Even if you are not a believing Christian, and don’t follow the inner workings of the Church, you must acknowledge the importance of both. A major tumult in Christian ranks, such as what is happening in Germany-speaking nations, and its ramifications, is worthy of considering.
Now there is no way to reconcile Christian scripture—which is defined as the Old and New Testaments together, and not either alone—and the sinlessness of sodomy.
The unity of the texts is important. For in the New Testament, Jesus of course declared himself to be God. He and the Father and the Holy Ghost are one. The Trinity is God. So much is dogma, and recognized, even if not believed, by all.
The implications of this are often unheeded or unnoticed. For the unity of scripture means that when God was speaking in the “Old” Testament, so was Jesus. So when God was condemning sodomy, so was Jesus — and, of course, so was the Holy Ghost.
This realization puts to shame those attempts to reinterpret passages such of these as ackshually saying the opposite of what they are saying.
For the invisible things of him, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; his eternal power also, and divinity: so that they are inexcusable…
or professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves…
For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.
Since this isn’t the place to justify traditional, and obvious, interpretations, which we here accept as true, we won’t dwell on the subject. Except to point to Robert Gagnon’s book if you have more interest.
Traditional interpretations are the law of the Church, written into its catechism, taught by the Fathers, Doctors and saints. And so on. In short, it’s easy for priests, bishops, and Cardinals to understand their duty on these matters. Why deviations from these duties and understandings exist is therefore important.
Enter the boss of German bishops, Georg Batzing. He says (in translation) sodomy “does not harm a person’s relationship with God.” He said relationships centered on one man masturbating into the rectum of another man are fine, “as long as they are carried out with loyalty and responsibility.” Loyalty might be possible. Responsibility cannot be—not within the Church.
Which is why he says Church teaching ought to change, because “Sexuality is a gift from God. It’s not a sin.” He justifies this by saying “We can no longer proceed solely from natural law, but have to think much more in terms of care and personal responsibility for one another.”
Yet if care is the criterion upon which relationships are judged or made “valid”, all things are allowed. You care for your dog, yes? You care for the kid down the street? You care for your deceased mother?
We have seen all of these desires painted as “orientations” (yes, even necrophilia), and all justified using “desire” and “love”. Natural law (in its classic form) is the only thing standing against these arguments. So it is not surprising Batzing dismisses it, without arguing against it.
Another non-surprising discovery is that Batzig describes himself as a “conservative.” This is so if we take the word in its modern connotation as one who surrenders, gracefully, to the left. Surrender is precisely what he wants, saying he wants the Church to “change.” Yet given the Church is supernaturally ordained, it cannot change. So the natural suspicion is that Batzig does not hold with the supernatural nature of the Church.
It is not only Batzig. Cardinal Reinhard Marx also claims sodomy is not a sin. “I speak of the primacy of love,” he says, “particularly in the sexual encounter.” The encounter between two men is never sexual, but only a crude simulation of sexuality, as natural law (and old school science) asserts.
Marx also says the Church, and not he, needs to change. We saw earlier that the catchphrase those who want the Church to embrace sodomy is synodality. The Church needs to be synodal, they claim. It’s greatest strength is that the word has no definite meaning, except as a signal, though perhaps worldly or heretical are useful synonyms.
The synodalians believe they have a friendly Vatican, and so are becoming more brazen, such as on Austrian bishop who hung an upside-down cross-like nude “transsexual activist” behind an altar. That is about an abrupt departure from an object of worship as you’re likely to find.
The synodalians are concentrated in German-speaking countries, though there are a fair share of them in other Western lands. They do not seem to have any prospect of success, because Germany and Austria are not the whole of the Church, and because the Church cannot change on this matter.
There is therefore a possibility the Germans peel off and form their own church, as has happened before. Given the synodalians are never punished and rarely admonished, and because of financial considerations, it’s more likely they’ll continue on their synodal path, preaching and acting falsely, the German church becoming more decadent and slowly dissolving. With nothing much done by anybody.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.