Michael Voris comes out with his past sins....(Too much info)
#81
It doesn't identify it for someone who is being obstinate and using words in such a way as to thwart their plain meaning, sure.

According to a catechism from the 17th century, "The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex."

Since everyone, except you, agrees with the usual understanding of this idea, it would seem that burden is on you to show that your "rape" theory is correct.
Reply
#82
It seems to me that according to your reading, if the Sodomites had raped Lot's daughters instead, everything would have been fine.
Reply
#83
Lot was overruled by the angels, but in any sense, the Church has always considered homosexual acts the main sin of Sodom (not that there weren't others). I think we can also see it in Jude
Jude 7-8 Wrote:In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

I think the Vulgate translation is closer to fornication and strange flesh.

So we see for sure that they gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion, but we also see that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house." Even after Lot offered his virgin daughters, they refused. If they were just after rape, they would have quite simply taken his daughters.
Reply
#84
(04-26-2016, 01:22 PM)Papist Wrote: It seems to me that according to your reading, if the Sodomites had raped Lot's daughters instead, everything would have been fine.

As you mentioned earlier, saying that something is not a "sin crying to heaven for vengeance" does not equal saying that it is not a grave sin.
Reply
#85
(04-26-2016, 01:26 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Lot was overruled by the angels, but in any sense, the Church has always considered homosexual acts the main sin of Sodom (not that there weren't others). I think we can also see it in Jude
Jude 7-8 Wrote:In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

I think the Vulgate translation is closer to fornication and strange flesh.

So we see for sure that they gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion, but we also see that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house." Even after Lot offered his virgin daughters, they refused. If they were just after rape, they would have quite simply taken his daughters.
But the question arises, is the sexual immorality specifically homosexuality? Is not rape a more serious sin, and if so, does it not make sense that the rape is why cries out to heaven? Homosexuality is a pretty ubiquitous sin, but gang rape is much less common, and much more significant. If it was homosexuality God was seeking to punish, why did he not, at that time, destroy the whole world?
Reply
#86
(04-26-2016, 02:13 PM)Papist Wrote:
(04-26-2016, 01:26 PM)GangGreen Wrote: Lot was overruled by the angels, but in any sense, the Church has always considered homosexual acts the main sin of Sodom (not that there weren't others). I think we can also see it in Jude
Jude 7-8 Wrote:In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. In the very same way, these dreamers pollute their own bodies, reject authority and slander celestial beings.

I think the Vulgate translation is closer to fornication and strange flesh.

So we see for sure that they gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion, but we also see that "all the men from every part of the city of Sodom—both young and old—surrounded the house." Even after Lot offered his virgin daughters, they refused. If they were just after rape, they would have quite simply taken his daughters.


But the question arises, is the sexual immorality specifically homosexuality? Is not rape a more serious sin, and if so, does it not make sense that the rape is why cries out to heaven? Homosexuality is a pretty ubiquitous sin, but gang rape is much less common, and much more significant. If it was homosexuality God was seeking to punish, why did he not, at that time, destroy the whole world?

It's possible that part of it is the widespread acceptance of those acts as the norm. Maybe gang rape is part of that as well. However, it's clear from the account that the gang of people turned down two virgin women and instead wanted the men (angels in disguise). What is interesting is that Lot seems more concerned about the rape of his two guests than the rape of his own daughters.

Genesis 19:4-13 Wrote:4 But before they went to bed, the men of the city beset the house both young and old, all the people together.
5 And they called Lot, and said to him: Where are the men that came in to thee at night? bring them out hither that we may know them:
6 Lot went out to them, and shut the door after him, and said:
7 Do not so, I beseech you, my brethren, do not commit this evil.
8 I have two daughters who as yet have not known man: I will bring them out to you, and abuse you them as it shall please you, so that you do no evil to these men, because they are come in under the shadow of my roof.
9 But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: Thou camest in, said they, as a, stranger, was it to be a judge? therefore we will afflict thee more than them. And they pressed very violently upon Lot: and they were even at the point of breaking open the doors.
10 And behold the men put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door:
11 And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door.
12 And they said to Lot: Hast thou here any of thine? son in law, or sons, or daughters, all that are thine bring them out of this city:
13 For we will destroy this place, because their cry is grown loud before the Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them.
Reply
#87
http://www.traditionalcatholicpriest.com...ry/sodomy/
Reply
#88
Yes, homosexual acts are sinful.
Reply
#89
(04-26-2016, 04:25 PM)GangGreen Wrote: [...] However, it's clear from the account that the gang of people turned down two virgin women and instead wanted the men (angels in disguise). What is interesting is that Lot seems more concerned about the rape of his two guests than the rape of his own daughters.

It's interesting, but not surprising. His daughters would have been his property to give to the gang should he chose. Was it moral? Probably not, but it was within the realm of what he was legally able to do.

On the other hand, the rules of hospitality is desert culture are generally quite strict. By accepting the men into his household, he would have been accepting them into his protection. I haven't done research on it specifically as it would have applied to the that epoch, I'm just extrapolating what I know about other cultures in similar environmental conditions. But I would assume that there would have been serious social repercussions had he  handed the men over against their will.

Not negating that sodomy is a serious sin, but everything that I've ever read about that passage suggests that it's not simply a case of men wanting to have sex with men. It's also fundamentally about Lot's disposition, his status in the society where he lives and how that status is utilized, the cultural norms he lived in, and ultimately what's pleasing to God.
Reply
#90
I am going to quote Greg (I think a former member here), nonetheless, he brings up good points in another forum.:

Quoting Greg:
"This is my objection to him continuing to be the public face of CMTV.

1. I doubt his repentance is sincere or at least fully "dealt with"

a. 20 years of sodomy from 25-44 is a very long time and a very conscious adult decision.
b. He didn't admit his past until 10 years into his apostolate.
c. Homosexuals are master manipulators and liars and he is a media savvy homosexual. That means he has ALL of the tools to fool people and elicit their sympathy. Of all the candidates who could look sincere but be insincere Voris would have to be one of the most qualified.
d. The dates on his conversion story don't wash with the story.

2. Where's the humility? A semi-intelligent look at the Traditional Catholic position would at the very least have to acknowledge the debt of gratitude the conservative camp owed to the SSPX Society. Without which modernism would have triumphed 30 years ago. Without the SSPX there is a very real chance that Voris would be a practicing sodomite today in good standing at his local rainbow parish because the church of old would be resigned to the dustbin of history.

If you are sincere in your repentance you should at least be humbled by your 20 years of sodomy and departure from the sacraments that you would be very cautious about judging and condemning those who had been holding the fort while you were AWOL and buggering men. You don't appear in the Vineyard at two thirty and start calling the other workers who have been there since dawn "Spiritual Pornographers".

I'm not an SV nor a Russian Orthodox but I'd show those people the respect they have earned. Especially if I was late to the Vineyard!!!

3. He not merely speaking about the faith. He's very actively teaching and preachin it. He's lay's down what he believes is "the law". Furthermore things like retreat Cruises and gathering men aged 18-25 together in a house are near occasions of sin for a former sodomite. Retreats are really entering into the realm of the clergy. Laypeople are on thin ice here.

Discerning men's vocations? Gathering them together in a house? Surely a former sodomite who has a mature understanding of his sin and he weakness would not touch this idea with a 10 foot pole. Even if he is completely free of is lust (unlikely), how does it look to others if his 20 years of sodomy is then revealed.

As a thought experiment, Let's assume two Catholic men fathers of large families who have grown up, devout Catholics who have never lapsed decide to start a mission. The mission is to visit the stage door of pole dancing clubs and mission to the Puerto Rican and Mexican dancers to see if they can get them to change careers.

Most Catholics with good common sense would think this was really risky and a near occasion of sin. But they seem to be good at it and are having some success at getting the girls to quit and get other moral jobs.

Now pretend that one of those say 60 year old men had an arrest record for being a pepping Tom when he was 16 years old in 1972. A single occurrence. At that stage the whole equation changes. Not particularly because you think a 44 year old arrest record makes him significantly more of a threat but because you know that even the a slight charge like that can be manipulated and do more harm through scandal than the good the two of them can do.

Voris doesn't have a youthful indiscretion. He has an extremely sordid past. If he was truly sorry he would be very very alert to the scandal he could cause through these retreats and his utterly mad and dangerous "Pause" idea of gathering 18-25 year old men together."
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)