(Italian, English, Español)

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO GAIZE THE HOLY SCRIPTURE AND CLEAR HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

If we still have enough hair left on our stomach, we come to discover that even the Holy Scripture is obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. Let's find out, eg, that David and Jonathan were perhaps a little 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 had something to hide, in short, no one can be saved anymore.

- Church news -

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

Ivano Liguori – PDF print format article – PDF article print forma – PDF article in printed format

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, famous cartoonist, published a few days ago on his website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate the priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists in homosexuality.

In schizophrenic times like ours we have to witness these little theaters in which there are more priests who talk and worry about homosexuality, with the desperate aim of clearing it within the Church and its clergy, more than the activists of the most famous homosexual culture club in Rome talk about it, which are much more coherent and therefore respectable, in their free and unquestionable choices. Homosexuals have always been better, on a human and social level, they are those who, by their unquestionable choice of life, live their homosexuality in the light of the sun, in freedom and coherence, without worrying about the Catholic Church and its morality, because it doesn't concern them. Instead, the absolute worst are the clerical parakeets, also called "sacristy homosexuals", who would like to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in a desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ claims into the Church and the clergy as a real Trojan horse.

These subjects should be sent to lessons by Tomaso Cerno, who was national president of Arcigay (gay association of the Italian left), later elected to the Senate of the Italian Republic, splendid figure of a free and intellectually honest homosexual intellectual, author of clever and hilarious phrases like:

«Being a serious homosexual, certi fags repressed and certain queers I've never tolerated them when they went crazy".

One would have to reply to him: tell that to our hysterical gay sacristy acids! E, with an irony and unparalleled freedom, to those various television and radio programs where more colorful language is permitted — which, however apparently trivial, in certain contexts it can also be effective and even useful on a socio-communicative level - he begins by continually referring to "faggots" and referring to himself by saying "I've happily been a faggot since I was a child" (see WHO, QUI, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc. ..).

Like this, if we still have enough hair left on our stomach, we come to discover that even the Holy Scripture is obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. Let's find out, eg, that David and Jonathan were perhaps a little 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 had something to hide, in short, no one can be saved anymore.

But let's go back to the cartoon of this Italian priest. What is really the sin of Sodom that scandalizes certain priests on page? The text of Genesis says so:

«They hadn't gone to bed yet, when behold the men of the city, that is, the inhabitants of Sodom, they crowded around the house, young and old, all the people as a whole. They called Lot and told him: “Where are those men who came to you this night? Get them out of us, because we can abuse it!”» (cf.. Gen 19,4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb «abusare», which already says something a little more precise for a correct exegesis (to use: go beyond the permitted use). The original Hebrew text instead uses the expression "that they might know them". The Hebrew term is failʿ (knowledge) and it means “to have complete knowledge” — not always of a sexual nature — but in many cases it indicates carnal knowledge, specificity of the unitive act between man and woman. If so, and that's how it is, more than a homosexual act, the biblical story would testify to the attempt at gang violence, used as a sign of subordination and submission for those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

The rest, in many populations — and history bears witness to this — the supreme act of greatest contempt towards an individual or an ethnic group has often coincided not with murder but with the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when it was women who were abused, the consequent pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a desire for submission and domination also in the child who would be born from it.

To proceed with more information, I report what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says in reference to this passage from Gen 19,4 in the document «What is man?» (Shall 8,5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology: «It should be noted immediately that the Bible does not speak of erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex, but only homosexual acts. And he deals with these in a few texts, different from each other in literary genre and importance. Regarding the Old Testament we have two stories (Gen 19 e Gdc 19) which inappropriately evoke this aspect, and then the rules in a legislative code (Lv 18,22 e 20,13) who condemn homosexual relationships" (PCB 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear and the Bible's concern refers only to the homosexual act and not to homo-affective relationships and implications, as we know and theorize them today. Which means introducing a substantially different reflection, as much as the analysis of a case of moral theology in the light of anthropology alone. The Bible sees and reads the homosexual act within a well-defined sexuality and a relationship established by God between man and woman, between male and female, which establishes an order and a plan of salvation (although these categories too, by some biblical scholars of Protestant origin, have been demolished). In this sense also human sexuality, for God, it was conceived as an instrument of salvation and must also be exercised in this sense.

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, considers homosexual acts as they were considered and known in ancient times. Just as Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those people who, having joined Christ, they also rediscovered sexuality as a saving novelty (cf.. RM 1,26-27; 1Color 6,9-11; 1TM 1,10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients? Substantially the reversal of the natural order of union and procreation, which assigned an active-giving role to man and a passive-receptive role to woman. A perhaps archaic vision, but borrowed from observation of the natural world, whereby: «It was believed that sexual intercourse required one active partner and the other passive, that nature had assigned these roles to male and female respectively, and that homoerotic acts inevitably created confusion in these roles, thus confusing what is natural. In the case of relationships between two males, one was believed to be degraded by taking on the passive role, considered naturally reserved for women. In the case of two women, one of the two was believed to usurp the dominant role, active, considered naturally reserved for man" (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in AA. VV., Bible and homosexuality, claudian, Torino 2011, p. 25).

So, for these natural reasons, Sexual relations of this type were not contemplated between two men or two women. However, this did not imply a judgment of merit extended to people: the discussion was about the act, not on emotional relationships as we understand them today, it is worth hypothesizing generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world they also agree in indicating the existence of prohibitions and penalties to regulate homoerotic practices in some civilizations and circumstances, but there is no certainty of their actual application, except for certain cases which we do not deal with here and which may be the subject of a subsequent article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, can be specified even better:

«But what was Sodom's sin in reality?, deserving of such an exemplary punishment? …» (PCB 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom it is a sin deriving from the substantial contempt of God which generates proud rejection and oppositional conduct towards men outside Sodom - not only Lot's guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the evil city where the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of welcome is not respected, because we stopped welcoming God a long time ago. Something similar can be deduced from some evangelical passages (cf.. Mt 10,14-15; LC 10,10-12), where it speaks of the punishment for the rejection of those sent by the Lord: a refusal that will have more serious consequences than those that befell Sodom. In classical culture this attitude is the hybris (insult): violation of divine and natural law resulting in unfortunate consequences, desecrating and inhumane acts.

Yup, but where has homosexuality gone?? Starting from the second century of the Christian era, a habitual reading of Gen's story has established itself 19,4 in light of 2Pt 2,6-10 and Gd 7. The story is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual lust: rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome the foreigner and seeks to humiliate him, forcing him by force to suffer shameful treatment of submission (cf.. PCB 2019, n. 187). If we wanted to be more precise, we could limit the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined illegitimate sexual intercourse, even without rape: rape with a virgin or a widow O rape with males (cf.. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, edition consulted, pp. 138-141).

But then the inhabitants of Sodom were homosexuals yes or no? The Bible doesn't say that, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text highlights more important issues than a single conduct. Analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we can assume that in Sodom as in Persia, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Athens and Rome there were people who practiced acts of a homosexual nature and acts of a heterosexual nature in equal measure. People aware of their biological sex - they knew they were male and female - and who lived these practices with greater freedom and lightness than we imagine. Perhaps the century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, do not (solo) after 1968.

These themes allow us to talk about acts rather than homosexual relationships. In Greece they had a defined political-civil function; in Rome other meanings and purposes. Many of those engaged in homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar purposes, they returned to heterosexual acts and got married to a woman.

For the ancient world and for the philosophy of the Greeks, marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuation of the family and civil society, something that a community of only men or all women could not have supported, as the classical poems attest, in which female communities, so as not to become extinct, they are looking for men.

The ancient world knew a still primitive anthropology of sexuality, based on natural instincts, and was unable to fully define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it over the centuries - sometimes with questionable tones - nevertheless arriving at a theology of corporeity in view of a salvation that includes, does not mortify, sexuality.

Maybe it's us modern people to have categorized and defined sexuality so precisely — thanks to the human sciences and neuroscience. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, sexual activity in ancient times could resemble conscious bisexuality exercised in different contexts and for different purposes. Also because the concept of nature/against nature was understood differently from how Christian morality would understand it.

Now that we know the identity of Sodom's sin, we understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications - at least as we would like - on homosexual practices, nor as behavior to blame, nor as an attitude to be tolerated or encouraged (cf.. PCB 2019, n. 188). Simply, the Bible speaks of the salvation that God brings about in the history of man: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. In Christ salvation is revealed and refined, introducing a change not only internally into the heart of man, but also structural, that affects human relationships, and therefore also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, greater than his act or his orientation. A faith lived and welcomed with joy involves a liberating educational journey that re-establishes and redefines relationships in a new way, so as to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us - including sexuality and its exercise - so that it may be an instrument of salvation for me and for others.

Sanluri, 18 October 2025

.

______________________________

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO “GAY-IZE” SACRED SCRIPTURE AND LEGITIMIZE HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

So then, if we still have enough stomach hair left, we come to discover that even Sacred Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We learn, for instance, that David and Jonathan may have been somewhat more than simple friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah were the capitals of LGBT+ love; and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, had something to hide — in short, it would seem that no one is left innocent anymore.

— Ecclesial actuality —

.

Author
Ivano Liguori, Ofm. Cap.

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, well-known as a cartoonist, recently published on his website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate those priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists in homosexuality.
In these schizophrenic times of ours, we are forced to witness such little shows, where there are more priests speaking about and worrying over homosexuality — desperately trying to normalize it within the Church and her clergy — than there are activists at Rome’s most famous Homosexual Cultural Circle, who are far more consistent and therefore more respectable in their free and unquestionable choices.

The best homosexuals, humanly and socially speaking, have always been those who, by their own unquestionable life choice, live their homosexuality openly, in freedom and coherence, without worrying about the Catholic Church and her moral teaching — because it simply does not concern them.

The worst, instead, are the clerical parakeets, also known as “the camp priests of the sacristy” who would like to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in the desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ claims into the Church and the clergy as a true Trojan horse.

These individuals should be sent to take lessons from Tommaso Cerno, former national president of Arcigay (Italy’s major left-wing gay association) and later elected to the Italian Senate — a brilliant figure of a free and intellectually honest homosexual, author of witty and sharp remarks such as: “Since I am a serious homosexual, I have never been able to stand certain hysterical queens”. One would be tempted to reply: go tell that to our acidic sacristy queens! And, with his unmatched irony and freedom of spirit, in various television and radio programs where a more colorful language is allowed — which, although apparently coarse, can in some contexts be effective and even socially useful — he often opens his remarks by repeatedly referring to “faggots” and by saying of himself: “I have been a happily queer man ever since I was a child” (see WHO, QUI, WHO, WHO, WHO, etc..)

So then, if we still have enough stomach hair left, we come to discover that even Sacred Scripture seems to be obsessed with homosexuality and homosexuals. We learn, for instance, that David and Jonathan may have been somewhat more than simple friends; that Sodom and Gomorrah were the capitals of LGBT+ love; and that even Jesus, with his apostles and with Lazarus of Bethany, had something to hide — in short, it would seem that no one is left innocent anymore.

But let us return to the cartoon by this Italian priest. What, in truth, is the sin of Sodom that so scandalizes certain on page priests? The text of Genesis says:

“They had not yet gone to bed when the townsmen, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house. They called to Lot and said, ‘Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may abuse them’” (cf. Gen 19:4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb “to abuse”, which already says something a bit more precise for a proper exegesis (to use: to go beyond the permitted use). The original Hebrew text, however, uses the expression “so that they might know them”. The Hebrew term is yādāʿ (knowledge) and means “to have complete knowledge” — not always of a sexual kind — but in many cases it indicates a carnal knowledge, specific to the unitive act between a man and a woman. If this is so, and it is so, more than describing a homosexual act, the biblical account would bear witness to an attempted act of group violence, used as a sign of subordination and humiliation toward those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

Indeed, in many peoples — and history bears witness to this — the supreme act of contempt toward an individual or an ethnic group has often consisted not in murder but in the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when the victims of such abuse were women, the consequent pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a will of subjugation and domination even in the child who would be born of it.

To proceed with greater precision, I shall report what the Pontifical Biblical Commission says in reference to this passage of Gen 19:4 in the document “What is man?” (Ps 8:5), A Journey of Biblical Anthropology: “It must immediately be noted that the Bible does not speak of an erotic inclination toward a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts. And these are mentioned in only a few texts, which differ from one another in literary genre and importance. With regard to the Old Testament, we have two accounts (Gen 19 and Judg 19) that improperly evoke this aspect, and then certain norms in a legislative code (Lev 18:22 and 20:13) that condemn homosexual relations” (PBC 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear, and the concern of Scripture refers solely to the homosexual act, not to the relationships and affective implications between persons of the same sex as we know and conceptualize them today. This means introducing a substantially different reflection, namely the analysis of a case in moral theology in the light of anthropology alone. The Bible perceives and interprets the homosexual act within a sexuality clearly defined and within a relationality established by God between man and woman, male and female, which determines an order and a salvific plan (although even these categories, according to some Protestant biblical scholars, have been dismantled). In this sense, human sexuality itself, in God’s design, was conceived as an instrument of salvation and must be lived accordingly.

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, viewed homosexual acts as they were understood and regarded in ancient times. In the same way, Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those persons who, having embraced Christ, rediscovered even their sexuality as a new dimension of salvation (cf. Rom 1:26–27; 1 Color 6:9–11; 1 Tim 1:10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients? Essentially, they were seen as the overturning of the natural order of union and procreation, which assigned to the man an active-donative role and to the woman a passive-receptive one. A vision perhaps archaic, yet derived from the observation of the natural world, according to which: “It was believed that the sexual act required one active and one passive partner, that nature had assigned these roles respectively to male and female, and that homoerotic acts inevitably produced confusion in these roles, thereby confusing what is natural. In the case of relations between two males, it was thought that one of them was degraded by assuming the passive role, considered naturally reserved to the woman. In the case of two women, it was thought that one of them usurped the dominant, active role, considered naturally reserved to the man” (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in Bible and homosexuality, claudian, Turin 2011, p. 25).

Therefore, for such reasons of nature, sexual relations of this kind were not contemplated between two men or between two women. However, this did not imply a moral judgment extended to the persons themselves: the discourse concerned the act, not the affective relationships as we understand them today, otherwise we would have to hypothesize a generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world agree in noting the existence of prohibitions and penalties intended to regulate homoerotic practices in certain civilizations and circumstances, but there is no certainty as to their actual application, except for specific cases that will not be treated here and may be the subject of a future article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the matter can be clarified even further: “But what was in fact the sin of Sodom, deserving of so exemplary a punishment? …” (PBC 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom is a sin arising from a fundamental contempt for God that generates a proud rejection and an oppositional attitude toward those who are strangers to Sodom — not only Lot’s guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the wicked city in which the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of hospitality is no longer respected, because long ago its people ceased to welcome God. Something similar can be deduced from certain Gospel passages (cf. Mt 10:14–15; Page 10:10–12), where reference is made to the punishment for rejecting those sent by the Lord — a rejection that will have consequences more severe than those that befell Sodom. In classical culture, this attitude corresponds to hubris (insult): the violation of divine and natural law, leading to disastrous consequences, sacrilegious and inhuman acts.

Yes, but where did homosexuality go? Starting from the second century of the Christian era, a customary reading of the account in Gen 19:4 took shape in the light of 2 PT 2:6–10 and Jude 7. The narrative does not intend to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual desires; rather, it denounces the behavior of a social and political entity that refuses to welcome the stranger and seeks to humiliate him, forcing him by violence to undergo a degrading treatment of subjugation (cf. PBC 2019, n. 187). If we wished to be more precise, we could describe the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined an illicit sexual act, even without physical violence: rape with a virgin or a widow or sbad with males (cf. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, consulted edition, pp. 138–141).

But then, were the inhabitants of Sodom homosexual or not? Scripture does not say so, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text places the emphasis on themes far more important than a single behavior. By analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we may presume that in Sodom, as in Persia, Egypt, Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome, there were people who practiced both homosexual and heterosexual acts in equal measure. They were persons conscious of their biological sex — they knew themselves to be male or female — and who lived these practices with a freedom and lightness greater than we might imagine. Perhaps the true century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, not (only) after 1968.

Such themes allow us to speak of homosexual acts rather than homosexual relationships. In Greece, these acts had a specific political and civic function; in Rome, they bore other meanings and purposes. Many of those who engaged in homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar reasons, returned to heterosexual acts and contracted marriage with a woman.

For the ancient world and for Greek philosophy, marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuation of the family and of civil society, something that a community made up solely of men or solely of women could not sustain, as attested by the classical poems in which female communities, in order not to die out, seek men.

The ancient world possessed an anthropology of sexuality that was still primitive, based on natural instincts, and it was unable fully to define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it throughout the centuries — at times with debatable tones — yet ultimately arriving at a theology of corporeality aimed at a salvation that includes rather than mortifies sexuality.

Perhaps it is we moderns who have categorized and defined sexuality so precisely — thanks to the human sciences and to neuroscience. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, sexual activity in antiquity could resemble a conscious bisexuality practiced in different contexts and for different purposes. This was also because the concept of nature and against nature was understood differently from the way it would later be interpreted by Christian morality.

Now that we know the true identity of the sin of Sodom, we understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications — at least not as we would wish — concerning homosexual practices, neither as behaviors to be condemned nor as attitudes to be tolerated or favored (cf. PBC 2019, n. 188). Quite simply, Scripture speaks of the salvation that God works in the history of humanity: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. In Christ, salvation is revealed and refined, implanting in the human heart a change not only interior but also structural, which touches human relationships and therefore also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, who is greater than his or her act or orientation. A faith lived and received with joy entails a liberating educational journey that restores and redefines relationships in a new way, so as to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us — including sexuality and its exercise — that it may be, for me and for others, an instrument of salvation.

Sanluri, 18th October 2025

.

______________________________

THE SIN OF SODOM AND THAT UNEXPRESSED DESIRE TO MAKE THE HOLY SCRIPTURE GAY AND LEGALIZE HOMOSEXUALITY WITHIN THE CHURCH AND THE CLERGY

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.

.

An Italian priest, John Berti, famous cartoonist, published a few days ago on its website a cartoon in which the good Lord threatens to incinerate priests who still teach that the sin of Sodom consists of homosexuality.

In schizophrenic times like ours We must attend these little theaters in which there are more priests who speak and care about homosexuality — with the desperate goal of normalizing it within the Church and its clergy — than the activists of the most famous Circle of Homosexual Culture in Rome, who are much more coherent and, for it, more respectable in their free and unquestionable decisions. The best homosexuals, from the human and social point of view, have always been those who, for his free and unquestionable choice of life, they live their homosexuality in the sunlight, with freedom and consistency, without worrying about the Catholic Church or its morals, because the matter does not concern them. Instead, The worst ones at all are the hysterical crazy women in the sacristy., who wanted to bend the principles of Catholic morality to their whims, in the desperate attempt to introduce LGBT+ demands within the Church and the clergy through a true Trojan horse.

These guys should be sent to take lessons from Tommaso Cerno, who was national president of Arcigay (homosexual association of the Italian left) and later elected senator of the Republic, a splendid figure of a free and honest homosexual intellectual, author of intelligent and hilarious phrases like: “Being a serious homosexual, “I have never tolerated certain hysterical crazy women.”. It would make one want to respond: tell that to our hysterical gay sacristy acids!

Y, with irony and unparalleled freedom, on various television and radio programs where more colorful language is allowed — which, although apparently vulgar, In certain contexts it can be more effective and even useful on a socio-communicative level — it usually begins by constantly referring to “faggots” and saying about oneself: “I have been happily a faggot since I was a child.” (see HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, etc..).

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.

But let's go back to the vignette of this Italian priest. What really is the sin of Sodom that scandalizes certain priests? on page? The Genesis text says this::

“They had not yet gone to bed when the men of the city, the inhabitants of Sodom, They crowded around the house, young and old, the entire town. They called Lot and told him: 'Where are the men who entered your house tonight? Get them out so we can abuse them.’” (cf. Gen 19,4-5).

The Italian translation uses the verb “abuse”, that expresses something a little more precise for a correct exegesis (to use: go beyond permitted use). The original Hebrew text, instead, uses the expression “so that they could know them”. The Hebrew term is yādāʿ (knowledge) and means “to have complete knowledge”, not always sexual, although in many cases it indicates carnal knowledge, typical of the unitive act between man and woman. If it were so—and so it is—, more than a homosexual act, The biblical story would bear witness to an attempt at collective violence, used as a sign of subordination and humiliation towards those foreigners considered hostile and dangerous.

In fact, in many towns —and history proves it—, the supreme act of contempt towards an individual or an ethnic group has not coincided with homicide, but with the violation of the body through an act of sexual abuse. And when the victims of such abuse have been women, The pregnancy resulting from the act of violence reaffirmed a will to submit and dominate even over the child that was to be born..

To proceed with greater precision, I quote what the Pontifical Biblical Commission in reference to this passage from Gen 19,4 in the document what is man? (Shall 8,5). An itinerary of biblical anthropology: “It should be noted immediately that the Bible does not speak of the erotic inclination towards a person of the same sex, but only of homosexual acts. And it deals with these in a few texts., different from each other by literary genre and importance. Regarding the Old Testament, we have two stories (Gene 19 and Jue 19) that inappropriately evoke this aspect, and then some rules in a legislative code (Lv 18,22 and 20,13) "that condemn homosexual relations" (CBP 2019, n. 185).

The passage is very clear, and the concern of the Bible refers only to the homosexual act and not to the relationships or emotional implications between people of the same sex, as we know and theorize them today. This means introducing a substantially different reflection, as the analysis of a case of moral theology in the exclusive light of anthropology. The Bible perceives and reads the homosexual act within a well-defined sexuality and a relationality established by God between man and woman., between the male and the female, that establishes an order and a plan of salvation (although these categories, according to some biblical scholars of Protestant origin, have been dismantled). In this sense, also human sexuality, for God, It was intended as an instrument of salvation and should be exercised in that way..

The biblical man, who is essentially a man of antiquity, considers homosexual acts as they were known and understood in ancient times. Likewise, Paul of Tarsus considered homosexual acts in those people who, having adhered to Christ, they rediscovered even sexuality as a salvific novelty (cf. Rom 1,26-27; 1 Color 6,9-11; 1 Tim 1,10).

But what were homosexual acts for the ancients?? In essence, the reversal of the natural order of union and procreation, that assigned an active-donative part to men and a passive-receptive part to women.. A perhaps archaic vision, but derived from observation of the natural world, according to which: “It was believed that the sexual act required an active partner and a passive partner.”, that nature had assigned those roles respectively to men and women, and that homoerotic acts inevitably generated confusion in those roles, thus confusing what is natural. In the case of relationships between two men, one of them was thought to be degrading by assuming the passive role, considered naturally reserved for women. In the case of two women, one of them was thought to usurp the dominant role, asset, considered naturally reserved for men." (B. (J). Bread, Paul’s Views on the Nature of Women and Male Homoeroticism, in Bible and homosexualityat, claudian, Turin 2011, p. 25).

For such reasons of nature, between two men or between two women, sexual relations of this type were not contemplated. However, This did not imply a moral judgment extended to people: the speech focused on the act, not in emotional relationships as we understand them today, under penalty of imagining a generalized historical homophobia.

Historians and scholars of the ancient world They also agree in pointing out the existence of prohibitions and sanctions intended to regulate homoerotic practices in certain civilizations and circumstances., although there is no certainty of its effective application, except in some specific cases that we do not discuss here and that may be the subject of a later article.

Returning to the document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, can be specified even better: “But what really was the sin of Sodom?”, deserving of such exemplary punishment?…” (CBP 2019, n. 186).

The sin of Sodom It is a sin derived from fundamental contempt for God, which generates proud rejection and oppositional behavior towards those who are foreigners in Sodom: not only Lot's guests, but also Lot himself and his family. Sodom is the evil city in which the stranger is not protected and the sacred duty of hospitality is not respected., because for a long time they had stopped welcoming God. Something similar can be deduced from some evangelical passages. (cf. Mt 10,14-15; LC 10,10-12), where the punishment for rejecting the Lord's messengers is spoken of, a rejection that will have more serious consequences than those that fell on Sodom. In classical culture, This attitude corresponds to the hybris (insult): violation of divine and natural right that leads to dire consequences, sacrilegious and inhuman acts.

Yeah, but where has homosexuality gone?? From the second century of the Christian era, a habitual reading of the story of Gen was consolidated. 19,4 by the light of 2 Pe 2,6-10 y Jud 7. The story is not intended to present the image of an entire city dominated by homosexual desires.; rather, it denounces the conduct of a social and political entity that does not want to welcome foreigners and seeks to humiliate them., forcing him by force to suffer defamatory treatment of submission (cf. CBP 2019, n. 187). If we wanted to be more precise, we could circumscribe the attempted violence as rape, which in Roman law defined an illicit sexual relationship, even without carnal violence: rape with a virgin or a widow O rape with males (cf. Eva Cantarella, According to nature, Feltrinelli, Milan, consulted edition, pp. 138-141).

So, Were the inhabitants of Sodom homosexuals?, yes or no? The Bible doesn't say it, and this invites us to reflect on how the sacred text emphasizes much more important issues than a single behavior.. Analyzing the history of the ancient world and the moral customs of the time, we can assume that in Sodom, like in persia, in Egypt, in Jerusalem, in Athens and Rome, There were people who practiced acts of a homosexual nature and acts of a heterosexual nature in equal measure.. People aware of their own biological sex — they knew they were men and women — and who lived these practices with greater freedom and lightness than we imagine.. Perhaps the true century of sexual liberalization should be sought in antiquity, no (solo) after 1968.

These topics allow us to talk about acts more than homosexual relationships. In Greece they had a defined political-civic function; in Rome, other meanings and purposes. Many of those who practiced homosexual acts, at a certain age and for similar reasons, returned to heterosexual acts and married a woman.

For the ancient world and for the philosophy of the Greeks, Marriage was the only institution that guaranteed the continuity of the family and civil society, something that a community made up of only men or only women would not have been able to sustain, as attested by classic poems in which female communities, so as not to become extinct, looking for men.

The ancient world had a still primitive anthropology of sexuality, based on natural instincts, and it failed to fully define the greatness of human sexuality as Christianity has proposed it throughout the centuries—sometimes with debatable tones—, arriving, however, at a theology of corporeality oriented towards a salvation that includes, not that mortifying, sexuality.

Maybe it's us, the modern ones, those of us who have categorized and defined sexuality in such a precise way, thanks to human sciences and neurosciences. The concept of homosexual orientation is modern. According to scholars, Sexual activity in ancient times could be similar to conscious bisexuality exercised in different contexts and for different purposes.. Also because the concept of nature/against nature was understood differently from how Christian morality will interpret it..

Now that we know the identity of the sin of Sodom, We understand that in the narrative traditions of the Bible there are no precise indications - at least not as we would like - about homosexual practices., nor as behavior that should be censored, nor as an attitude that should be tolerated or favored (cf. CBP 2019, n. 188). Simply, The Bible talks about the salvation that God accomplishes in the history of man: a pedagogical salvation that holds together opposites and apparent contradictions. in Christ, salvation is revealed and perfected, instilling in the human heart a change not only internal, but also structural, that touches human relationships and, therefore, also sexuality. More fundamental than an act considered sinful is the human person, bigger than your act or your orientation. A faith lived and welcomed with joy involves a liberating educational path that restores and redefines relationships in a new way., allowing us to perceive the beauty of what has been given to us—including sexuality and its exercise—so that it can be, for me and for others, instrument of salvation.

Sanluri, 18 October 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:

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

.

.

.