THE ATTORNEYS OF ITACA AND THE EPIC OF THE ENFORCEMENT THAT CANNOT BE SILENT

The only ones Sfranta never gets angry with are the suitors, we remember are the approximately one hundred nobles of Ithaca who in Homer's Odyssey insistently court Penelope during the absence of Ulysses, but that in the modern version clerical-rainbow instead they court Odysseus and ignore Penelope altogether.

—Hypatia's cogitatory—

.

Author
Hypatia Gatta Roman

.

Let lobby clerical-rainbow it is preserved by avoiding direct exposure. He doesn't act openly, does not take responsibility for the most controversial decisions. He prefers to operate through third parties, using subjects that act as a screen, by performers, from expendable tools. They are the classics straw men they useful idiots: figures in charge of doing what the lobbyists decide, once the illusion of counting has been instilled in them, of belonging to the clerical power and of being able to gain some recognition from it. Here is a sample of what was just said in the image below:

Photo: graphic composition containing textual extracts reproduced without indication of author or source, as in Sfranta’s style.

In the clerical world, these subjects are often clericalized lay people who enjoy, just as such, of an operational freedom that others cannot afford. They are the ones who intervene where i clerics-rainbow they do not intend - or cannot - expose themselves directly: they delegitimize, they offend, they report, they accuse, they give rise to proceedings without real foundation, aware that they will not produce any concrete results. What matters is not winning, but carry out disruptive actions, intimidate. This is the goal.

They act convinced that they matter and to have weight within the clerical power structure; in reality they are used precisely because they are replaceable, exposed and expendable. Reduced to mere executive tools, they are destined to absorb the brunt of the darkest deeds, those with whom i clerical-rainbow those who pilot them do not intend to get their hands dirty. They think they're leading, while in reality they are direct, in the manner of the worst subordinate servants.

This mode of action is not episodic, but structural. I clerics-rainbow thus maintaining a safe distance: they don't sign, they don't speak, they do not appear. It is always the one who exposes himselfuseful idiot, to whom the dirty work is entrusted. It is the same mechanism that is found in every organization that intends to exercise control without openly assuming the moral and legal weight. Responsibility remains invisible; the action, instead, it is very concrete.

Alongside this first category, a second one emerges, more aggressive and dangerous: the one that the late Paolo Poli used to call, with unrivaled theatrical precision, the “sfrante”.

Clericalized to maximum power and characterized by bitter militancy, vindictive and sometimes openly violent on a relational level, the Sfranta, instead of building a dignified present for a mature future, he prefers to spend his days attacking his own social whoever decides on the spot: today the members of the National Association of Magistrates defined by her as "the worst of criminals" as well as "para-mafia association", tomorrow the Minister of Justice accused of being "colluded" and "clown", follows a well-known magistrate referred to as a "convict" and "more criminal than all the others", the day after tomorrow he throws flames on the members of a dicastery of the Holy See indicated as "illiterates" and "idiots", the President of the Journalists' Association defined as a "vulgar longshoreman", one of the most famous Italian journalists and television hosts branded as "the most vomiting" and "repressed bully", to follow up with the plumbers, the mechanics, unisex hairdressers … no one is saved from the Sfranta.

etc… etc …

The only ones Sfranta never gets angry with are the pass, that we remember are the approximately one hundred nobles of Ithaca who in’Homer's Odyssey they persistently court Penelope during Ulysses' absence, but that in the modern version clerical-rainbow instead they court Odysseus and ignore Penelope altogether.

Amazing reports follow in a cascade: exposed to the Order of Psychologists against one of the most famous Italian criminologists; threats of a lawsuit against a diocese that dared to officially deny the Sfranta with a public statement from the curia after it had repeatedly offended the bishop in various articles; invitations to sign an official protest to remove from the chair a theologian of recognized preparation and undeniable teaching qualities …

The Sfranta does not limit itself to acting as a passive instrument of the system, but she becomes an active actress, driven by the frenetic objective of clearing customs and legitimizing the fantastic rainbow world inside the church. And if anyone opposes the entry of this Rainbow Trojan Horse within the walls of City of God, the accusation is ready and the critic branded as an "affectively unresolved subject". La Sfranta acts as a true vanguard of the system: he says and writes, via blog and social media, what certain clerical-rainbow they cannot afford to state publicly; it strikes those whom the latter cannot attack directly; exerts constant pressure through accusations, insinuations, reports to the ecclesiastical authorities, letters, exposed, delegitimization campaigns. But be careful not to deny it, or to react to his barrages of insults, is never! Right there and then he immediately proclaims himself a victim, shouting about discrimination, according to the now known and consolidated schemes of Sfranta’s logic.

The “strength” of the Sfranta lies in the almost total absence of constraints. It does not answer to any ecclesiastical authority, does not risk canonical sanctions, does not pay any institutional price. He acts, de facto, in a gray area of ​​substantial impunity, which renders any attempt at a proportionate legal reaction ineffective. For this reason it is very useful to certain groups of people clerical-rainbow who use it while maintaining an apparently neutral position: because she is the one who exposes herself, to talk, to write, to report; the puppeteers remain in total anonymity.

I clerical-rainbow that govern this system they rarely appear on the front lines. They observe, they protect, they orient, leaving it up to Sfranta to act and put her face to it, in a desperate attempt to delegitimize priests and theologians hostile to this Rainbow Pious Brotherhood. It is in this context that a Sfranta without any formal mandate turns into a promoter of "reports" motivated by an alleged zeal for the good of the Church. In addition to his writings, he also releases videos in which he sighs, she sobs and indulges in little moves that recall the satirist's less gifted sister Rita da Cascia played by the aforementioned great Paolo Poli.

No explicit accusation, no concrete evidence: just allusions, suspicious, sentences dropped with apparent discretion, in the hope that, by dint of repeating blatant falsehoods that are repeatedly denied as such, these end up being perceived as true, finally passing as such.

It is within this opaque environment that the Rainbow Pious Brotherhood finds the ideal conditions to consolidate and reproduce, remaining anonymous and sending a Sfranta who walks a tightrope on the attack, uttering insults and making bold allusions to behaviors that are indicated as criminally relevant without ever openly naming the targeted person, but making everyone understand who this unnamed person is, soon after, he begins to receive numerous messages from readers and friends who warn him «the Sfranta has taken it out on you again».

In this sense,, Sfranta has set a precedent. So much so that I decided to imitate it with the exact same technique: I didn't mention her, just like she doesn't name, often, those he heavily targets.

And now I say goodbye, I have to rush to assist Penelope, deeply depressed since i suitors of Ithaca they started waving the flag rainbow and to woo Ulysses while totally ignoring her. Even the suitors of Ithaca have now done an honest thing coming-out, or as Saint Augustine said in one of his famous sermons: «I can not remain silent (I can't keep silent)» (Sermon. 88, 14, 13, PL). Like this, they decided to do not be silent (don't be silent) and to openly court Ulysses.

From the Isle of Proci, 8 February 2026

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

THE CASE WEDDING RING & CULTURE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF NOT FOLLOWING A "THEOLOGY OF EMOTION" WHICH IS OPPOSED TO THE MAGISTERY OF THE CHURCH

Theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

In response to my recent article The irrepressible fascination exercised on certain laypeople by the "theology of the underpants", dr. John Zeno, director of Edizioni Fede&Cultura released a reply video which I insert here.

It is first necessary to clarify a methodological point: theology is not practiced through emotional reaction, but for scientific argument, through consistent use of precise speculative categories, with distinction of levels and respect for levels of discourse. If these assumptions are missing, there is no theological refutation, but an intervention foreign to the field of theology itself.

My article advanced a precise thesis, articulated and verifiable (cf. Who). Anyone who reads it and then examines the content of Dr.'s reply. Zeno, will be able to ascertain an objective fact: the issues I raised are not addressed on their merits, but circumvented by shifting the discourse to lateral planes, which do not touch the argument I proposed, rather: they don't even touch it.

Anyone can verify that in the disputed text I explicitly clarified that I was intervening as a priest, pastor in care of souls, confessor and spiritual director. The reply of Dr. Zeno instead generically refers to the right of lay people to express themselves, however avoiding the central point, without taking into account that the speech did not concern the right to speak or criticize, but on the specific ecclesial experience from which the reflection originates: the Sacrament of Penance and spiritual direction, where the priests operate, not the laity. It is from this concrete practice, not from an abstract theoretical construction, that my intervention begins and is structured. And on this specific level, the reply is simply irrelevant.

The argument that having had six children suggests a sort of competence superior to that of priests in the moral and pastoral field, it falls within a well-known argumentative typology, historically used by secularist and anticlerical environments to delegitimize the magisterium and the word of the clergy on family and relational issues. Re-proposing this scheme does not strengthen the argument, but it reveals its methodological weakness.

Then there is a central point, which does not allow for ambiguity. The Dr. Zeno publicly objected several times, in harsh and disrespectful tones, the Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith in relation to the Doctrinal Note Mother of the Faithful People, concerning the inappropriateness of the use of the title of "co-redemptrix" referring to the Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, the determining fact is the following: that document, approved by the Supreme Pontiff who ordered its publication, falls within the authentic Magisterium of the Church. This data, by itself, closes the problem on the ecclesiastical level to any specious "right of criticism".

Then reply by invoking freedom of thought to reject this act is equivalent to deliberately confusing the level of theological research with that of the assent due to the Magisterium. Theological freedom does not authorize the public and contemptuous contestation of a document approved by the Supreme Pontiff, nor does it allow personal opinions and acts of ecclesial authority to be placed on the same level, only to then proclaim themselves theologians, defenders of the faith and Catholic educators.

The call to saints, mystics or to individual statements by past Pontiffs does not change this picture, because Catholic theology has always distinguished:

– devotional or mystical expressions, which do not bind the faith of believers in any way;

– the statements made by the Popes as private doctors;

– the acts of the authentic Magisterium, which instead require ecclesial membership combined with filial respect and devout obedience to the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops.

It is also an indisputable historical fact that Saint John Paul II always rejected the request to define the dogma of Mary co-redemptrix; that Benedict XVI highlighted the Christological difficulties posed by the term itself; that Francesco, as well as finally Leo XIV, have confirmed this orientation, approving the doctrinal note in question. Faced with this coherent set of data, the insistence on isolated and decontextualized quotes does not constitute theological argument, but an ideological selection of sources, preceded and accompanied by their manipulation, after an amateurish approach to the theology and history of the dogma that arises, as an effect, that of poisoning the simplest members of the People of God, the same one that we must protect and protect by imperative of conscience, as Priests of Christ instituted to teach, sanctifying and guiding.

Applying the same criterion of extrapolation and manipulation, one could challenge the dogma of the Immaculate Conception by recalling the reservations of Saint Thomas Aquinas, or call into question the current discipline of Penance on the basis of the positions of Saint Ambrose and Saint Gregory the Great, matured in a radically different historical context, when this Sacrament was not repeatable and could only be administered once in a lifetime and never again. Always following this anti-theological and anti-historical logic, one could even deny the First Council of Nicaea, referring to hypotheses and opinions expressed by various Holy Fathers before the year 325.

The inconsistency of this method is therefore immediately evident that — between saints and mystics, messages of Fatima and clumsy lives of Jesus fictionalized by Maria Valtorta - would bring the discussion back into the realm of pietism and the most desolate fideism, realities that have nothing to do with the Catholic faith and with theological speculation properly and scientifically speaking.

From the videos released by Dr. Zeno a not exactly correct and not fully orthodox approach to fundamental theology emerges: manifest forms of hostility towards the Magisterium of the Church are detected; we set ourselves up as defenders of the "true faith" and the "true tradition", that these groups would claim to protect in the face of actions by Pontiffs and Bishops that they consider doctrinally questionable; everything is masked under the reference to freedom of thought and opinion, which, however, in fact, results in ideological stances.

The picture is completed — and here I conclude — with a series of other videos “highly educational”, distinct and subsequent to that which is the subject of this response of mine, which speak for themselves. To name just one, among many, just think of statements of unprecedented gravity such as: «Heresy is worse than pedophilia»

This is a statement devoid of any logical and theological criteria, founded on an improper juxtaposition between radically different realities on an ontological and moral level. These are comparisons, if proposed by someone who presents himself as a theologian, Catholic pedagogue and trainer, they cannot be dismissed as simple naivety of expression, but they reveal a serious lack of prudence and methodological discernment on a pedagogical and theological level.

From the island of Patmos, 14 January 2026

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Italian, english, español, dutch

THE DIGNITY OF MARGINALITY NOT WON IN THE PASSAGE OF ONE YEAR

Christian hope does not arise from the fact that things “will get better”, nor by the consensus gathered or the results obtained. It comes from knowing that truth is not measured immediately, but it will be judged in the last time. It is in this fidelity exposed to time and judgment - and not in the success of a season - that one decides whether a life was simply lived or truly treasured as a gift from God; if the talents received have been put to good use, or buried underground.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

PDF print format article – Article print format – Article in printed format – Article in print format

.

At the end of the year the world loves to take stock by measuring results, successes and failures. It's a reassuring exercise, because it allows us to judge life according to visible and immediately verifiable criteria, at least in appearance.

From a Christian perspective, But, not everything that is measurable is true, and what really decides the quality of an existence often does not coincide with what appears successful in the eyes of the world. On the path of faith, not rarely, true fulfillment takes the form of what the world judges to be failure and failure. It is the logic of the cross, which the Apostle Paul neither attenuates nor makes acceptable:

«We instead preach Christ crucified, scandal for the Jews and foolishness for the pagans" (1Color 1,23).

This size it is experienced by those who find themselves progressively pushed to the margins for not having betrayed their conscience or renounced the truth. Not for an ideological choice, nor due to personal incapacity, but due to a growing incompatibility with practice, languages ​​and operating criteria of the ecclesiastical contexts in which they live and operate: systems that reward adaptation, they require appropriate silences and marginalize those who are not functional. In some respects, we could define them like this: the scandalous fools of the cross.

The fools of the cross they generate scandal by refusing to bend language to make an objectively unjust decision acceptable. They refuse to define as "pastoral" what in reality is simple opportunistic management of problems; they reject the anti-evangelical clerical logic of those who confuse fidelity to the Gospel with obedience to apparatus dynamics. They do not lend themselves to covering up protracted omissions over time with ambiguous formulas, nor do they accept that the softness of the clergy is justified by the lack of clergy, with organizational urgency or with the reference to presumed balances not to be disturbed. They do not adapt to irregular situations presented as inevitable, they don't accept being silenced to "not create problems", nor do they become accomplices of consortiums, mutual protections and reassuring narratives constructed to hide the truth.

In these cases, the reduction to marginality it is not the result of personal error, but the side effect of a non-negotiable consistency, almost always read as a defeat, as evidence of inadequacy or relational inability. However, this is not always the case: sometimes it is simply the price you pay for not adapting to a system that does not tolerate what it cannot control or use. This mechanism is neither new nor exclusive to the ecclesial sphere. It is typical of any closed power structure, including mafia organizations, who do not strike first those who break the law, but those who don't make themselves functional: who doesn't bend, who does not enter the circuit of mutual dependencies, those who do not accept the language, the silences and complicities required. In these systems, isolation and marginalization are not accidents, but deliberate instruments of control.

Accepting an unconquered marginality it falls within the wisdom of the foolishness of the cross and is not equivalent to taking refuge in a resentful niche or cultivating a spirituality of failure. Very concretely it means recognizing that not everything that is true finds space in official channels and that not every form of invisibility coincides with a loss. That's what happens, eg, to those who give up roles, positions or visibility in order not to sign official documents in which an unjust decision is presented as a "shared pastoral choice". It happens to those who refuse to hide real responsibilities behind false diplomatic formulas, presented as "holy prudence" but in reality functional to an opportunistic management of problems. It is the condition of those who continue to work seriously without being promoted because they do not belong to influential groups; of those who think and write without being invited because they are not aligned with the dominant narratives; of those who exercise real - training responsibilities, cultural, educational — without official positions or protective memberships, because he does not accept trading freedom of judgment for protection or recognition.

In these cases, invisibility is not the sign of personal failure, but a form of protection: preserves from the logic of appearance, it escapes the blackmail of consensus, prevents them from being used as tools. At times, over time, it even turns out to be a grace, not because it makes life easier, but because it allows us to remain free, intact and non-blackmailable. It is the condition of figures who appear relegated to the margins but not destroyed, believed to be silenced but instead surrendered, for this, more prolific. Scripture knows this dynamic well. Moses is removed from the public scene and taken to the desert of Midian before being called to free the people (cf.. Is 2,15; 3,1); Elijah flees into the desert, desires death, and right there he learns to listen that takes him away from the violence of power and the din of action (cf.. 1Re 19,1-18); John the Baptist was neither born nor operated in the center, but in the desert, away from official religious circuits, and from there prepare the way of the Lord (cf.. Mt 3,1-3; MC 1,2-4; LC 3,1-4). Jesus himself, before every public word and every sign, he is driven by the Spirit into the desert, where he explicitly rejects success, immediate effectiveness and the consensus of the crowds (cf.. Mt 4,1-11; MC 1,12-13; LC 4,1-13).

The desert, in the biblical and evangelical tradition, it is not the place of uselessness, but of purification: it does not produce visibility, but freedom; does not guarantee success, but truth. It is in this space that seemingly irrelevant figures mature, de facto, not blackmailable, generated by a fruitfulness that does not depend on immediate recognition, but from fidelity to the truth, by inner freedom and the ability to stand the test of time without being corrupted by it.

If you look at the Gospel without anxious pietism or devotional filters, it strikes an elementary fact: Jesus shows no anxiety about being at the center. On the contrary, when the center gets crowded, he withdraws from it naturally. Preach to the crowds (cf.. Mt 5–7; MC 6,34), but then he retreats (cf.. MC 1,35; GV 6,15); performs signs (cf.. MC 1,40-45; MC 7,31-37), but recommends silence (cf.. MC 1,44; MC 8,26); attracts disciples, but it does not hold back those who leave (cf.. GV 6,66-67). In current terms, we could say that he doesn't care about his own "positioning". Yet no one, more than him, has made an impact on history.

If you take on this evangelical gaze, even the Beatitudes cease to be an edifying repertoire to be proclaimed on solemn occasions and return to being what they are in their Christological reality: a criterion of radical discernment. They do not promise success, nor visibility, nor approval; on the contrary, they describe a form of paradoxical happiness, incompatible with the logic of consensus. And beats, in the Gospel, they are not the ones who “made it”, but those who have not traded the truth for applause (cf.. Mt 5,1-12).

Next to the Beatitudes, however, the Gospel also preserves the other side of the coin with equal clarity: the “trouble”. Rough words, little cited and rarely commented on, perhaps because they disturb an accommodating spirituality. «Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you» (LC 6,26): a warning that does not seem addressed to scandalous sinners, but to respectable people, appreciate, perfectly integrated. It is as if Jesus was warning against a subtle form of failure: that of those who obtain consensus at the price of their own internal freedom.

In the Gospel, consensus is never a value in itself. On the contrary, when it becomes unanimous, often takes on the features of a collective misunderstanding. The crowds cheer, only to then disappear (cf.. GV 6,14-15.66); the disciples applaud, only to then argue about who is the greatest (cf.. MC 9,33-34; LC 22,24); the notables recognize, only to then distance themselves out of fear or convenience (cf.. GV 12,42-43). Jesus goes through all this without ever being imprisoned by it. He does not seek opposition, but he doesn't fear it either; does not despise recognition, but he doesn't chase him. We could say, with a faint smile, who never confuses the approval rating with the measure of truth, because the approval rating is in man, the truth is in God.

It is in this sense that the Gospel exercises irony as discreet as it is implacable. Precisely those who preside over the center - the guarantors of order, correctness specialists, “It's always been done this way” professionals — are often the least equipped to recognize what really happens. While discussing procedures, documents are drawn up and balances not to be disturbed are invoked, faith takes shape elsewhere; while ensuring that nothing leaves the established perimeter, understanding matures offstage; while everything is measured in terms of consensus and opportunity, the truth passes through secondary roads, without asking permission. Not because I love margins as such, but because - as the Gospel shows with a certain obstinacy - the truth cannot be administered. And even fewer allow themselves to be certified by the number of consensuses obtained or by the tranquility of conscience that they manage to preserve.

Accepting an unconquered marginality, At that time, it does not mean cultivating a taste for opposition or taking refuge in a polemical attitude on principle. Means, more simply, stop measuring the value of a life — or a ministry — based on the approval received, to the tasks obtained or the consensus obtained, according to that logic that the century calls, shameless, hypertrophic narcissism. In concrete terms, it means not taking the number of invitations as a decisive criterion, of recognition or certificates of esteem, but the rectitude of the choices made. The Gospel, the rest, he doesn't ask to be applauded, but to be faithful. And this loyalty, not rarely, it is practiced far from the center, where you are less exposed to pressure, freer to look at reality for what it is and less forced to say what is appropriate.

The end of the year is often filled with disproportionate expectations. Final balance sheets are expected, conclusive judgments, words capable of fixing everything once and for all. In reality, for those who live with a minimum of inner honesty, this time is not used to close the accounts, but to stop cheating: not to tell each other comforting stories, not to confuse what was successful with what was right. This is not the time to proclaim goals, but to distinguish what is essential from what is superfluous, what deserves to be cherished from what can be let go without regrets.

There is a particular freedom which was born right here: when you accept that not everything needs to be solved, clarified or recognized. Some events remain open, some unanswered questions, some grave wrongs unredressed. But not everything that remains unfinished is sterile. Sometimes it is simply entrusted to a time that does not coincide with ours. This awareness, far from being a surrender, it is a high form of spiritual realism.

The “sober truth” it is not an internal disposition nor an abstract principle: it is recognized by the price that a person is willing to pay in order not to deny what he has understood as true. It manifests itself when you accept missing opportunities, assignments or protections so as not to resort to linguistic justifications, to accommodating formulas or moral alibis that make what cannot be presentable under any circumstances: pretend that evil is good and use this lie as a shield against those who try to call evil by its name.

In an ecclesial context in an objectively advanced state of decline, which measures people based on visibility, to adaptability and immediate usefulness, this choice has precise consequences, sometimes even devastating. It means continuing to carry out one's ministry or ecclesial service without being the recipient of appointments, of honorific positions or those sops with which power flatters and, together, subjects; without being involved in the decision-making bodies of the diocese or ecclesial institutions; without making ourselves available to government logics that require silence, adaptations or compromises deemed inadmissible, because they were paid at a price that no Christian conscience can accept: the sacrifice of the freedom of the children of God, inscribed from the beginning in the very mystery of the creation of man. Means, at last, accept that one's contribution remains unrewarded and relegated to the margins, not because it is useless, but because it cannot be spent in the circuits that count; and yet destined, in the silence of the desert, to be a seed that bears fruit.

Persevere, in this sense, it is not a form of obstinacy nor an identity attitude built to stand out. It is the decision to remain faithful to what has been recognized as true even when this faithfulness involves silence, loss of role and lack of recognition.

In the transition from one year to the next you are not asked to make consolatory assessments, but to look at what remains when time has worn away illusions, roles and justifications. The choices made remain, the words spoken or unsaid, responsibilities assumed or avoided. And this, and nothing else, the material that passes through time.

The Christian hope It doesn't arise from the fact that things "will get better", nor by the consensus gathered or the results obtained. It comes from knowing that truth is not measured immediately, but it will be judged in the last time. It is in this fidelity exposed to time and judgment - and not in the success of a season - that one decides whether a life was simply lived or truly treasured as a gift from God; if the talents received have been put to good use, or buried underground.

From the island of Patmos, 31 December 2025

.

THE DIGNITY OF UNCONQUERED MARGINALITY IN THE PASSAGE FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER

Christian hope does not arise from the fact that things “will get better”, nor from the consensus gathered or the results obtained. It arises from knowing that truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the ultimate time. It is in this fidelity exposed to time and to judgement — and not in the success of a season — that it is decided whether a life has been merely lived or truly safeguarded as a gift of God; whether the talents received have been made fruitful, or buried in the ground.

— Ecclesial actuality—

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

At the end of the year the world likes to take stock by measuring results, successes and failures. It is a reassuring exercise, because it allows life to be judged according to visible and immediately verifiable criteria — at least in appearance.

From a Christian perspective, however, not everything that can be measured is true, and what truly decides the quality of an existence often does not coincide with what appears successful in the eyes of the world. In the journey of faith, more often than not, genuine fulfilment takes the form of what the world judges to be failure and defeat. This is the logic of the cross, which the Apostle Paul neither softens nor renders acceptable:

“We proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles” (1 Color 1:23).

This dimension is lived by those who find themselves progressively pushed to the margins because they have not betrayed their conscience nor renounced the truth. Not out of ideological choice, nor because of personal inadequacy, but because of a growing incompatibility with the practices, language and operational criteria of the ecclesial contexts in which they live and work: systems that reward adaptation, demand convenient silences, and marginalise anyone who does not make himself functional. In some respects, we might define them thus: the scandalous fools of the cross.

The fools of the cross generate scandal by refusing to bend language so as to render acceptable a decision that is objectively unjust. They refuse to define as “pastoral” what is in reality nothing more than opportunistic management of problems; they reject anti-evangelical clerical logics that confuse fidelity to the Gospel with obedience to apparatus dynamics. They do not lend themselves to covering up omissions prolonged over time with ambiguous formulas, nor do they accept that clerical flaccidity be justified by a shortage of clergy, by organisational urgency, or by appeals to alleged balances that must not be disturbed. They do not adapt to irregular situations presented as inevitable; they do not accept being silenced “so as not to create problems”; nor do they make themselves accomplices of factions, mutual protections and reassuring narratives constructed to conceal the truth.

In such cases, reduction to marginality is not the result of personal error, but the collateral effect of a non-negotiable coherence, almost always read as defeat, as a sign of inadequacy or relational incapacity. Yet this is not always so: at times it is simply the price to be paid for not having adapted to a system that does not tolerate what it cannot control or exploit. This mechanism is neither new nor exclusive to the ecclesial sphere. It is typical of every closed power structure, including criminal organisations, which do not strike first those who break the law, but those who do not make themselves functional: those who do not bend, who do not enter the circuit of mutual dependencies, who do not accept the required language, silences and complicities. In such systems, isolation and marginalisation are not accidents, but deliberate instruments of control.

Accepting an unconquered marginality belongs to the wisdom of the foolishness of the cross and does not amount to retreating into a resentful niche or cultivating a spirituality of failure. Very concretely, it means recognising that not everything that is true finds space within official channels, and that not every form of invisibility coincides with loss. This is what happens, for example, to those who renounce roles, appointments or visibility rather than sign official documents in which an unjust decision is presented as a “shared pastoral choice”. It happens to those who refuse to mask real responsibilities behind false diplomatic formulas, presented as “holy prudence” but in fact functional to opportunistic management of problems. It is the condition of those who continue to work seriously without being promoted because they do not belong to influential factions; of those who think and write without being invited because they are not aligned with dominant narratives; of those who exercise real responsibilities — formative, cultural, educational — without official appointments or protective affiliations, because they refuse to barter freedom of judgement for protection or recognition.

In these cases, invisibility is not the sign of personal failure, but a form of protection: it preserves one from the logic of appearances, removes one from the blackmail of consensus, prevents one from being used as a tool. At times, over the long term, it even proves to be a grace—not because it makes life easier, but because it allows one to remain free, intact and not subject to blackmail. It is the condition of figures who appear relegated to the margins yet not destroyed, believed to be silenced and instead rendered, precisely for this reason, more prolific. Scripture knows this dynamic well. Moses is removed from the public stage and led into the desert of Midian before being called to liberate the people (cf. Exod 2:15; 3:1); Elijah flees into the desert, desires death, and precisely there learns a listening that removes him from the violence of power and the din of action (cf. 1 Kgs 19:1–18); John the Baptist is neither born nor operates at the centre, but in the desert, far from official religious circuits, and from there prepares the way of the Lord (cf. Matt 3:1–3; Mark 1:2–4; Luke 3:1–4). Jesus himself, before any public word or sign, is driven by the Spirit into the desert, where he explicitly rejects success, immediate effectiveness and the consensus of the crowds (cf. Matt 4:1–11; Mark 1:12–13; Luke 4:1–13).

The desert, in biblical and evangelical tradition, is not the place of uselessness, but of purification: it does not produce visibility, but freedom; it does not guarantee success, but truth. It is in this space that figures mature who are apparently irrelevant yet in fact not subject to blackmail, generated by a fruitfulness that does not depend on immediate recognition, but on fidelity to the truth, interior freedom and the capacity to endure time without being corrupted by it.

If one looks at the Gospel without anxious pieties or devotional filters, one elementary fact stands out: Jesus shows no anxiety about being at the centre. On the contrary, when the centre becomes crowded, he withdraws from it with ease. He preaches to the crowds (cf. Matt 5–7; Mark 6:34), but then he withdraws (cf. Mark 1:35; John 6:15); he performs signs (cf. Mark 1:40–45; Mark 7:31–37), but recommends silence (cf. Mark 1:44; Mark 8:26); he attracts disciples, but does not hold back those who leave (cf. John 6:66–67). In contemporary terms, one might say that he does not tend to his own “positioning”. And yet no one more than he has left a mark on history.

If one adopts this evangelical gaze, even the Beatitudes cease to be an edifying repertory to be proclaimed on solemn occasions and return to being what they are in their Christological reality: a radical criterion of discernment. They promise neither success, nor visibility, nor approval; on the contrary, they describe a paradoxical form of happiness, incompatible with the logic of consensus. In the Gospel, the blessed are not those who “have made it”, but those who have not bartered the truth for applause (cf. Matt 5:1–12).

Alongside the Beatitudes, however, the Gospel preserves with equal clarity the other side of the coin: the “woes”. Harsh words, little cited and rarely commented upon, perhaps because they disturb an accommodating spirituality. “Woe to you when all speak well of you” (Luke 6:26): a warning that does not seem addressed to scandalous sinners, but to respectable, appreciated, perfectly integrated people. It is as if Jesus were warning against a subtle form of failure: that of those who obtain consensus at the price of their own interior freedom.

In the Gospel, consensus is never a value in itself. Indeed, when it becomes unanimous, it often takes on the traits of a collective misunderstanding. The crowds acclaim, only to disappear (cf. John 6:14–15, 66); the disciples applaud, only to argue about who is the greatest (cf. Mark 9:33–34; Luke 22:24); the notables acknowledge, only to distance themselves out of fear or convenience (cf. John 12:42–43). Jesus passes through all of this without ever allowing himself to be imprisoned by it. He does not seek opposition, but neither does he fear it; he does not despise recognition, but he does not pursue it. One might say, with a faintly sketched smile, that he never confuses approval ratings with the measure of truth, because approval ratings are in human beings, whereas truth is in God.

It is in this sense that the Gospel exercises an irony that is as discreet as it is relentless. Precisely those who guard the centre — the guarantors of order, the specialists in correctness, the professionals of “this is how it has always been done” — often prove the least equipped to recognise what is actually taking place. While procedures are discussed, documents drafted and balances invoked that must not be disturbed, faith takes shape elsewhere; while vigilance ensures that nothing escapes the established perimeter, understanding matures offstage; while everything is measured in terms of consensus and opportunity, truth passes along secondary paths, without asking permission. Not because it loves the margins as such, but because — as the Gospel shows with a certain obstinacy — truth does not allow itself to be administered. Still less does it allow itself to be certified by the number of consents obtained or by the tranquillity of consciences it manages to preserve.

To accept an unconquered marginality, then, does not mean cultivating a taste for opposition or retreating into a polemical stance by principle. It means, more simply, ceasing to measure the value of a life — or of a ministry — by the approval received, the appointments obtained or the consensus gathered, according to that logic which the age, without embarrassment, calls hypertrophic narcissism. In concrete terms, it means not adopting as a decisive criterion the number of invitations, recognitions or attestations of esteem, but the rectitude of the choices made. The Gospel, after all, does not ask to be applauded, but to be faithful. And this fidelity is often exercised far from the centre, where one is less exposed to pressure, freer to look at reality for what it is, and less compelled to say what is convenient.

The end of the year is often burdened with disproportionate expectations. Definitive balances are demanded, conclusive judgements, words capable of putting everything in order once and for all. In reality, for anyone who lives with a minimum of interior honesty, this time serves not to close accounts, but to stop cheating: to cease telling oneself consoling stories, to stop confusing what has been successful with what has been just. It is not the moment to proclaim milestones, but to distinguish what is essential from what is superfluous, what deserves to be safeguarded from what can be let go without regret.

There is a particular freedom that is born precisely here: when one accepts that not everything must be resolved, clarified or recognised. Some events remain open, some questions unanswered, some grave wrongs unrepaired. Yet not everything that remains unfinished is sterile. At times it is simply entrusted to a time that does not coincide with our own. This awareness, far from being a surrender, is a high form of spiritual realism.

“Sober truth” is not an interior disposition nor an abstract principle: it is recognised by the price a person is willing to pay in order not to contradict what he has understood to be true. It manifests itself when one accepts the loss of opportunities, appointments or protections rather than resort to linguistic justifications, accommodating formulas or moral alibis that make presentable what can never be so in any case: pretending that evil is good and using this lie as a shield against those who attempt to call evil by its name.

In an ecclesial context in an objectively advanced state of decay, which measures people according to visibility, adaptability and immediate utility, this choice has precise, at times even devastating, consequences. It means continuing to exercise one’s ministry or ecclesial service without being the recipient of appointments, honorary offices or those petty concessions with which power both flatters and subjugates; without being involved in the decision-making bodies of the diocese or ecclesial institutions; without making oneself available to forms of governance that demand silences, adaptations or compromises deemed inadmissible because they are paid for at a price that no Christian conscience can accept: the sacrifice of the freedom of the children of God, inscribed from the beginning in the very mystery of the creation of the human being. It means, finally, accepting that one’s contribution remains without gratification and relegated to the margins, not because it is useless, but because it is not expendable in the circuits that count; and yet destined, in the silence of the desert, to be seed that bears fruit.

Persevering, in this sense, is not a form of obstinacy nor an identity posture constructed to distinguish oneself. It is the decision to remain faithful to what has been recognised as true even when this fidelity entails silence, loss of role and absence of recognition.

In the passage from one year to another, one is not asked to draw consoling balances, but to look at what remains when time has consumed illusions, roles and justifications. What remain are the choices made, the words spoken or left unsaid, the responsibilities assumed or avoided. This, and nothing else, is the material that passes through time.

Christian hope does not arise from the fact that things “will get better”, nor from the consensus gathered or the results obtained. It arises from knowing that truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the ultimate time. It is in this fidelity exposed to time and to judgement — and not in the success of a season — that it is decided whether a life has been merely lived or truly safeguarded as a gift of God; whether the talents received have been made fruitful, or buried in the ground.

From the Island of Patmos, 31 December 2025

.

THE DIGNITY OF UNEXCITED MARGINALITY IN THE PASSAGE FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER

Christian hope is not born from the fact that things will “get better”, nor of the consensus reached or the results obtained. It is born from knowing that the truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the end time. It is in this faithfulness exposed to time and judgment — and not to the success of a season — that it is decided whether a life has been simply lived or truly appreciated as a gift from God.; if the talents received have been made to bear fruit, or buried underground.

- Ecclesial news -

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

At the end of the year the world loves to take stock by measuring results, successes and failures. It is a calming exercise, because it allows life to be judged according to visible and immediately verifiable criteria, at least in appearance.

From a Christian perspective, however, not everything that is measurable is true, and what really decides the quality of an existence often does not coincide with what seems successful in the eyes of the world.. On the path of faith, Not infrequently, true fulfillment takes the form of what the world judges as a failure or failure.. It is the logic of the cross, which the apostle Paul does not mitigate or make acceptable:

"US, instead, we preach Christ crucified, scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles." (1 Color 1,23).

This dimension is experienced who are progressively pushed to the margins for not having betrayed their own conscience, nor having renounced the truth. Not by ideological choice, nor due to personal incapacity, but due to a growing incompatibility with practices, the languages ​​and operating criteria of the ecclesial contexts in which they live and operate: systems that reward adaptation, They demand appropriate silences and make those who do not become functional marginal.. Under certain aspects, we could define them like this: the scandalous fools of the cross.

The fools of the cross generate scandal by refusing to twist language to make an objectively unjust decision acceptable. They refuse to define as “pastoral” what is in reality a simple opportunistic management of problems; They reject the anti-evangelical clerical logic of those who confuse fidelity to the Gospel with obedience to the dynamics of the apparatus.. They do not lend themselves to covering long-term omissions with ambiguous formulas, nor do they accept that the softness of the clerics is justified by the shortage of clergy, with organizational urgency or with the appeal to supposed balances that should not be disturbed. They do not adapt to irregular situations presented as inevitable. They do not accept being silenced “so as not to create problems”, nor do they become accomplices of consortiums, mutual protections and reassuring narratives constructed to hide the truth.

In these cases, the reduction to marginality is not the result of a personal error, but the collateral effect of a non-negotiable coherence, almost always read as defeat, as proof of inadequacy or relational incapacity. However, It's not always like that: Sometimes it is simply the price you pay for not having adapted to a system that does not tolerate what you cannot control or use.. This mechanism is neither new nor exclusive to the ecclesiastical sphere.. It is typical of every closed power structure, including mafia organizations, who do not hit those who break the law first, but to those who do not become functional: who does not bend, to those who do not enter the circuit of reciprocal dependencies, who does not accept the language, the silences and complicities required. In these systems, Isolation and marginalization are not accidents, but deliberate instruments of control.

Accept a marginality undefeated is part of the wisdom of the foolishness of the cross and is not equivalent to taking refuge in a resentful niche or cultivating a spirituality of failure.. Very specifically, It means recognizing that not everything that is true finds space in official channels and that not every form of invisibility coincides with a loss.. It's what happens, For example, to those who resign from positions, assignments or visibility as long as they do not sign official documents in which an unjust decision is presented as a “shared pastoral option”. It happens to those who refuse to mask real responsibilities behind false diplomatic formulas, presented as “holy prudence” but in reality functional to opportunistic management of problems. It is the condition of those who continue to work seriously without being promoted because they do not belong to influential cliques.; of those who think and write without being invited because they are not aligned with the dominant narratives; of those who exercise real responsibilities—training, cultural, educational—without official positions or protective memberships, because it does not accept to exchange freedom of judgment for protections or recognitions.

In these cases, invisibility is not the sign of personal failure, but a form of protection: preserves the logic of appearance, escapes the blackmail of consensus, prevents them from being used as instruments. Sometimes, with the passage of time, it is even revealed as a grace, not because it makes life easier, but because it allows us to remain free, integrity and not blackmailable. It is the condition of figures that seem relegated to the margins but not destroyed., considered silenced and yet, precisely for this reason, made more fertile. Scripture knows this dynamic well.. Moses is removed from the public scene and taken to the desert of Midian before being called to free the people (cf. Ex 2,15; 3,1); Elijah flees to the desert, wishes death, and precisely there he learns listening that distances him from the violence of power and the noise of action (cf. 1 Re 19,1-18); John the Baptist is not born nor does he act in the center, but in the desert, far from the official religious circuits, and from there prepare the way of the Lord (cf. Mt 3,1-3; MC 1,2-4; LC 3,1-4). Jesus himself, before every public word and every sign, is driven by the Spirit into the desert, where he explicitly rejects success, immediate effectiveness and crowd consensus (cf. Mt 4,1-11; MC 1,12-13; LC 4,1-13).

The desert, in the biblical and evangelical tradition, It is not the place of uselessness, but of purification: does not produce visibility, but freedom; does not guarantee success, but truth. It is in this space where apparently irrelevant but, who are not really blackmailable, engendered by a fertility that does not depend on immediate recognition, but of fidelity to the truth, of inner freedom and the ability to sustain time without allowing oneself to be corrupted by it.

If you look at the Gospel without anxious pietisms or devotional filters, an elementary fact draws attention: Jesus shows no anxiety to be in the center. On the contrary, when the center is full of people, it escapes from him naturally. Preach to the crowds (cf. Mt 5–7; MC 6,34), but then he leaves (cf. MC 1,35; Jn 6,15); make signs (cf. MC 1,40-45; MC 7,31-37), but recommends silence (cf. MC 1,44; MC 8,26); attracts disciples, but it does not retain those who leave (cf. Jn 6,66-67). In current terms, We could say that he does not care about his own “positioning”. However, no one but him has had an impact on history.

If this evangelical view is assumed, The Beatitudes also cease to be an edifying repertoire that is proclaimed on solemn occasions and return to being what they are in their Christological reality.: a criterion of radical discernment. They do not promise success, no visibility, no approval; on the contrary, describe a form of paradoxical happiness, incompatible with the logic of consensus. The blessed, in the Gospel, They are not the ones who “have made it”, but those who have not changed the truth with applause (cf. Mt 5,1-12).

But along with the Beatitudes, the Gospel preserves with equal clarity the other side of the coin: los “ayes”. harsh words, little cited and rarely commented, perhaps because they disturb an accommodative spirituality. «Woe to you when everyone speaks well of you!» (LC 6,26): a warning that does not seem aimed at scandalous sinners, but to respectable people, appreciated, perfectly integrated. It's as if Jesus was warning against a subtle form of failure.: that of those who obtain consensus at the price of their own inner freedom.

In the Gospel consensus is never a value in itself. Even more, when it becomes unanimous, usually assumes the features of a collective misunderstanding. The crowds cheer, and then disappear (cf. Jn 6,14-15.66); the disciples applaud, and then argue about who is the greatest (cf. MC 9,33-34; LC 22,24); notables recognize, and then distance yourself out of fear or convenience (cf. Jn 12,42-43). Jesus goes through all this without ever letting himself be imprisoned by it.. Does not seek opposition, but he doesn't fear her either; does not despise recognition, but it doesn't chase him. we could say, with a barely visible smile, who never confuses the approval rating with the measure of truth, because the approval rating is in the man, the truth is in God.

It is in this sense how the Gospel exercises an irony as discreet as it is implacable. Precisely those who guard the center — the guarantors of order, correction specialists, “It's always been done this way” professionals—are often the least qualified to recognize what is really happening.. While procedures are discussed, documents are drawn up and balances are invoked that must not be disturbed, faith takes shape elsewhere; while ensuring that nothing leaves the established perimeter, understanding matures off stage; while everything is measured in terms of consensus and opportunity, the truth passes through secondary roads, without asking permission. Not because I love the margins as such, but because — as the Gospel shows with a certain obstinacy — the truth does not allow itself to be administered. And even less can it be certified by the number of consensuses obtained or by the peace of mind that it manages to preserve..

Accept an unconquered marginality, then it does not mean cultivating a taste for the opposition, nor take refuge in a polemical attitude on principle. Means, more simply, stop measuring the value of a life — or a ministry — according to the approval received, the positions obtained or the consensus gathered, according to that logic that the century calls, without shame, hypertrophied narcissism. In concrete terms, means not assuming the number of invitations as a decisive criterion, of recognition or signs of esteem, but the rightness of the decisions made. The Gospel, otherwise, does not ask to be applauded, but be faithful. And this fidelity, not infrequently, is exercised far from the center, where you are less exposed to pressure, freer to look at reality as it is and less obliged to say what is appropriate.

The end of the year often burdened with disproportionate expectations. Final balance sheets are required, conclusive judgments, words capable of fixing everything once and for all. Actually, for those who live with a minimum of inner honesty, this time is not useful to close accounts, but to stop deceiving yourself: not to tell comforting stories, so as not to confuse what has been successful with what has been fair. This is not the time to proclaim goals achieved, but to distinguish the essential from the superfluous, what deserves to be guarded from what can be let go without regrets.

There is a particular freedom that is born precisely here: when it is accepted that not everything must be resolved, clarified or recognized. Some vicissitudes remain open, some unanswered questions, some serious injustices without reparation. But not everything that remains unfinished is sterile.. Sometimes it is simply entrusted to a time that does not coincide with ours. This awareness, far from being a surrender, It is a high form of spiritual realism.

The “sober truth” It is not an internal disposition nor an abstract principle: It is recognized by the price that a person is willing to pay in order not to deny what they have understood to be true.. It manifests itself when you accept losing opportunities, charges or protections as long as they do not resort to linguistic justifications, to accommodating formulas or moral alibis that make presentable what in no case can be presentable: pretend that evil is good and use this lie as a shield against those who try to call evil by its name.

In an ecclesial context in an objectively advanced state of decay, that measures people based on visibility, adaptability and immediate usefulness, This choice has precise consequences, sometimes even devastating. It means continuing to exercise one's own ministry or ecclesial service without being the recipient of appointments., honorary positions or those small concessions with which power flatters and, at the same time, only; without being involved in the decision-making bodies of the diocese or ecclesial institutions; without making oneself available to government logic that requires silence, adaptations or compromises considered inadmissible, because they are paid at a price that no Christian conscience can accept: the sacrifice of the freedom of the children of God, inscribed from the beginning in the same mystery of the creation of man. Means, Finally, accept that one's own contribution remains unrewarded and relegated to the margins, not because it's useless, but because it is not usable in the circuits that have; and, however, intended, in the silence of the desert, to be a seed that bears fruit.

Persevere, in this sense, It is not a form of obstinacy nor an identity posture built to distinguish oneself.. It is the decision to remain faithful to what has been recognized as true even when this fidelity entails silence., loss of role and lack of recognition.

in the step from one year to the next it is not asked to make consoling balances, but to look at what remains when time has consumed illusions, roles and justifications. The decisions remain, the words said or silent, responsibilities assumed or avoided. This, and nothing more, It is the material that passes through time.

Christian hope It is not born from the fact that things “will get better.”, nor of the consensus reached or the results obtained. It is born from knowing that the truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the end time. It is in this faithfulness exposed to time and judgment — and not in the success of a season — that it is decided whether a life has been simply lived or truly appreciated as a gift from God.; if the talents received have been made to bear fruit, or buried underground.

From the Island of Patmos, 31 December 2025

.

THE DIGNITY OF UNOVERCOME MARGINALITY IN THE TRANSITION FROM ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER

Christian hope does not come from expectation, that things will “get better”, nor the consensus gathered or the results achieved. It comes from knowledge, that truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the final judgment. It is in this loyalty exposed to the passage of time and the court - and not in the success of a season - that the decision is made, whether a life was merely lived or truly preserved as a gift from God; whether the talents received were made fruitful or buried in the earth.

— Church topicality —

.

Author
Ariel S. Levi di Gualdo

.

At the end of the year the world tends to, to take stock, by getting results, Measures successes and failures. It's a calming exercise, because it allows, to judge life according to visible and seemingly immediately verifiable criteria.

From a Christian perspective However, not everything is, what is measurable, true, and that, what actually determines the quality of an existence, often does not coincide with this, what appears to be successful in the eyes of the world. On the path of faith, true fulfillment often takes the form of this, what the world judges as failure and failure. This is the logic of the cross, which the apostle Paul neither weakens nor makes acceptable:

“We, on the other hand, proclaim Christ crucified, a nuisance for Jews, foolishness to Gentiles.” (1 Kor 1,23).

This dimension is lived by those, who are gradually finding themselves marginalized, because they have not betrayed their conscience and have not renounced the truth. Not because of an ideological decision, not because of personal incompetence, but due to an increasing incompatibility with practices, Language forms and functional criteria of church contexts, in which they live and work: systems, reward adaptation, demand opportune silence and marginalize those, that cannot be functionalized. From a certain point of view you could call them that: the scandalous gates of the cross.

The gates of the cross cause offense, by refusing, to bend the language, to make an objectively unfair decision appear acceptable. They refuse it, to be described as “pastoral”., which in reality is nothing other than opportunistic problem management; they reject anti-evangelical clerical logics, who confuse fidelity to the gospel with obedience to apparatus dynamics. They don't get involved, to cover up long-standing failures with ambiguous formulas, nor accept them, that the laxity of clergy with a shortage of priests, organizational urgency or with reference to alleged balances, which should not be disturbed. They do not adapt to irregular situations that are presented as inevitable, they cannot be silenced “so as not to cause problems”, nor do they make themselves accomplices of cliques, mutual protection mechanisms and reassuring stories, that serve this purpose, to hide the truth.

In such cases the reduction to marginality is not the result of a personal mistake, but the side effect of non-negotiable coherence, which is almost always a defeat, is read as a sign of inadequacy or relational incompetence. But that's not always the case: Sometimes it's simply the price, not having adapted to a system, that is not tolerated, what it can neither control nor utilize. This mechanism is neither new nor limited to the church sector. It is typical of any closed power structure, including criminal organizations, who don't meet those first, who break the law, but those, that cannot be made functional: those, who do not bow, that do not enter into the cycle of mutual dependencies, the language, Do not accept silence and required complicity. In such systems, isolation and marginalization are not accidents, but conscious instruments of control.

A marginality that has not been overcome to accept belongs to the wisdom of the folly of the cross and means neither, to retreat into a resentful niche, nor to cultivate a spirituality of failure. In concrete terms, this means recognizing, that not everything that is true finds a place in the official channels and that not every form of invisibility can be equated with loss. This is evident, for example, with those, the ones on wheels, To forego office or visibility, not to sign any official documents, in which an unjust decision is presented as a “shared pastoral option”.. It shows with them, who refuse, to hide real responsibilities behind false diplomatic formulas, which are passed off as “holy wisdom”., In reality, however, they serve to manage problems opportunistically. It is the situation of those, who continue to work seriously, without being promoted, because they do not belong to any influential clique; that one, who think and write, without being invited, because they do not conform to the dominant narratives; that one, bear real responsibility — in education, Culture and education — without official positions or protective affiliations, because they are not ready, to exchange freedom of judgment for protection or recognition.

In these cases Invisibility is not a sign of personal failure, but a form of protection: It protects us from the logic of appearances, removes the blackmail pressure of consensus and prevents it, to be instrumentalized. Sometimes over time it even turns out to be a mercy - not because it makes life easier, but because it allows, frei, to remain with integrity and not subject to blackmail. It is the situation of figures, who appear marginalized, without being destroyed, are considered to be silenced and become more fruitful as a result. Scripture knows this dynamic well. Moses is removed from the public stage and led into the desert of Midian, before he is called, to liberate the people (cf. Ex 2,15; 3,1); Elijah flees into the desert, wishes death, and it is precisely there that he learns to listen, that removes him from the violence of power and the noise of action (cf. 1 Gender 19,1–18); John the Baptist is neither born nor active in the center, but in the desert, far from official religious circles, and from there he prepares the way of the Lord (cf. Mt 3,1–3; Mk 1,2–4; Lk 3,1–4). Jesus himself will, even before every public word and every sign, driven into the desert by the spirit, where he expressly succeeds, immediate effectiveness and the applause of the crowd (cf. Mt 4,1–11; Mk 1,12–13; Lk 4,1–13).

The desert is not the place of uselessness in the biblical and evangelical tradition, but of cleaning: It does not create visibility, but freedom; it does not guarantee success, but truth. In this space, figures mature, that appear irrelevant on the outside, actually cannot be blackmailed, produced by a fertility, which does not depend on immediate recognition, but from loyalty to the truth, of inner freedom and ability, to stand the test of time, without being corrupted by it.

Looking at the gospel without anxious pietism and without a devotional filter, an elementary finding stands out: Jesus shows no fear, to be in the center. On the contrary: When the center fills up, he withdraws from it as a matter of course. He preaches to the crowds (cf. Mt 5–7; Mk 6,34), but then withdraws (cf. Mk 1,35; Joh 6,15); he works signs (cf. Mk 1,40–45; Mk 7,31–37), however, recommends silence (cf. Mk 1,44; Mk 8,26); he attracts disciples, but doesn't hold on to it, who go away (cf. Joh 6,66–67). In today's language you could say, he doesn’t care about his own “positioning”. And yet no one has shaped history more than him.

If you take this evangelical one Take a look, the beatitudes also stop, to be an uplifting repertoire for celebratory occasions, and will do that again, what they are in their Christological reality: a radical criterion of distinction. They promise neither success, visibility nor approval; rather, they describe a paradoxical form of happiness, which is incompatible with the logic of consensus. The blessed in the Gospel are not those, who “made it”, but those, who have not exchanged the truth for applause (cf. Mt 5,1–12).

In addition to the Beatitudes However, the Gospel also preserves the other side of the coin with the same clarity: the “woeful cries”. Harsh words, little quoted and rarely commented on, perhaps because they disrupt a comfortable spirituality. “Woe to you, when all people praise you.” (Page 6,26): a reminder, which does not seem to be aimed at scandalous sinners, but to respectable ones, estimated, fully integrated people. It is, as if Jesus was warning about a subtle form of failure: that one, in which consensus is bought at the price of one's own inner freedom.

In the gospel Consensus is never a value in itself. More than that: When he becomes unanimous, it often takes on the characteristics of a collective misunderstanding. The crowds cheer, and then disappear (cf. Joh 6,14–15.66); the disciples applaud, and then argue about it, who is the greatest (cf. Mk 9,33–34; Page 22,24); the notables recognize, only to distance themselves out of fear or expediency (cf. Joh 12,42–43). Jesus goes through all of this, without ever letting yourself be captured by it. He doesn't seek opposition, But don't be afraid of them either; he does not despise recognition, but don't chase after her. You could say with barely a hint of a smile, that he never confuses approval ratings with the measure of truth, because approval values ​​lie in people, the truth lies in God.

The gospel practices in this sense an irony that is as discreet as it is relentless. Just those, who occupy the center - the guarantors of order, the specialists of correctness, the “we’ve always done it this way” pros — often turn out to be the least capable, to recognize what is actually happening. While discussing procedures, Writes documents and conjures balances, which must not be disturbed, faith takes shape elsewhere; while paying attention, that nothing leaves the established framework, understanding matures outside the stage; while everything is measured in categories of consensus and opportunity, the truth takes byways, without asking permission. Not because she loves the edges as such, but because - as the Gospel shows with a certain persistence - the truth cannot be managed. And even less can it be certified by the number of approvals achieved or by the peace of conscience, that can be preserved.

A marginality that has not been overcome So accepting doesn't mean, to cultivate a preference for opposition or to take refuge in a polemical stance out of principle. Rather, it means, to stop, the value of a life — or a service — after the consent received, the positions achieved or the consensus gathered, according to that logic, which the age unashamedly calls hypertrophic narcissism. That means specifically, not the number of invitations, to make recognition or appreciation the decisive criterion, but the honesty of the decisions made. After all, the gospel doesn’t require it, to be cheered, but to be faithful. And this loyalty is often lived far from the center, where you are exposed to less pressure, can see reality more freely than that, what she is, and is less forced, to say that, whatever seems appropriate.

The turn of the year often comes with disproportionate ones Expectations charged. Definitive balance sheets are required, final judgments, words, who are supposed to sort everything out once and for all. In reality, this time is for the, who lives with a minimum of inner honesty, not to that, to close invoices, but to stop cheating: to no longer tell each other comforting stories, not to be confused, which was successful, with the, which was fair. It's not the moment, to declare stage victories, but to distinguish the essential from the superfluous, what is to be preserved from that, what can be let go without regret.

A special freedom arises here: if you accept, that not everything is solved, needs to be clarified or acknowledged. Some processes remain open, some questions unanswered, some serious acts of injustice without reparation. But not everything unfinished is sterile. Sometimes it is simply entrusted to a time, which does not coincide with ours. This awareness is far from it, to be a surrender; it is a high form of spiritual realism.

The “sober truth” is neither an internal disposition nor an abstract principle: You can recognize them by the price, that a person is willing to pay, not to contradict that, what he knew to be true. She shows herself, when you are ready, Opportunities, Losing offices or protection, instead of linguistic justifications, to resort to appeasing formulas or moral alibis, that make something presentable, which it cannot be under any circumstances: to do so, as if evil were good, and to use this lie as a shield against them, who try, to call evil by its name.

In a church context, which is objectively in an advanced state of decay and people are craving visibility, adaptability and immediate usefulness, has this decision concrete, sometimes even devastating consequences. She means, to continue carrying out one’s own church ministry or mission, without recipients of appointments, Honorary positions or those small concessions, with which power flatters and subdues at the same time; without being involved in the decision-making bodies of the diocese or church institutions; without making themselves available to government logic, the silence, Require adjustment or compromise, that are deemed inadmissible, because they are bought at a price, which no Christian conscience can accept: the sacrifice of the freedom of God's children, which is inscribed from the beginning in the mystery of man's creation. She means after all, to accept, that one's own contribution remains without rewards and is pushed to the margins, not because it is useless, but because it cannot be used in the relevant cycles; and yet destined to do so, to be a seed in the silence of the desert, who bears fruit.

In that sense Staying put is neither a form of stubbornness nor an identity pose, which was constructed for demarcation. It's the decision, to stay true to that, what you know to be true, even if this loyalty is silent, Loss of role and lack of recognition.

In transition from one year to the next is not required, to draw comforting conclusions, but to look at it, what remains, when time illusions, Roles and justifications have been consumed. The decisions made remain, the words spoken or left silent, the responsibilities assumed or avoided. This is - and nothing else - the material, that traverses time.

Christian hope does not come from expectation, that things will “get better”, nor the consensus gathered or the results achieved. It comes from knowledge, that truth is not measured by the immediate, but will be judged in the final judgment. It is in this loyalty exposed to the passage of time and the court - and not in the success of a season - that the decision is made, whether a life was merely lived or truly preserved as a gift from God; whether the talents received were made fruitful or buried in the earth.

From the island of Patmos, 31. December 2025

______________________

Dear Readers, this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our Bank account in the name of:

Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican

Iban code: IT74R0503403259000000301118

For international bank transfers:

Codice SWIFT: BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff,

the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message: isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

ROBERTO BENIGNI'S STONE: THE PRIMARY OF FRAGILE LOVE

It is the journey of a man who only knew how to say "I love you" and that, through grace and pain, learn to say “I love you” — no longer with words, but with his cross.

- Church news -

.

Author
Simone Pifizzi

.

The interpretation Pietro a man in the wind presented last night at the Vatican Gardens by Roberto Benigni, he did not take long to bring to mind the lessons of contemporary French phenomenology. Jean-Luc Marion warns us that Revelation is not an object to be dominated, but a “saturated phenomenon”, an event that exceeds our ability to understand. The risk of the modern exegete is to transform the text into an idol: a mirror that reflects one's own creativity more than the face of God[1]. but yet, something surprising happens with this monologue. Now Ten Commandments Benigni sometimes risked letting his creativity prevail over the text, here he makes a decisive step: what Paul Ricoeur calls the “second naivety”[2]. Benign not usa plus the text, but he leaves use from the text. We have therefore witnessed the triumph of the text over the interpreter, as if Benigni had become, fully for the first time, useless servant of the Word: does not offer images, but he receives them. It doesn't impose a color, but it allows itself to be coloured. The result is a "totally shareable" Peter because he is not the Peter of the myth, but rather the Peter of salvation history: fragile, contradictory, loved.

Hans Urs von Balthasar showed how the theological beauty of Christ lies in kenosis: emptying. Peter is the first to enter, but he does it “in the manner of man”: stumbling, wrong, always coming back[3]. His every greatness is followed by a fall: confesses the divinity of Christ in Caesarea Philippi ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God ": Mt 16,16); immediately after he is called "Satan" («Go after me, Satan! You are a scandal to me": Mt 16,23); promises absolute loyalty at the Last Supper ("I will give my life for you": GV 13,37); a few hours later he renounces the Master ("I don't know him": Mt 26,72-74).

Roberto Benigni does not mitigate these contradictions: uses them as a key to understanding. Peter is the icon of the Church that does not preach itself, but Christ, precisely because he knows he is not Christ. The rock that the Evangelist Matthew talks about (cf.. 16,18) it is not Simone's will, but the faith of Peter: a faith mixed with weakness.

The highest point of interpretation — captured by Benigni with theological finesse — is the dialogue taken from the Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John in which Jesus asks: "Simon, son of John, what is (agapas-me)?». Peter replies: "Man, I love you (philo-se)». Peter is not capable of total love: offers what it has, not what he doesn't have. At that point Christ descends to his level, but he does it to elevate it.

History takes place on the Cross: Peter finally passes by there phileo a agape. It is Bonhoeffer's “grace at a high price”.: you become what you are called to be through the wound, not through triumph.

Peter's true primacy is this: transform a fragile love into a total love. He didn't become the first Pope because he was the best, but because he was the most forgiven. The episode of quo Vadis and the upside-down crucifixion are not folklore: they are the signature of his vocation. The Eucharist received and the washing of the feet undergone germinate years later, in the total gift of life. Peter teaches that Christian love is not a starting point but a point of arrival.

It is the journey of a man who only knew how to say "I love you" is that, through grace and pain, learn to say “I love you” — no longer with words, but with his cross.

Florence, 11 December 2025

.

NOTE

[1] See. J.L.. Marion, Given. Essay on a phenomenology of donation, Paris 1997, randomly: the concept of "saturated phenomenon" describes Revelation as an event that exceeds any grasp of the ego, escaping the logic of the idol.

[2] See. Paul Ricoeur, Finitude and guilt. (II). The symbolism of evil, Trad.. en. Brescia 1970; or The conflict of interpretations (1969), where Ricoeur describes the “second naivety” as the recovery of meaning after criticism.

[3] See. Hans Urs von Balthasar, Gloria. A theological aesthetic, vol. I: The perception of form, Trad.. it., Milan, Jaca Book 1975 (orig. glory, I: Look at the figure, Einsiedeln 1961), in particular on kenosis as a revelation of the divine form in weakness.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

Or if you prefer you can use our
Bank account in the name of:
Editions The island of Patmos

n Agency. 59 From Rome – Vatican
Iban code:
IT74R0503403259000000301118
For international bank transfers:
Codice SWIFT:
BAPPIT21D21

If you make a bank transfer, send an email to the editorial staff, the bank does not provide your email and we will not be able to send you a thank you message:
isoladipatmos@gmail.com

We thank you for the support you wish to offer to our apostolic service.

The Fathers of the Island of Patmos

.

.

.

(Italian, English, Español)

 

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY: A HOMOPHOBIA BEFORE THE LETTER OR A MAN TO UNDERSTAND? (Part One)

"Make no mistake: neither fornicators, born idolatry, nor adulterers, ne prostitutes, born sodomiti, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, not cursed, nor will they extortionately inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God!» (1Color 6,9-11)

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article – Article print format – Article in printed format

 

.

Homophobic St. Paul? No, but a man of his time. Who knows how many Christians, reading the passages of San Paolo, they had the impression that the Apostle of the Gentiles was a little too rigid, so much so that he has been branded - and not just now - as a misogynist and a homophobe.

Making such a disparaging judgment about a person It's completely out of place, especially if the person in question lived in the 1st century. d.C., and therefore very distant from us in terms not only of chronology, but also sociological.

Mind you, certain evaluations and expressions — including those that St. Paul uses in his Letters — must always be taken in cultural context, social, historical and theological in which they were formulated, avoiding making the mistake of reading facts and people of the past with criteria relating to modernity.

A healthy historicism is necessary to understand the issues and the men and Saint Paul, man of his time and son of his social and religious culture, he never denied his identity, indeed, if anything, he made it a point of pride even after his conversion to Christ, as is abundantly testified in the book of the Acts of the Apostles and in the Letters:

«I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but grew up in this city, trained at the school of Gamaliel in the strictest norms of paternal law, full of zeal for God, like all of you are today" (cf. At 22,3). «Then the tribune went to Paul and asked him: "Tell me, you are a Roman citizen?”. Answered: "Yes". replied the tribune: “I purchased this citizenship at a high price”. Paul said: “Io, instead, I am by birth!”». (At 22,27-28) «circumcised at the age of eight days, of the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, Jew, son of Jews; as for the Law, Pharisee; as for zeal, persecutor of the Church; as for the justice that derives from the observance of the Law, irreproachable" (cf. Fil 3,5-6). “You have certainly heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I fiercely persecuted the Church of God and devastated it, surpassing most of my peers and countrymen in Judaism, as avid as I was in upholding the traditions of the fathers" (cf. Gal 1,13-14).

About, instead, to certain ideological debates on hot topics like those present in Sao Paulo, it is better to limit them only to television debates in which most of the time only noise or bacchanal occurs. Places where guests are deliberately invited to provoke mutual opposition and where a faithful Christian - especially if a priest - should never set foot because he will always be seen as a circus attraction that is intended to entertain the public and on which one can let off steam and say the worst things. Doing theology and theological reflection, starting from the fact of faith means acting with other intentions and above all with other means, and that is what this article strives to do.

But let's get to the elements for a correct understanding of some sexual aspects. In my previous article (you see WHO) I referred in a non-exhaustive way to the broad theme of homosexuality in the ancient world; and I focused in particular on clarifying the nature and type of the sin of the city of Sodom in reference to the Biblical text (Gen 19,1-28) and to what the Pontifical Biblical Commission has clarified. Sin of Sodom which traditionally - at least since the 2nd century. AD onwards - inaugurated and determined in common feeling the identification of homosexual relationships between male individuals, but which then also included a form of heterosexual anal sexual intercourse, therefore it is possible to make a subsequent distinction between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy (cf. Dictionary of Italian Treccani, voce sodomy).

Etymological clarification is necessary because it helps us to delve deeper into the fact that the sodomy it does not only concern the expression of a specifically male homosexual practice but also the exercise of a hetero-oriented sexuality. A stronger the discussion will no longer only be between a level of ethereal or homo sexual orientation but on the broader exercise of human sexuality as such and its understanding within the plan of salvation wanted by God.

Let us remember how sexuality was also created by God as an element of salvation for men and women and that in this sense abuse in the etymological sense can only generate various problems, regardless of whether it is hetero-directed or homo-directed sexuality. The foundation of this vision is clearly not a philosophical reflection on the natural order, it is rather a reflection of faith that seeks to grasp creation, and therefore sexual and sexual relationships, in the alliance plan. This requires that humanity realizes itself in the recognition of its Creator, recognition that implies respect for the differences that unite society, especially the difference between men and women (cf. Xavier Thévenot, Male homosexuality and Christian morality, Torino, 1985, SHE DI CI p. 177). When the Creator is not recognized in any way, living one's humanity in totality even if God were not given, there is the serious possibility of incurring the sin of the city of Sodom which, by not recognizing and welcoming God and the foreigner, is prey to every excess and violence, his condition is particularly serious because he is executioner and victim at the same time.

I always remember what my sexual morality teacher he warned during his courses in the theological faculty. In the pastoral care of people with homosexual orientation it is essential to broaden the field of understanding so as not to focus solely on genital practice. It is not necessary to focus immediately on genitality as human sexuality is inclusive of various factors and although certain genital acts constitute an intrinsic and objective disorder this must not be a reason for impediment to the person who wishes to follow a human and Christian journey and who realizes how a differently oriented or disordered genitality actually constitutes a reason for embarrassment and confusion. This is also true for masturbation, for premarital relations and for fornication. We understand how certain questions remain open, because the point of view of the Bible is not to address the particularities and even less the singularity of situations which most of the time are always conflictual and placed within a defined historical space.

It is more necessary than ever to recognize with serenity the not remote possibility that a man or a woman could abuse their sexual identity and genitality. The right understanding can only provide a precise theology of corporeality that combines with the specific personality of each subject, in order to suggest the best paths to follow to live well and peacefully a heterosexual or homosexual relationship with oneself with the consequent deeper understanding of one's being. The authentic hypocrisy in these sexual themes can be seen in angelism which volatilizes the obstacle or sublimates it by hiding the problem and increasing the suffering that is hidden either under a denial or under a semblance of spiritualization.

How homosexuality was perceived in Paul's time? In the Letters of the Apostle the theme of homosexuality is not a central theme, even if some people still find it hard to believe it today and perhaps will be shocked by it. The Apostle is more interested in announcing and preaching Christ crucified and risen and the salvation that comes from him to every man within a renewal of life that is not only chronological - including, that is, between a before and an after —, that is, from the passage between sin and grace. The three texts of Saint Paul's Letters in which we can recognize homosexual conduct are the following:

1Color 6,9-11: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Don't fool yourself: neither fornicators, né idolatry, nor adulterers, nor depraved, born sodomiti, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor will robbers inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you! But you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God". 1TM 1,10: «We know that the Law is good, provided that it is used legitimately, in the belief that the Law is not made for the right, but for the wicked and the rebellious, for the wicked and sinners, for the sacrilegious and the profane, for parricides and matricides, for the murderers, the fornicators, the sodomites, the merchants of men, the liars, perjurers and for anything else contrary to sound doctrine, according to the gospel of the glory of the blessed God, that was entrusted to me". RM 1,24-27: «Therefore God gave them up to impurity according to the desires of their hearts, so much so that they dishonor their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth of God for lies and worshiped and served creatures rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God abandoned them to infamous passions; indeed, their females have changed natural relationships into unnatural ones. Likewise the males too, leaving the natural relationship with the female, they became inflamed with desire for each other, committing ignominious acts male with male, thus receiving within themselves the retribution due to their aberration".

We will have the opportunity to comment and analyze these texts briefly in the continuation of the article but what is now most interesting to clarify is that there is no Pauline text in which the explicit reasons for blame for a homosexual relationship are found, in short, a clear moral definition. Instead, we have specific texts and terms in which homosexual acts are regarded with blame (cf. soft [soft/feminine] e arsenokoitis [have sexual intercourse with a male as well as with a female]. We will also have the opportunity to focus more specifically on these terms throughout the article, now it is necessary to grasp the demarcation between sexuality and genitality, between corporeality and personality. The difference is subtle but substantial, especially for our times when talking about homosexuality and the right of citizenship of homosexuality in the modern world, inevitably leads to political ideology. But at the time in which Saint Paul wrote this problem did not arise in the slightest, for the simple fact that it is once free from any Puritan ideology and moralism.

Many of St. Paul's contemporaries they deal with the topic of homosexuality as it was generally considered already in the ancient world. Various testimonies come to us from the Greco-Roman world, as well as those pagan Mesopotamian populations with which the Jews came into contact. In some cities, sexual freedom was so evident - think for example of the city of Corinth - that the same toponym became the synonym for libertinism. Saying that a man or a woman lived "Corinthian style" indicated fairly free and unscrupulous sexual conduct. As we can read in the essay by Eva Cantarella that bisexuality was an almost stable condition of the sexual style of ancient man; and it is precisely in this social and cultural climate that Saint Paul lives and carries out his ministry as an apostle (cf. According to Nature, bisexuality in the ancient world, 2025, Universal Economy Feltrinelli).

For Jews, the revulsion towards homosexual sexual behavior was established in several documents. It would be interesting to ask ourselves whether the written prescriptions then found an application correspondence in real life as well as in Lex Scatinia of the Roman Republican era. In Jewish society these normative positions do not in themselves establish a precise sexual ethic but are more suited to the stigmatization of the pagan world that Jewish apologetics has maintained among the fundamental themes of its identity as a people and in the effort of ethnic conservation. We find evidence of what we are saying not only from reading canonical sources (cf. Lv 18,22 e 20,13) but also from profane and non-canonical literature (cf. Testaments of the XII Patriarchs; Levi XVII, 11; Philo; Sibylline Oracles).

The correct exegesis of the book of Leviticus — respectively in the Codes of Purity and Holiness — often cited inappropriately by many delicate souls who flock to our Christian communities, they prohibited various things with the sole purpose of preserving the identity of the chosen people. The preservation of purity and holiness could only be pursued at the time through a separatist attitude from everything that could stain the people's experience of salvation starting from the liberation events of Egypt and Sinai. And usually these separations included food and moral customs and practices of those neighboring peoples who did not enter into the covenant with God. With a joke we can summarize how the Levitical Fathers sent you to hell if you gorged on shrimp and lobsters - foods considered you know ―, whereas they wouldn't send you there if you had relations with a strictly prostitute kasher. Similarly, nowadays there are still Christians who see in the tattooed or homosexual individual - practices considered you know from Leviticus - the sure seal of the devil but they do not see the devil in their repeated attitude of unforgiveness and resentment towards some relative or acquaintance or in the attitude of division and scandal within the Church of God through their reckless judgments which dismember the body of Christ into its poorest members burdened by sin.

For this reason the apostolic experience of Saint Paul it is fundamental because it makes us understand that man's Promethean effort is no longer required to remain just, pure and holy before God, something that the ancient Law promised with the scrupulous observance of its innumerable prescriptions, without however succeeding. The ancient Law reveals sin and makes it aware but cannot eliminate it unless salvation is received through Jesus Christ who overcomes the Law. Now that we have fully entered into the grace that Christ deserved for us with his sacrifice on the cross, we can overflow with mercy even in the face of the superabundance of sin and the actual sins that many Christian converts had committed and of which we find a list in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

"Make no mistake: neither fornicators, born idolatry, nor adulterers, ne prostitutes, born sodomiti, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, not cursed, nor will they extortionately inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you; but you have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God!» (cf. 1Color 6,9-11)

Sanluri, 25 November 2025

.

______________________________

SAINT PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY: OR BEFORE THE LITERATURE OF HOMOPHOBIA, OR A MAN TO BE UNDERSTOOD? (first part)

“Do not be deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6,9–11)

— Ecclesial actuality —

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

Was Saint Paul homophobic? No — he was a man of his own time. How many Christians, when reading certain passages of Saint Paul, have had the impression that the Apostle of the Gentiles was somewhat too severe, to the point of being branded — and not only in our day — as a misogynist and a homophobe. To pronounce such a disdainful judgement upon any person is entirely inappropriate, all the more so when the individual in question lived in the first century A.D., far removed from us not only in terms of chronology, but also sociological context.

Let us be clear: certain assessments and expressions — including those used by Saint Paul in his Letters — must always be read within the cultural, social, historical, and theological framework in which they were formulated, avoiding the grave mistake of interpreting the past with the conceptual criteria of modernity.

A sober historical awareness is indispensable if we wish to understand questions and persons. And Saint Paul, a man of his time and a son of his social and religious culture, never renounced his identity; indeed, he made of it a point of pride even after his conversion to Christ, as abundantly attested in the Acts of the Apostles and in his Letters:

“I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, as all of you are this day” (Acts 22:3). “The tribune went and asked him, ‘Tell me, are you a Roman citizen?’ He replied, ‘Yes.’ The tribune answered, ‘I acquired this citizenship for a large sum.’ Paul said, ‘But I was born a citizen’” (Acts 22:27–28). “Circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew born of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the Church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless” (Phil 3:5–6). “You have heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the Church of God violently and tried to destroy it, and I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my ancestors” (Gal 1:13–14).

As for certain ideological controversies, especially on such heated themes as those found in Saint Paul, it is best to confine them to television studios — places where noise, spectacle, and provocation prevail. There, guests are deliberately invited to create mutual opposition, and a Christian — especially a priest — should never set foot in such an arena, where he will inevitably be treated as a circus curiosity, summoned to entertain the public and become the object upon which all manner of insults may be discharged. To do theology and engage in theological reflection, starting from the datum of faith, requires entirely different intentions and entirely different instruments — and this article seeks to do precisely that.

Let us now consider the elements necessary for a just understanding of certain sexual questions. In my previous article (see HERE), I recalled — though not exhaustively — the broad theme of homosexuality in the ancient world; and I paused in particular to clarify the nature and the species of the sin of the city of Sodom in reference to the biblical text of Genesis 19:1–28 and to the explanations offered by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The sin of Sodom, which traditionally — at least from the second century A.D. onwards — established in the common imagination the identification of homosexual relations between males, subsequently came to include also a form of heterosexual anal intercourse; hence one may distinguish between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy (cf. Treccani vocabulary, s.v. sodomy).

This etymological clarification is necessary because it helps us deepen our understanding of the fact that sodomy does not refer solely to a homosexual practice properly male, but may also involve a heterosexual misuse of sexuality. To an even greater degree, then, the discussion cannot be limited merely to sexual orientation — whether hetero- or homosexual — but must extend to the broader exercise of human sexuality as such, and to its understanding within God’s salvific design.

Let us remember that sexuality itself was created by God as an element of salvation for man and woman; and in this sense, abuse — in its etymological meaning — cannot but generate various disorders, regardless of whether it concerns heterosexual or homosexual acts. The foundation of this vision is not a philosophical reflection upon natural order; it is rather a properly theological reflection that seeks to grasp creation — and therefore sexual and sexed relationships — within the covenantal design. This requires that humanity be fulfilled in the recognition of its Creator, a recognition that implies respect for those differences that shape society, above all the difference between man and woman (cf. Xavier Thévenot, Male homosexuality and Christian morality, 1985). When the Creator is not recognised in any way — when one lives one’s humanity even if God were not given — then one runs the serious risk of falling into the sin of the city of Sodom, which, in rejecting both God and the stranger, becomes prey to every excess and act of violence — a condition particularly grave, for it renders one both executioner and victim at the same time.

I always recall what my professor of sexual morality insisted upon during our theological studies: in the pastoral care of persons with homosexual orientation, it is essential to enlarge the field of understanding so as not to focus solely and immediately upon genital practice. One must not fixate upon genitality, for human sexuality includes various dimensions; and although certain genital acts constitute an intrinsic and objective disorder, this must never become an impediment for the person who genuinely desires to undertake a human and Christian journey, and who recognises that a differently oriented or disordered genitality may in fact be a source of embarrassment or confusion. The same is true for masturbation, premarital relations, and fornication. We readily understand how certain questions remain open, because Scripture does not aim to address particularities — still less the singularities — of individual situations, which are often conflictual and always situated within a specific historical reality.

It is therefore necessary to acknowledge with serenity the not-so-remote possibility that a man or a woman may misuse sexual identity and genitality. A proper understanding cannot but require a precise theology of the body, united to the specific personality of each subject, so as to suggest the best paths by which to live well and peaceably one’s relationship with oneself — whether heterosexually or homosexually — together with a deeper understanding of one’s own being. The true hypocrisy in matters of sexuality is found in a sort of spiritualist angelism that evaporates the obstacle or sublimates the difficulty, concealing the struggle and thereby increasing the suffering hidden beneath either denial or a pretence of spiritualisation.

How was homosexuality perceived in the time of Paul? In the Letters of the Apostle, homosexuality is not a central theme — though some today may find that difficult to believe, even to the point of scandal. The Apostle is far more concerned with proclaiming and preaching Christ crucified and risen, and the salvation that flows from Him to every human being, within a renewal of life that is not merely chronological — that is, the “before and after” — the passage from sin to grace.

The three Pauline texts in which a homosexual conduct may be discerned are the following:

1 Color 6:9-11: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” 1 Tim 1,10: “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that the law is not intended for a righteous person but for those who are lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the sexually immoral, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which I have been entrusted with.” Rom 1,24–27: “Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and revered and worshiped the creature rather than the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another, males doing shameful things with males and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”

We shall have occasion to comment upon and briefly analyse these texts later in the article. What is important to clarify now is that there is no Pauline text in which we find an explicit moral condemnation of a homosexual relationship as such — no fully developed moral definition. Rather, we find specific terms and specific actions treated with moral disapproval (cf. soft, “soft, effeminate”; queer, “a man who lies with a male as with a woman”). We shall examine these terms more closely later. For the moment, it is necessary to grasp the distinction between sexuality and genitality, between embodiment and personality. The difference is subtle yet substantial — particularly in our time, when discussions of homosexuality and the supposed “right of citizenship” of homosexuality in modern society inevitably drift into ideological and political terrain.

But in the time when Saint Paul wrote, this problem did not arise in the slightest, for the simple reason that his was a period entirely free of ideological frameworks and puritan moralism.

Many of Paul’s contemporaries addressed the theme of homosexuality in the same manner in which it was generally viewed throughout the ancient world. Various testimonies come to us from the Greco-Roman world, as well as from the Mesopotamian pagan cultures with which the Jews came into contact. In certain cities, sexual liberty was so pronounced — Corinth, for example — that the very name of the city became a synonym for licentiousness. To say that a man or woman lived “in the Corinthian manner” indicated sexual conduct that was notably free and unrestrained.

We may also recall, as Eva Cantarella notes, that bisexuality was a nearly stable condition of ancient male sexuality; and it was very much in this social and cultural environment that Saint Paul lived and exercised his apostolic ministry (cf. According to Nature. Bisexuality in the ancient world, Feltrinelli, 2025).

Among the Jews, rejection of homosexual conduct was firmly established in various documents. It would be interesting to ask whether written prescriptions actually found concrete application in daily life — as in the case of the Lex Scatinia in the Roman Republic. In Jewish society these normative positions did not in themselves constitute a fully developed sexual ethic; rather, they served primarily to mark a boundary against the pagan world, a boundary that Jewish apologetics had long upheld as essential to its identity and to the preservation of the people. Testimonies of this attitude may be found not only in canonical sources (cf. Lev 18,22; 20,3) but also in non-canonical Jewish literature (cf. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi XVII, 11; Philo; the Sibylline Oracles).

A correct exegesis of the Book of Leviticus — particularly with regard to the Codes of Purity and of Holiness — often quoted with little understanding by the more delicate souls who populate our Christian communities, reveals that many prohibitions had one principal aim: the preservation of the identity of the chosen people. Purity and holiness could, at that time, be safeguarded only through a stance of separation from anything capable of contaminating the experience of salvation — an experience rooted in the events of the Exodus and Sinai. This separation included dietary and moral practices of neighbouring peoples who did not belong to the covenant with God.

In a somewhat humorous summary, one might say that the Levitical Fathers would send you to hell for feasting on prawns and lobsters — foods considered ṭarèf — but not for visiting a prostitute, provided she was rigorously kasher. Likewise, even today there are Christians who see in a tattooed or homosexual person — practices deemed ṭarèf by Leviticus — the unmistakable mark of the devil, yet fail to recognise the presence of the devil in their own repeated refusal to forgive, in longstanding resentment towards relatives or acquaintances, or in the divisive and scandalous attitudes within the Church expressed through rash judgments that tear apart the Body of Christ in its poorest and most burdened members.

For this reason the apostolic experience of Saint Paul is crucial: it shows that the Promethean effort of human beings to keep themselves righteous, pure, and holy before God — something the Old Law promised through meticulous observance of innumerable prescriptions, yet could never accomplish — is no longer required. The ancient Law reveals sin and makes one conscious of it, but cannot remove it, unless one receives salvation through Jesus Christ, who surpasses the Law. Now, having entered fully into the grace Christ has gained for us through His sacrifice on the Cross, we may abound in mercy even in the face of an abundance of sin — including the sins formerly committed by many Christian converts, enumerated in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

“Do not be deceived: neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. And this is what some of you used to be; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6,9–11)

Sanluri, 25 November 2025

.

______________________________

THE APOSTLE PAUL AND HOMOSEXUALITY: A HOMOPHOBIA BEFORE THE LETTER OR A MAN WHO MUST BE UNDERSTOOD? (first part)

And if we still have some hair left on our stomachs, we would come to discover that even Holy Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We found out, For example, that David and Jonathan may have been more than just friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah are the capitals of LGBT+ love, and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, I had something to hide; in summary, absolutely no one is saved anymore.

- Ecclesial news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

PDF print format article – article print format – article in printed format

 

.

Saint Paul, homophobic? No: simply a man of his time. How many Christians, when reading certain passages from Saint Paul, They must have had the impression that the Apostle of the Gentiles was too rigid, to the point of being pointed out — and not only today — as misogynist and homophobic. Issuing such a disparaging judgment about a person is totally inappropriate., especially when said person lived in the 1st century AD., so distant from us not only chronologically, but also sociologically and culturally.

It is worth clarifying: certain evaluations and expressions — including those that Saint Paul uses in his Letters — must always be read within the cultural context, social, historical and theological in which they were formulated, avoiding the error of judging events and people from the past with the criteria of modernity.

A healthy historical sense is essential to understand the issues and the men. and Saint Paul, man of his time and son of his social and religious culture, he never denied his identity; it's more, made her a source of pride even after her conversion to Christ, as the Acts of the Apostles and their Letters abundantly testify:

«I am Jewish, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but raised in this city, educated at the feet of Gamaliel according to the strict observance of the Law of our fathers, full of zeal for God, "as you all are today" (cf. Hch 22,3). "The tribune appeared and told him: “Dime, are you a roman citizen?”. He responded: "Yeah". replied the tribune: “I obtained that citizenship for a large sum of money”. Paul said: “Well, I have it from birth” (Hch 22,27-28). «Circumcised on the eighth day, of the lineage of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, Hebrew son of Hebrews; regarding the law, Pharisee; regarding zeal, persecutor of the Church; regarding justice based on the Law, irreproachable" (cf. Flp 3,5-6). "You have certainly heard of my conduct in the past in Judaism.": how he furiously persecuted the Church of God and devastated it, surpassing many of my compatriots of the same age in Judaism, extremely jealous of my parents' traditions." (cf. Ga 1,13-14).

As far as, instead, to certain ideological debates — especially on hot topics such as those appearing in St. Paul —, It is better to leave them limited to television debates, where noise and spectacle almost always reign. They are places where certain participants are deliberately invited to provoke confrontations, and where a faithful Christian - and even more so a priest - should never set foot, because it will always be seen as a circus attraction intended to entertain the public and on which all kinds of insults are unleashed. Doing theology—true theology—starting from the data of faith means acting with other intentions and with other means., And that is precisely what this article tries to do..

Now let's move on to some necessary elements for a correct understanding of certain aspects of sexuality. In my previous article (see HERE) I recalled — although without pretensions to exhaustiveness — the broad topic of homosexuality in the ancient world, and I stopped in particular to clarify the nature and type of sin of the city of Sodom according to the biblical text of Genesis 19,1-28 and the details offered by the Pontifical Biblical Commission. The sin of Sodom, that traditionally — at least since the 2nd century AD. (C). from now on — inaugurated in the common imagination the identification of homosexual relationships between men, It later came to also include certain heterosexual practices, specifically anal intercourse; hence it is possible to distinguish between homosexual sodomy and heterosexual sodomy (cf. Dictionary of the Italian language Treccani, voice sodomy).

This etymological clarification is necessary because it helps us delve deeper into the fact that sodomy does not refer only to the expression of a male homosexual practice in the strict sense., but also to the abuse of sexuality exercised in a heterosexual manner. A fortiori, The debate can no longer be limited to a question of sexual orientation — homo or heterosexual — but must be expanded to the broader exercise of human sexuality as such., and its understanding within the plan of salvation wanted by God.

Let us remember that sexuality has also been created by God as an element of salvation for men and women, and that in this sense the abuse — in its etymological meaning — cannot but generate various problems, regardless of whether it is a sexuality oriented towards the other sex or towards the same sex. The foundation of this vision is not a philosophical reflection on the natural order; is, rather, a properly theological reflection that seeks to understand creation — and, therefore, sexual and sexual relationships — within the design of the Alliance. This requires that humanity realize itself in the recognition of its Creator, recognition that implies respect for the differences that sustain society, especially the difference between man and woman (cf. Xavier Thévenot, Male homosexuality and Christian morality, 1985).

When the Creator is no longer recognized in any way, when you live your own humanity even if God were not given, there is a serious possibility of incurring the sin of the city of Sodom that, by not recognizing or welcoming God and the stranger, remains prey to all excess and violence: an especially serious condition, because it makes the person both executioner and victim at the same time.

I always remember what my sexual morality teacher warned during courses at the theology faculty. In the pastoral care of people with homosexual orientation, it is essential to broaden the field of understanding so as not to focus immediately, nor exclusively, in genital practice. You should not stop looking at the genitals, since human sexuality includes various factors; and although certain genital acts constitute an intrinsic and objective disorder, This should not become an impediment for the person who wishes to follow a human and Christian path., and that recognizes that genitalia oriented in a diverse or disordered way can constitute a real cause for shame or confusion. This is equally true for masturbation., for premarital relations and fornication. We thus understand that certain questions remain open, because the point of view of the Bible is not to address the particularities — and even less the singularities — of situations that, most of the time, They are conflictive and are located within a precise historical context.

It is necessary, well, calmly recognize the possibility — not at all remote — that a man or a woman could abuse their sexual identity and their own genitalia. Adequate understanding cannot dispense with a precise theology of corporeality, linked to the specific personality of each subject, to be able to suggest the best possible paths that allow you to live well and serenely in a relationship with yourself - whether heterosexual or homosexual - along with a deeper understanding of your own being.. The real hypocrisy in these sexual themes is found in the angelism that evaporates the obstacle, sublimates it, hides the problem and increases the suffering that remains hidden either under denial or under an appearance of spiritualization.

How was homosexuality perceived in Paul's time?? In the Letters of the Apostle homosexuality is not a central theme, although some – still today – refuse to believe it and perhaps even become scandalized. The Apostle is much more interested in announcing and preaching Christ crucified and resurrected, and the salvation that reaches every human being from Him within a renewal of life that is not merely chronological — from before to after —, that is to say, from sin to grace.

The three texts of the Letters of Saint Paul in which we can glimpse homosexual behavior are the following:

1 Corinthians 6,9-11: "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Don't fool them: nor the immoral, nor the idolaters, nor adulterers, not even the effeminate ones (malakoí), nor the sodomites (Arsenocites), not even the thieves, nor the misers, not even the drunks, Neither slanderers nor raptors will inherit the Kingdom of God. And this was some of you; but you have been washed, you have been sanctified, "You have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.". 1 Timothy 1,10: «We know that the Law is good, as long as it is used legitimately, considering that the Law is not established for the righteous, but for transgressors and rebels, for the wicked and sinners, for the sacrilegious and profaning, for parricides and matricides, for murderers, the fornicators, the sodomites (Arsenocites), human traffickers, the liars, perjurers and everything that opposes sound doctrine, according to the Gospel of the glory of the blessed God, which has been entrusted to me.. Romans 1,24-27: "Therefore God gave them over to impurity according to the desires of their hearts.", so that they dishonored their bodies among themselves, for they exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature instead of the Creator, that is blessed forever. Amen. That is why God gave them over to vile passions: His women changed natural relationships for those that are against nature. Likewise men, abandoning the natural relationship with the woman, they burned with desire for each other, "committing shameful acts man with man and receiving in themselves the payment they deserve for their error.".

Let us remember that sexuality has also been created by God as an element of salvation for men and women, and that in this sense the abuse — in its etymological meaning — cannot but generate various problems, regardless of whether it is a sexuality oriented towards the other sex or towards the same sex. The foundation of this vision is not a philosophical reflection on the natural order.; is, rather, a properly theological reflection that seeks to understand creation — and, therefore, sexual and sexual relationships—within the design of the Alliance. This requires that humanity realize itself in the recognition of its Creator, recognition that implies respect for the differences that sustain society, especially the difference between man and woman (cf. Xavier Thévenot, Male homosexuality and Christian morality, 1985).

When the Creator is no longer recognized in any way, when you live your own humanity even if God were not given, there is a serious possibility of incurring the sin of the city of Sodom that, by not recognizing or welcoming God and the stranger, remains prey to all excess and violence: an especially serious condition, because it makes the person both executioner and victim at the same time.

We will have the opportunity to comment and analyze briefly these texts in the continuation of the article, but what is important to clarify now is that there is no text in Saint Paul where an explicit condemnation of a relationship homosexual as such, that is to say, a fully developed moral definition in the modern sense. What we do find are concrete terms that describe acts considered with disapproval: — malakoí (soft), literally “soft”, “effeminate”; — Arsenocites (queer), “those who have sexual relations with men as with a woman”. We will also have the opportunity, in the course of the article, to dwell on these terms more precisely; now it is necessary to grasp the distinction between sexuality and genitality, between corporeality and personality. The difference is subtle, but substantial — especially in our time —, where talking about homosexuality and the “right of citizenship” of homosexuality in the modern world inevitably leads to political ideology. But at the time when Saint Paul writes, this problem simply does not exist: It is a time free from any ideology and any puritan moralism.

Many contemporaries of Saint Paul They address the issue of homosexuality in the same way it was generally understood in the ancient world.. Numerous testimonies come from the Greco-Roman environment, as well as the pagan Mesopotamian peoples with whom the Jews came into contact. In some cities, sexual freedom was so widespread — let's think, For example, in Corinth — that the same place name became a synonym for debauchery. Saying that a man or woman lived “in the Corinthian way” meant describing fairly free and unscrupulous sexual behaviors.. And as we can read in Eva Cantarella's study, Bisexuality was an almost stable condition in the sexual style of ancient man; and it is precisely in this social and cultural environment where Saint Paul lives and develops his ministry as an apostle. (cf. Eva Cantarella, Second nature. Bisexuality in the ancient world, Feltrinelli, 2025).

For the Jews, the repulsion towards homosexual sexual behavior was well established in various documents. It would be interesting to ask ourselves if the written prescriptions later found a concrete application in real life., in the same way that happened with the Lex Scatinia of the Roman republican era. In Jewish society, These normative positions do not in themselves constitute a fully developed sexual ethic.; rather they correspond to the stigmatization of the pagan world, that Jewish apologetics maintained among the fundamental pillars of its identity and its effort to preserve its ethnic specificity.

The testimonies of what we say are found not only in canonical sources (cf. Lv 18,22; 20,13), but also in secular and non-canonical literature (cf. Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, Levi XVII, 11; Philo; Sibylline Oracles).

The correct exegesis of the book of Leviticus — in the calls Purity Codes and of Holiness —, to which many delicate Christians appeal without knowledge, prohibited various practices with a single objective: the preservation of the identity of the chosen people. Purity and holiness had to be preserved through ritual separatism from everything that could “contaminate” the salvation experience of the people., from the founding events of the Exodus and Sinai. Normally, These separations included dietary and moral practices of neighboring peoples who did not participate in the alliance with God..

We can sum it up with a very precise irony: The Levitical Fathers sent you to hell for bingeing on shrimp or lobsters — foods considered ṭharèf —, but they didn't send you to hell if you had sex with a prostitute as long as it was strictly kasher.

In the same way, Today there are still Christians who see tattooing or homosexuality - practices that Leviticus classified as ṭharèf - an infallible sign of the devil., but they are unable to see the devil in his permanent lack of forgiveness, in his resentment, or in its division within the Church, through reckless judgments that tear apart the Body of Christ, especially in its poorest members and wounded by sin.

That is why the apostolic experience of Saint Paul is fundamental: makes us understand that the Promethean effort of human beings is no longer required to remain just., pure and holy before God, something that the old Law promised through the scrupulous observance of innumerable prescriptions, without ever managing to bring it to its fullness. The Old Law Reveals Sin and Makes It Conscious, but not able to delete it, unless salvation is received through Jesus Christ, that surpasses the law.

Now, having fully entered into grace that Christ has deserved for us with his sacrifice on the cross, we can overabound in mercy even in the face of the overabundance of sin and the concrete sins that many converted Christians had committed, and of which we find a list in the First Letter to the Corinthians:

«Do not deceive them: nor the immoral, nor the idolaters, nor adulterers, not even the effeminate ones, nor those who sleep with men, not even the thieves, nor the misers, not even the drunks, nor the defamers, nor will the rapacious inherit the Kingdom of God. And this was some of you; but you have been washed, you have been sanctified, "You have been justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." (1 Color 6,9-11).

Sanluri, 25 November 2025

.

.

The books of Ivano Liguori, to access the book shop click on the cover

.

.

.

______________________

Dear Readers,
this magazine requires management costs that we have always faced only with your free offers. Those who wish to support our apostolic work can send us their contribution through the convenient and safe way PayPal by clicking below:

 

Read more