyingly) proposes that they have sex instead with his daughters “who have never slept with a man” (i.e. his virgin daughters).

It is true that Lot is further motivated by the fact that these men (angels in disguise) are under his care. But that does not change the nature of the threat that is involved, namely homosexual seduction or rape.

Being unable to dissuade “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old” from the attempt at homosexual seduction, Lot is pulled to safety by the the two angelic visitors who tell Lot to get ready to go since they have come to destroy the city.

Now to the average reader who does not need to be defensive, the text conveys a clear message of widespread homosexuality in Sodom, a fact rather bluntly confirmed by the angelic visitors. And this is the clear emphasis of the story, not hospitality norms or other secondary concepts.

However, it may help to confirm this fact in other texts of the Bible and to legitimately ask if this is the only sin involved. Two texts are most specifically helpful in this regard. First there is a text from Ezekiel:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did abominable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. (Ezekiel 16:49-50)

Now this is the text used most often by those who deny any homosexual context in the sin of Sodom. And, to be fair, it does add a dimension to the outcry God hears. There are clearly additional sins at work in the outcry: pride, excess or greed, and indifference to the poor and needy. But there are also mentioned here unspecified “abominations.” The Hebrew word is תּוֹעֵבָ֖ה (tō·w·‘ê·ḇāh) which refers to any number of things God considers especially detestable, such as worshiping idols, immolating children, wrongful marriage and also homosexual acts. For example, Leviticus 18:22 uses the word in this context: Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

But of itself, this text from Ezekiel does remind us that widespread homosexuality is not the only sin of Sodom. And while the abomination mentioned here may not be specified exactly, there is another Scriptural text that does specify things more clearly for us. It is from the Letter of Jude:

In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings. (Jude 7-8)

And thus it is specified that the central sin of Sodom involved “sexual immorality (ἐκπορνεύσασαι) and perversion (ἀπελθοῦσαι ὀπίσω σαρκὸς ἑτέρας – literally having departed to strange or different flesh).” And this would comport with the description of widespread homosexual practice in Sodom wherein the practitioners of this sin are described in Genesis 19 as including, “all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old.”

Hence we see that, while we should avoid seeing the sin of Sodom as only widespread homosexual acts (for what city has only one sin?), we cannot avoid that the Scriptures do teach that homosexual acts are central to the sins of Sodom which cry to heaven for vengeance, and for which God saw fit to bring a fiery end.

Genesis 19 speaks plainly of the sin, Ezekiel 16 broadens the description but retains the word “abomination,” and Jude 7 clearly attests to sexual perversion as being the central sin with which Sodom and Gomorrah were connected.

God the Holy Spirit has not failed to teach quite clearly on the fundamental nature of the sins involved in these ancient cities. Widespread homosexual practice is surely the keynote of condemnation received by these cities and attempts to recast the matter as a “hospitality” issue must be seen for the fanciful distortion they are.

I do not post this video because I agree with it, do really know what to think of it. Most Archeologists DO agree that the two cities were located right near what is today the Dead Sea, and this video falls in that general range. But archeologists are not at all certain that the many excavations in the area of the Dead Sea do in fact correspond to the cities called Sodom and Gomorrah.

“What do you say to Homosexuals who would agree that it is about Hospitality AND gang rape BUT NOT consensual sex (especially when both partners love each other)?...”

Think hard about the very act that they undertake if you can bear the disgust. (Saint Paul the apostle says that such things should not even be mentioned. I bet he was talking about Sodomy. )

What they are doing is abominable because it is a lie to our fellow man and at the same time an insult to our Creator, who designed us to operate a certain way.

If an automaker built a car to operate with round tires, would it comfort you as a fellow driver to get behind another driver who found square tires to fit onto the axle of his car? Would it show respect for the automaker?

Without digging into graphic details here, what they are doing is also very unhealthy, filthy, unsanitary, endangering all those who partake.

If one finds that he desires something unnatural he must use his mind and will to discipline himself and seek to follow God’s will. Demons are involved who will influence and foster addictions. That is why intense prayer and fasting must be a part of every leader’s life. That is why people in general need to be used to hardship and selflessness. That is part of true charity, even when one’s emotions must be held at bay until they can catch up to the mind and spirit.

Read and show your friends the document “Humanae Vitae - Encyclical Letter of His Holiness Paul VI” (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html).

In it is found the procreative nature of chaste love, and the nature of the sexual act being inseparable from an openness to new life. That quite flies in the face of homosexuality.

Rebellion is in the wind. We must resist and draw near to God.

It’s not MY problem, it’s the problem of many supporters of gay marriage and gay relationships ( yes, it includes those who attend synagogues and churches ).

The want to nuance (or “equalize”) things by insisting that the prohibition against homosexual sex is SIMILAR to the prohibition against heterosexual sex.

And since the instance mentioned in the Genesis passage talks about the men of Sodom wanting to gang rape the strangers, this does not apply to gays today because they don’t want to rape anyone.

Therefore, if you allow gays to marry, the prohibition is gone.

[not my argument, just telling you what I’ve been encountering when I talk to some people ]

The Torah has an official authentic interpretation that was given along with it at Mt. Sinai. That official interpretation states that male/on/male sex is forbidden and is a capital offense (it also states at which point during the act the capital punishment becomes effective, but I won't mention that here). Female/on/female sex is prohibited by Rabbinic decree (I don't know the status of lesbianism among non-Jews; perhaps it was banned by Shem and `Ever or perhaps it is banned by derekh 'eretz, the "way of the world").

Heterosexual sex is forbidden only in the case of a woman married to another man or within certain degrees of kinship. There is no such thing as "premarital sex," since sex between two eligible people Halakhically constitutes marriage (making any further sexual acts by the woman with other men acts of adultery, which is also a capital offense).

It's a shame so many people are so ignorant of G-d's Laws.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered." They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Just take a look at the many, many pop-psychology books that came out after Vatican II, which has always accurately been described as a pastoral council and not a doctrinal council — because it was primarily about rejecting the Church’s pastoral teaching on sexual morality. That was why its supporters were so enraged when Paul VI did not support birth control. They thought they had finally swept away all that tedious sexual morality stuff.

All of the other things, such as the destruction of the liturgy and of Catholic practice, were basically aimed at wiping out all knowledge of the past and any trace of Catholic doctrine, which is founded on a combination of revelation, tradition and authority, by severing the connection with tradition.

Was this in the mind of everyone involved? Of course not, and in fact, it was probably only in the mind of a few, who saw their moment in the upheaval of the 1960s and seized it. But there is a saying from one of the Fathers (sorry, don’t remember which one) to the effect that “all heresy begins below the belt.” That is, people want unbridled sexual activity and make it their god - as they did in Sodom - and will come up with any ingenious intellectual argument to do so. And if resisted, they will use force, as did the men of Sodom, the gays of today, etc.

The Church is only just beginning to recover from this. The homosexual and pederasty scandals of the 1970s and 1980s were a direct result of the corrupt doctrines, acceptance of heretical teachings and tolerance of corrupt practice that had invaded the Church after the Council.

So, in other words, there were no Catholic Apologetic after Vatican II that supported sodomy or other sexual sin. Would that be accurate?

Have there been heretical groups, like Dignity? Sure. However, correlation doesn’t equal causation.

Ask yourself daily whether you exercise the virtue of Faith.

As a refresher “ 1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith “man freely commits his entire self to God.”78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God’s will. “The righteous shall live by faith.” Living faith “work[s] through charity.”79

Please, I didn’t say it was official Catholic apologetics. I said “gay apologetics.”

That was in the form of distorted teachings from Catholic sources. There actually was virtually no official teaching from the Church after Vatican II, because the imprimatur became unnecessary and every flake in the universe was free to publish his (or her, very often) flaky ruminations as authentic Catholic teaching. Look at the Dominican Matthew Fox and his teachings on “gaia” and homosexuality and a host of other things; look at all the loony nuns and their “teachings,” some of which appear in Catholic textbooks.

Why do you think the Vatican, under the more orthodox leadership of Benedict XVI, had to do all of the investigations and even condemnations that led to such hatred against BXVI that he had to resign?

I’m not saying JPII wasn’t orthodox personally; he simply was pretty neglectful of what was going on and being taught in the rest of the Church. And he picked up from the weak and overwhelmed Paul VI, whose one moment of heroism was Humanae Vitae but who simply couldn’t do anything more after that except weep.

Ask yourself daily whether you read and stay in touch enough and are knowledgeable enough to fight against threats to the Faith.

The reason I made my statement is a reaction to people blaming Vatican II for any number of ills in the world.

There will always be loony tunes out there who were ordained, or professed. However, while anybody can publish anything, it doesn’t mean there isn’t correction. The CDF regularly corrects those under its jurisdiction, and publishes the details.

I have no desire to be the Supreme Pontiff, with all of the global politics, as well as the religious politics. As such, I am very cautious to criticize. Additionally, the Vatican II fathers are a product of a pre-Vatican II world. So how is it possible for them to be less than orthodox?

Let us pray for the Pope and all religious, especially those whose interior motivations are anything other than serving the Lord.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.