Shocked on the way to San Paolo

Article by Emanuele Quaranta taken from the monthly "Diario" of January 2006

In the beginning it was a city. A city that the Jewish-Christian tradition has handed down to history by giving it a label of disapproval and condemnation. And the funny thing – if only there was something to laugh about – is that it all arises from an error of exegetical interpretation.
Sodom was a city that stood in the jordan Valley, close to the Dead Sea. Lot, abraham's nephew, Lived there. and There Two angels of the lord go to visit Him.

At night, the inhabitants of Sodom surround Lot's house, Genesis tells us, and order Lot to hand over the two foreigners to them so that they can abuse them. Lot tries to dissuade them and, to appease them, goes so far as to offer his two young virgin daughters in exchange to the frenzied crowd. The biblical story continues, as is known, with the curse of the entire city by Yahweh and Lot's flight while Sodom is destroyed.

According to modern biblical scholars, however, the great misunderstanding, the fundamental error, which emerges especially starting from Paul's Letters, is that such a severe judgment is not due so much to a moral condemnation of homosexuality or carnal violence – as it has been held since the first Christian centuries – but rather to the divine scandal regarding the violation of a sacred commandment in the biblical East: that of hospitality towards foreigners.

That of Genesis, chapter 19, verses 1-25, is certainly not the only Old Testament passage to which the most homophobic religious tradition relies. Another much cited passage is that of Leviticus ("If anyone has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination"). But, even in this case, immediately deducing a condemnation of homosexual practice is, to say the least, hasty. And in this case, it's not because the verse isn't explicit enough.

But because the condemnation takes place in the context of the so-called "Law of sanctity", a series of very precise prescriptions, which must be respected in order to preserve the necessary purity for the worship of the Lord. Just as homosexual practice is prohibited, in fact, the sexual act with one's wife during the period of menstruation is stigmatized. Or, even, it is forbidden to sow one's field with seeds of two different species, or to mate beasts of two different species, or to wear a garment woven of two different materials.

In reality, a condemnation of homosexuality as such does not exist in the Scriptures. Also because homosexuality, as we understand it today, i.e. as a natural predisposition to be erotically attracted towards people of the same sex, was not even conceived at the time.

Homosexual acts existed as idolatrous orgiastic practices, linked to an idea of ​​sacred prostitution. Or, later, in ancient Greece, as forms of "sentimental Education" of boys, in the version of pederasty.

But if Jesus, in the Gospels, never talks about homosexuality, much less refers to a condemnation of homosexual acts, why is the scandal of censorship of gay eroticism like this in the Christian tradition? According to some contemporary exegetes. this - like many other acquisitions of Christianity - is due to the rereading of the good news of the Messiah of Nazareth by Saint Paul, the true deus ex machina of the transformation of a heretical Jewish sect into a new religion, destined to conquer the Roman conquerors and to become the 'ensign of the empire.

Paul speaks his harshest words towards homosexual activity in the Letter to the Romans and in the first to the Corinthians. Whoever has abandoned God and turned to idols, says the apostle of Tarsus, has also been disoriented and misled in his body, so as to desire people of his own sex, instead of the opposite sex. And he tells the inhabitants of Corinth not to delude themselves: the unjust - among whom he also places sodomites and effeminates - will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Da dove deriva tutta questa rabbia omofobica che si avverte nelle parole di Paolo? Alcuni biblisti si sono spinti fino a adombrare ipotesi di omosessualità repressa nello stesso apostolo, che in un famoso passaggio della seconda Lettera ai Corinzi parla di «una spada» che gli è stata «conficcata nella carne», un tormento personale insomma, un travaglio di passioni che, dice Paolo nella Lettera ai Romani, lo spingerà a comportamenti ambigui e contraddittori: «Il bene che io voglio non lo faccio, ma il male che non voglio lo pratico. Disgraziato uomo che sono, chi mi libererà da questo peso di morte?».

Autobiografismi a parte, di si curo c’è una forte misoginia nel pensiero e negli atteggiamenti dell’apostolo, così come un combattuto, ma radicale disprezzo della sessualità, la cui visione sembra tutt’altro che rasserenata dalla conversione al Vangelo liberante del Cristo. Da qui in avanti, si potrebbe dire, il cammino della Chiesa verso il rifiuto netto e assoluto non solo dell’omosessualità, ma anche di uno sguardo pacificato e solare nei confronti dell’amore carnale, è tutto in discesa.

Già all’indomani dell’affermazione del cristianesimo come religione dell’impero romano, con Costanzio, figlio di Costantino, viene promulgata la prima legge contro il «reato» di omosessualità. «Una spada vendicatrice», dice la norma, «armi il diritto, affinché gli infami vengano sottoposti a dei supplizi ricercati».

We are in 342, and it is just the beginning of a long history of acts aimed at putting the unforgivable sin of sodomy on the blacklist. A story made of contradictory impulses, of unspeakable attraction towards that forbidden carnal act, in which repressed homosexuality often generates an anguished sense of guilt, such as to unleash horror towards oneself and one's fellow men. And such as to push the ecclesiastical and imperial hierarchies to try to erase that shame even from the collective imagination.

It is no coincidence, in short, that Constantius - the first homophone legislator - is also notoriously homosexual himself, according to historians. A few years later, Theodosius established the public punishment of burning at the stake for those guilty of "unnatural acts". And in the 6th century, with Justinian, the code of criminal law implemented and definitively sanctioned the exemplary and systematic condemnation of the crime of sodomy.

This is how the moral "sin" according to religious norms also becomes a crime punishable by the imperial authorities, who act as guarantors and interpreters of the established Christian order.

With the immersion in the Middle Ages, the situation for gays does not change much, except for the type of torture to which the imagination of the secular arm decides to subject them. The Justinian code provides for beheading by the sword.
The government of Visigothic Spain, however, introduced castration and, for ecclesiastics, expulsion from sacred orders, excommunication and exile (provided the culprit survived the amputation of his attributes).

The curious thing is that, in this period, the only trials against homosexuals that have gone down in history concerned ecclesiastics: for example, Isaiah of Rhodes, prefectus vigilum of Constantinople, and Alexander of Diospolis, in Thrace.

After a period of relative mildness towards homosexuals in the Carolingian age, during which the punishments against the guilty were limited to canonical and penitential measures and the "crime" of sodomy was declassified by comparing it to any other form of fornication, it was around 13th century that intolerance re-emerges stronger than before. And the sodomite is once again condemned to the stake, forced to burn in the same flames reserved for heretics and witches. It is no coincidence that, when Philip IV the Fair wanted to get rid of the Templar monks, he accused them of practicing sodomy and their leader, Jacques de Molay, was executed at the stake.

On the theological-moral level, from now on the text will be the thought of Saint Thomas, who includes sodomy among the "acts against nature" together with masturbation and bestiality and - as such - a much more sin against chastity. serious than incest, adultery or fornication. For centuries Catholic theology did not deviate from Aquinas' Summa.

It is here that the use of the concept of "natural law" clearly emerges, an argument which, despite logical and philosophical wear and tear, still holds up in the pontifical encyclicals and in the documents of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

In the communal and Renaissance era, the social and civil context, which had radically changed compared to the feudal age, meant that customs also changed in terms of sexual behavior. According to some scholars, at least in the liveliest and richest cities such as Florence and Venice, a "sodomite subculture" is even making its way.

In any case, the practice of gay sex spread to such an extent that nobles and ecclesiastics periodically ended up being pilloried in some sensational trials held in the Republic of the Serenissima. As for Florence, even Machiavelli makes it the object of ridicule in some of his pages. Saint Bernardino of Siena was the subject of fiery sermons.

The Renaissance "splendor", with its free customs and its rich and lustful ecclesiastical hierarchies, ends with the shock of the protestant reformation, which is followed by the Catholic counter-Reformation.

And with the Council of Trent, in fact, the tightening of the repression of "unruly" sexual habits, in particular homosexuality, resumed. And it is here that canonical penalties and punishments of the secular arm come together in perfect balance. But it is also in this era that the creation of what dates back. in the United States today, it has been defined as a "gay factory": the seminary.

And the Council of Trent, in fact, which to overcome the very low level of cultural and spiritual preparation of the clergy requires the training of clerics within ad hoc institutes.

The seminaries, which for many centuries proved to be a brilliant idea for reviving the sad fate of the Catholic clergy, in recent decades will end up being mostly desolate barracks emptied of "vocations".
And sometimes the subject of scandals and investigations, not only canonical, but also judicial due to the numerous cases of sexual abuse committed on young seminarians by older companions or even pastors and teachers.

The doctrine and practice introduced with the counter-Reformation Will basically hold up until The Second Vatican council without any cracks Whatsoever. but with the 1960s everything changes radically, inside and outside the Church. The so-called "sexual revolution" is making headway in Civil society.

And the Vatican windows, which had remained barred for centuries, will finally be opened by the intuition of Pope John XXIII, who by opening the conciliar meetings gave way to changes that had been unthinkable until then. The renewal of theology triggered by the fuse of Vatican II slowly begins to bear fruit: the new moral theology gives rise to a reevaluation of the entire field of sexuality.

If previously sexual acts in married couples were considered legitimate, but almost a necessary evil to avoid concupiscence and guarantee procreation, now the focus is on their positivity as a manifestation of the mysterious and astonishing beauty of the emotional relationship. Consequently, the positivity of a stable emotional relationship is highlighted even towards homosexuals.

The openings of many post-conciliar theologians, from Bernard Haring to Leandro Rossi, were not followed by an equal development of The magisterium. indeed, starting from the last phase Of The pontificate of paul VI, And Then with john paul iI, We witness a "squeeze" against moralists considered Excessively "open" and a concomitant series of official pronouncements against homosexual practice.

On December 29, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then led by Croatian Cardinal Franjo Seper, published a statement on Some Questions of Sexual Ethics.

The document, which also insists on the need to welcome homosexual people "with understanding", however declares that "according to the objective moral order", homosexual relationships are "intrinsically disordered" acts and in no case can they receive any approval".

In November 1979, a few months after his election, Karol Wojtyla, the pope son of the most traditional Polish Catholicism, immediately made it clear what he was made of: speaking to the American bishops during his first trip overseas, he said that «homosexual activity , to be distinguished from the homosexual tendency, is morally evil."

On this wave, on October 1, 1986, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, now in the firm hands of the "iron prefect", Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, pronounced itself again on the topic with the document Pastoral care of homosexual persons.

Here too, a distinction is made between a homosexual tendency or inclination which - although "disordered" - is not a sin, and sexual acts, which are instead condemned across the board. In short, gays would only have perfect chastity for life if they wanted to respect the official magisterium of the Church.

A few years later, the universal catechism of the Catholic Church simply reiterated the concept, including homosexual practices, as well as masturbation, fornication and pornography, in the list of "sins seriously contrary to chastity".

And in 2003, the former Holy office once again spoke out harshly against the projects for the legal recognition of unions between homosexual People which are appearing here and there in some western countries, and bluntly invited christian politicians to appeal, in cases extremes, to conscientious objection.

Of course, by looking only at the pronouncements of the ecclesiastical hierarchies, one risks having a partial and reductive image of what is happening within the variegated Catholic world. Many pastors, priests and bishops have worked hard in recent years to offer listening, closeness and attention to the many homosexual believers who, with difficulty, try to combine their faith with their natural sexual inclination. Groups of homosexual Christians have arisen all over the world, including Italy.

In our Country, just to name a couple, «Il Guado», in Milan, with the support of don Domenico Pezzini, and «Davide e Gionata», in Turin, under the protective wing Of Don luigi ciotti's Gruppo Abele.

Quite a few theologians, albeit within the narrow limits allowed by the Vatican's careful doctrinal vigilance, continue their work on "frontier" issues such as the relationship between gay sexuality and Christian morality.

From time to time, there are even some courageous priests who decide to come out and openly confess their homosexuality, without thereby expecting or claiming anything, other than showing their soul wounded by so much hiding: «The big step is to recognize that in front of themselves and others", one of these priests told the journalist Marco Politi in the beautiful book La confessione (Editori Riuniti).

«Recognizing one's homosexuality is a liberation. i Know other priests like me who can't cope and live a schizophrenic life. priests i Meet in gay clubs, but they don't want to talk About it. priests who play dirty games, indulge in fiery proclamations of morality in public, defend the official line of the Church, and then have squalid personal stories."

Yes, despite the fact that in these years that separate us from Vatican II many things have changed and many believers, lay people or priests and bishops, have worked hard to erase the traditional homophobia that was felt in the sacristies, it must be admitted that unfortunately, for what regards the homosexual question, great hypocrisy still dominates in the Church: on the one hand the doctrine, inflexible and devoid of mercy, on the other a practice often made up of widespread homosexual practice, cultivated in hiding and in complete amorality.

Hence, perhaps, the great media scandal that the cases of clergymen involved in homosexual affairs arouse - whenever they emerge. Not to mention, but this is a completely different thing from homosexuality, the thousands of incidents of sexual abuse against minors.

The latest, very recent Vatican document, which blocks the admission of people with homosexual tendencies to the seminary, has been interpreted by many observers as a somewhat rude attempt to put a stop to the many pedophilia scandals that have exploded in parishes or institutes religious people from all over the world, primarily the United States (where many dioceses have literally gone bankrupt to deal with the lawsuits brought by victims against parish priests and bishops).

But it seems a somewhat desperate attempt, as well as discriminatory. Above all, it is the result of yet another logical and theological short circuit: because nothing will really change if we do not try to deal with a more complex anthropological and moral vision, which also takes into account the existence of "naturally" homosexual people.

And therefore, one of two things: either the good Lord was wrong and gays are errors of nature (but we would have to doubt the abilities of the good Old Man with the beard who is in the highest heavens), or so far the Church. It is difficult to imagine that such a showdown could take place under the pontificate of Benedict XVI, the former "iron prefect" of the Wojtylian Holy Office.

Until then, we will inevitably witness bishops like the Spanish bishop of Alcalà de Henares, Monsignor Jesus Català, who some time ago came out with the "learned" quip: "Let's face it: those over there are inverts!".

Or we will have to read in the newspapers that some very eminent cardinal has ended up on trial for having abused his altar boys, as happened in Austria to the former archbishop of Vienna, Hermann Groèr. That elderly cardinal was highly esteemed by Pope Wojtyla, also for his heated Marian fervor.

Who knows what the Madonna must have thought, she who was also a mother and had to witness the violence to which her son was subjected.