Liber Gomorrhianus

OPUSCULUM SEPTIMUM

Ad splendidum nitentis pudicitiæ forum, fili carissime, pio certamine intentionem tuæ mentis pervenisse, libellus, quem contra quadrimodam carnalis contagionis pollutionem, honesto quidem stilo, sed honestiori ratione edidisti, manifestis documentis commendat.  Subegisti siquidem carnis barbariem, qui sic erexisti bracchium spiritus adversus libidinis obscænitatem.  Exsecrabile quidem vitium, longeque segregans ab auctore virtutum, qui quum sit mundus, nihil admittit immundum;  nec de sorte ejus esse poterit, qui sordidis illecebris subjacebit.  Clerici vero, de quorum vita spurcissima flebiliter pariterque rationabiliter tua prudentia disputavit, vere, et omnino vere ad funiculum hereditatis ejus non pertinent, de quo ipsi voluptuosis se oblectationibus summovent;  qui si pudice conversarentur, non solum templum Dei sanctum, sed ipsum etiam sanctuarium dicerentur:  in quo niveo candore conspicuus ille Dei Agnus immolatur, per quem fœda totius orbis lues lavatur.  Tales nimirum clerici etsi non verborum, tamen operum testimonio profitentur, quia non exsistunt, quod censentur.  Quo enim modo clericus possit esse vel nominari, qui proprio arbitrio non metuit inquinari manibus vel suis vel alienis virilia sua vel aliena contrectans, aut inter femora vel in terga execrabili irrationabilitate fornicans.

De qualibus, quia sancto furore permotus, quæ tibi videbantur scripseras;   oportet, sicut desideras, apostolicam nostram interponamus auctoritatem, quatenus scrupulosam legentibus auferamus dubietatem;  et constet omnibus certum nostro judicio placuisse quæcunque continet ipse libellus diabolico igni velut aqua oppositus.  Igitur ne cænosæ libidinis impunita licentia pervagetur, necesse est apostolicæ severitatis congrua reprehensione refellatur, et tamen aliquod tentamentum in austeritate ponatur.

O most beloved son, this little book which you have written in a worthy style — but with even more worthy reasoning — against the four forms of polluted carnal intercourse, offers clear evidence to commend the effort of your soul to reach, through pious struggle, the spendid nuptial bed of shining chastity.  You have subjugated the barbarity of the flesh, and you have thus raised the arm of the Spirit against the obscenity of lust.  Indeed, accursed is the vice that distances one far from the Author of virtue, who, being pure, admits nothing unclean, and no one involved in filthy allurements can share in his fortune.  The clerics, however, of whose most foul lives your prudence tearfully bu equally rationally disputes, truly and altogether truly do not belong to his line of inheritance, from which they distance themselves by their pursuit of pleasures.  If they were to live chastely, they would be recognized not only as the holy temple of the Lord, but even the sanctuary itself, in the snowy whiteness of which is immolated that illustrious Lamb of God by whom the filthy plague of the whole world is cleansed.  Undoubtedly such clerics declare — not by the testimony of words, but of deeds — that they are not what they are believed to be.  For how may one be a cleric, or named as such, if according to his own judgement he does not fear to be soiled either by his own hands or those of another, fondling his own male parts or those of another, or fornicating with contemptible irrationality either between the thighs or in the rear?

Stirred up by holy rage, you wrote of such clerics according to your judgment;  it is appropriate, as you desire, that we intervene with our apostolic authority so that we might dispel scrupulous uncertainty from the reader, and so that it may be known with certitude by all that everything that this little book contains has been pleasing to our judgement, being opposed to diabolical fire as is water.  Therefore, so that the license of foul lust may not spread unpunished, it is necessary that it be answered with a repression appropriate to apostolic severity, and yet that some moderation be applied to its harshness.

Ecce omnes illi qui quavis quattuor generum quæ dicta sunt, fœditate polluuntur, prospecta æquitatis censura, ab omnibus immaculatæ Ecclesiæ gradibus, tam sacrorum canonum quam nostro judicio depelluntur.  Sed nos humanius agentes, eos qui vel propriis manibus, vel invicem inter se egerunt semen, vel etiam qui inter femora profuderunt, et non longo usu, nec cum pluribus, si voluptatem refrenaverint, et digna pænitudine probrosa commissa luerint, admitti ad eosdem gradus in quibus in scelere manentes, non permanentes fuerant, divinæ miserationi confisi, volumus, atque etiam jubemus;  ablata aliis spe recuperationis sui ordinis, qui vel per longa tempora secum, sive cum aliis vel cum pluribus, brevi licet tempore, quolibet duorum fœditatis genere, quæ descriperas maculati:  vel quod est horrendum dictu et auditu, in terga prolapsi sunt.

Contra quod nostrum apostolicæ decretum, si quis ausus fuerit vel judicare vel latrare, ordinis sui se noverit periculo agere.  Qui enim non pungit vitium, sed palpat cum eo qui vitio moritur, ipse quoque mortis reus merito judicatur.  Sed, o fili carissime, inenarrabiliter gaudeo, quia exemplo tuæ conversationis instruis, quicquid oratoria facultate docuisti.  Plus est enim opere docere, quam voce.  Quapropter, auctore Deo, palmam obtinebis victoriæ, et cum Deo et Virginis Filio lætaberis in cælesti mansione tot mercedibus cumulatus, quot ereptis per te a diaboli laqueis fueris constipatus et quodammodo coronatus.

Behold:  In accordance with the dictates of justice, all those who are polluted with the dictates of justice, all those who are polluted with the filthines of any of the aforementioned four types are expelled from all of the grades of order of the immaculate Church, both in our own judgment and in that of the sacred canons.  We, however, acting more humanely, wish and so order that those sho have discharged semen either with their own hands or with others or even have copulated between the thights, and not for long periods of time nor with many people, if they curb this sensuality and atone for their shameful deeds with a worthy repentence, be admitted to those grades ofr order which they had occupied — but in which they did not remain — while in sin, being entrusted to divine mercy.  For all those who have been polluted with either of two kinds of filthiness you were describing, for long periods by themselves or with others, or with many others even for a short time, or — horrible to speak of and to hear — have fallen into corruption involving their rear end, the hope of recovering their order is lost.

If anyone dares to condemn or assail our decree of apostolic sanction, he should know that he is in danger of losing his own grade of order.  For he who does not attack a vice, but rather coddles it, is justly judged guilty of the death together with those who die by that vice.  But, O most beloved son, I rejoice unspeakably that whatever you have taught with your ability as a preacher, you also teach through the example of your life, for it is better to instruct by deed, than by word.  You will therefore obtain the palm of victory from God the Father, and you will rejoice in the celestial mansion with the Son of God and of the Virgin, heaped up with as many rewards as were taken by you from the snares of the devil, with which you will have been associated and in a sense, crowned.

Quoniam apostolica sedes omnium Ecclesiarum mater esse ex ipso Veritatis ore cognoscitur, dignum est, ut si quid uspiam dubitationis emerserit, quod ad animarum videatur pertinere negotium, ad ipsam, velut ad magistram, et quodammodo fontem cælestis sapientiæ recurratur, quatenus ex illo uno capite ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ lumen prodeat, quo discussis ambiguitatum tenebris, totum corpus Ecclesiæ perspicuo veritatis nitore clarescat.  Quoddam autem nefandum et ignominiosum valde vitium in nostris partibus inolevit, cui nisi districæ animadversionis manus quantocius obviet, certum est, quod divini furoris gladius in multorum pernciem immaniter grassaturus impendet.  Heu!  pudet dicere, pudet tam turpe flagitium sacris auribus intimare;  sed si medicus horret virus plagarum, quis curabit adhibere cauterium?  Si is qui curaturus est, nauseat, quis ad incolumitatis statum pectora ægrota reducat?

Vitium igitur contra naturam velut cancer ita serpit, ut sacrorum hominum ordinem attingat;  et interdum ut cruenta bestia inter ovile Christi quum tantæ libertatis sævit audacia, ut quampluribus multo salubrius fuerit in mundanæ militiæ jugo deprimi, quam sub religionis obtentu tam libere ferreo juri diabolicæ tyrannidis mancipari, præsertim cum aliorum scandalo;  quum Veritas dicat, « Qui scandalizaverit unum ex his pusillis, expedit ei ut suspendatur mola asinaria in collo ejus, et demergatur in profundum maris (Mt 18:6) ».  Et nisi quantocius sedis apostolicæ vigor occurrat, non est dubium quin effrenata nequitia, quum restringi voluerit, a cursus sui impetu desistere nequeat.

As the Apostolic See is known from the very mouth of the Truth to be the mother of all of the churches, it is proper to have recourse to it as a teacher and in a certain sense as the fount of heavenly wisdom, if some matter of doubt arises anywhere that seems related to the care of souls.  Thus, from that one head of ecclesiastical discipline the light might show forth by which, the darkness of ambiguity having been expelled, the whole body of the Church will shine with the clear splendor of the truth.  Moreover, a certain most abominable and exceedlingly disgraceful vice has grown in our region, and unless it is quickly met with the hand of strict chastisement, it is certain that the sword of divine fury is looming to attack, to the destruction of many.  Alas, it is shameful to speak of it!  But if the doctor fears the virus of the plague, who will apply the cauterization?  If he is nauseated by those whom he is to cure, who will lead sick souls back to the state of health?

The cancer of sodomitic impurity is thus creeping through the clerical order, and indeed is raging like a cruel beast within the sheepfold of Christ with the audaciy of such liberty, that for many it would have been much more salutary to be oppressed by the yoke of worldly duties than to be surrendered so freely to the iron rule of diabolical tyranny under the pretense of religion.  It would have been better to perish alone in secular dress than, having changed one’s clothes but not one’s heart, to also drag others to destruction, as the Truth testifies, saying, “He that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it is expedient for him that a millstone be hanged about his neck, and that he be drowned in the depths of the sea.”  (Mt 18:6).  And unless the force of the Apostolic See opposes it as quickly as possible, there is no doubt that when it finally wishes for the unbridled evil to be restrained, it may not be able to halt the fury of its advance.

Hujus sane perditionis obnoxii sæpe largiente divina clementia resipiscunt, atque ad satisfactionem veniunt, et pænitentiæ quidem pondus quamlibet grave devote suscipiunt, ecclesiasticum vero ordinem perdere vehementer perhorrescunt.  Quidam namque rectores Ecclesiarum circa hoc vitium humaniores forsitan quam expediat, absolute decernunt propter tres illos gradus, qui superius enumerati sunt, neminem a suo ordine debere deponi;  hos autem solummodo non abnuunt degradari, quos ultimo actu cecidisse constiterit.  Unde fit, ut qui cum octo, vel etiam decem aliis æque sordidis in hanc nequitiam lapsus esse cognoscitur, nihilominus in suo ordine permanere videatur.

Quæ procul dubio impia pietas non vulnus amputat, sed ut augeatur, fomitem sumministrat;  non perpetrati illiciti actus prohibet amaritudinem, sed perpetrandi potius tribuit libertatem.  Carnalis quippe cujuslibet ordinis homo magis formidat, et expavescit in conspectu hominem despici, quam in superni Judicis examine condemnari;  ac per hoc mavult quamlibet districtæ, quamlibet animosæ pænitentiæ sustinere laborem, quam sui gradus periculo subjacere:  et dum per indiscretam discretionem non timet statum sui honoris amittere, incitatur et inexperta præsumere, et in his quæ invite præsumpsit, diutius permanere;  atque, ut ita dixerim, dum illic non feritur, ubi acrius dolet, in eo, in quo semel corruit, cænosæ obscænitatis volutabro molliter jacet.

It is true that those who are guilty of this perdition often recover by the gift of divine mercy, arrive at satisfaction, and undertake the burden of penance — however heavy it might be — with devotion.  However, they recoil in horror from the loss of ecclesiastical order.  For certain prelates of churches — who are perhaps more merciful regarding this vice than is expedient — decree absolutely that no one may be deposed as a result of those three grades of sin which were enumerated above;  they only allow those to be removed who are known to have copulated in the rear.  That is, if one ejaculates semen by his own genital pressures, if he pollutes another by rubbing with his own hands, if he even lies between the thighs in the manner of those of the opposite sex, but he merely hasn’t entered in the rear, he must receive a penance commensurate to the offence, but must not be removed from his order.  So it is that he who is known to have fallen into this evil with eight or even ten others who are equally filthy, nonetheless should be considered to remain in his order.

Such impious piety, without a doubt, does not reduce the wound, but provides kindling so that it might be enlarged.  It does not supply the bitterness of the illicit audacity that is perpetrated, but rather grants the liberty of perpetrating it.  Obviously, the carnal man of any order fears more to be despised in the sight of men than to be condemned according to the determination of the supreme Judge, and for this reason he would prefer any penance, however severe and extended it might be, to being subject to the endangerment of his grade.  Moreover, while he does not fear losing his honorable state by his indiscreet discretion, he is also inclined to take up new vices and to remain longer in those he has taken up with impunity, so that, so to speak, as long as he is not struck where it hurts more severely, he lies serenely in that pigsty of filthy obscenity in which he first fell.

Sed, ut nobis videtur, valde præposterum est, ut consuetudinaliter hac purulenta contagione fœdati, vel ad ordinem provehi, vel in gradu persistere audeant jam promoti.  Quia et rationi contrarium, et canonicis Patrum sanctionibus probatur adversum.  Hoc autem non ad hoc assero, ut in majestatis vestræ præsentia definitivæ sententiæ calculum proferam, sed ut propriæ opinionis arbitrium pandam.

Hoc nempe flagitium inter cetera crimina non deterrimum creditur;  quadoquidem illud omnipotens Deus semper uno modo exosum habuisse legitur, et cum reliquis vitiis necdum per legale præceptum frena posuerat, jam hoc districtæ ultionis animadversione damnabat.  Nam, ut taceamus, quod Sodomam et Gomorrham (Gen. 19), duas videlicet egregias civitates, omnesque finitimas regiones, misso cælitus sulphure et igne subvertit;  Onan Judæ filium propter hoc nefarium scelus immatura morte percussit, teste Scriptura quæ dicit, « Sciens Onan non sibi nasci filios, introiens ad uxorem fratris sui, semen fundebat in terram, ne liberi fratris nomine nascerentur:  et idcirco percussit eum Dominus, eo quod rem detestabilem faceret (Gen. 38). »  In lege quoque dicitur, « Qui dormierit cum masculo coitu femineo, uterque operati sunt nefas, morte moriantur;  sanguis eorum sit super eos (Levit. 20). »

Quod autem ad ecclesiasticum ordinem promoveri non debeat, qui in illud crimen lapsus est, quod vetus lex præcipit morte damnari, testatur beatus papa Gregorius, qui in suis epistulis (lib. 10, epist. 13) Passivo episcopo scribit, dicens,

« Bene novit fraternitas vestra, quam longo tempore Aprutium pastorali sollicitudine sit destitutum:  ubi diu quæsivimus, qui ordinari debuisset, et nequaquam potuimus invenire;  sed qui Importunus mihi suis in moribus, in psalmodiæ studio, in amore orationis valde laudatur, et religiosam vitam agere dicitur;  hunc volumus ut fraternitas vestra ad se faciat venire, et de anima sua admoneat, quatenus in bonis studiis crescat:  et si nulla ei crimina, quæ per legis sacræ regulam morte multata sunt, obviant;  tunc ordinandus est, ut vel monachus, vel a vobis subdiaconus fiat;  et post aliquantum temporis, si Deo placuerit, ipse ad pastoralem curam debeat promoveri. »

Ecce hic aperte colligitur, quia quisquis vir cum viro labitur, quod nimirum scelus, ut supra docuimus, per vetustæ legis sententiam morte multatur, etiamsi honestis moribus polleat, si psalmodiæ studio ferveat, si in amore orations enitescat, et omnino religiosam vitam sub approbatæ famæ testimonio ducat;  reatus quidem indulgentiam plene potest accipere, ad ecclesiasticum vero ordinem nequaquam permittitur aspirare.  Nam quum de illo venerabili viro, videlicet Importuno, qui primum tanto fervore laudis attolitur, tot religiosæ, et honestæ vitæ infulis redimitur, tot virtutum præconiis decoratur;  tamen postmodum dicitur, « Si nulla ei crimina, quæ per sacræ legis regulam morte multata sunt, objiciant, tunc ordinandus est. »

Patet profecto, quia quem dignum morte crimen abjecerat, quælibet religiosa vita subsequens ad suscipiendum ecclesiastici gradus ordinem non reformat.  Nec valet ad obtinendum honoris culmen assurgere, qui in mortalis culpæ barathrum non ambigitur cecidisse.  Luce ergo clarius constat, quia quicunque dicto modo lapsus esse convincitur, quod sine dubio mortale crimen est, omnino contra sacræ legis normam, omnino contra divinæ auctoritatis regulam ad ecclesiasticum ordinem promovetur.

It seems to us exceedlingly absurd that those who are habitually corrupted by this festering contagion should dare to be promoted to a grade of order or to continue in the grade to which they were already promoted.  It is proven to be both contrary to reason and adverse to the canonical sanctions of the Fathers.  However, I do not assert this in order to offer a definitive sentence in the presence of your majesty, but rather that I might explain the choice of a particular opinion.

Certainly, this disgrace is not unworthily believed to be the worst of all offenses, since tradition holds that the omnipotent God has always regarded it as hateful, and when he had not yet placed a legal precept prohibiting it along with the other vices, he was already condemning it with the censure of strict retribution — not to mention that he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19), which were two distinguished cities, and all the neighboring regions, with sulfur and fire sent from heaven.  He struck Onan, the son of Jude, with an untimely death because of this nefarious offense, according the the Scripture, which says (Gen. 38), “Onan … knowing that the children should not be his, when he went in to his brother’s wife, he spilled his seed upon the ground, lest children should be born in his brother’s name.  And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.”  Moreover, in the law it is said, “He that lieth with a man as if he should company with woman, both have committed abomination, dying let them die, their blood be upon them” (Levit. 20).

That those who have fallen into that crime must not be promoted to ecclesiastical order because the old law decrees that it is to be punished with death, is attested by the blessed pope Gregory, who in his letters (lib. 12, epist. 12) writes to the bishop Passivus, stating,

“Your Fraternity well knows how long Aprutium has been destitute of pastoral care;  we have long sought after the one who should be ordained there and could not at all find him.  However, because Importunus is exceedingly praised to me in his morals, his zeal of psalmody, and his love of prayer, and he is said to live the religious life, we desire that your Fraternity bring him to yourself and that you admonish his soul so that it might grow in zeal for the good, and if no sins are found in him, which by the rule of sacred law are penalized by death, then he is to be ordained, so that he be made either a monk or a subdeacon for you, and after some length of time, if it pleases God, he should be promoted to pastoral care.

Behold, here it is clearly implied that any man who engages with another man in feminine copulation;  that is, between the thighs — indeed which sin, as we taught above, is by the sentence of the ancient law penalized with death — even if he abounds in upright morals, is fervent with the zeal of psalmody, is outstanding in the love of prayer, and leads and entirely religious life according to the testimony of proven reputation, can indeed fully receive the pardon of his guilt, but to ecclesiastical order he cannot at all be permitted to aspire.  For regarding that venerable man Importunus, who at first is exalted with such fervor of praise, is redeemed by so many ornaments of a religious and upright life, and is decorated with so much virtue of preaching, it is nevertheless added, “If they find no sins in him, which by the rule of sacred law are penalized by death, then he is to be ordained.”

It is certainly obvious that no subsequent religious life can restore a man for the reception of an ecclesiastical grade of order if he has been debased by a crime worthy of death.  Nor does it enable him who is not doubted to have fallen into the pit of mortal sin, to rise to attain the height of honor.  Therefore it is clearer than light that it is altogether against the norm of sacred law, altogether against the standard of divine authority, to promote anyone to ecclesiastical order who has been convicted of having lain between masculine thighs in fornication, which is undoubtedly a mortal sin.

Sed fortasse dicitur, necessitas imminet, persona quæ sacrum in Ecclesia officium peragat, deest, et congrue sententia quæ prius divina justitia dictante depromitur, oblata rerum necessitate mollitur.  Ad hæc ego compendiose respondeo:  Nunquid et necessitas non incubuerat, quum pontificalis sedes pastore vacabat?  An pro utilitate unius hominis censura debebitur, quæ in destitutione unius populi inconcussa servatur?  Et quæ non solvitur ad profectum innumeræ multitudinis, violabitur ob personæ commodum singularis?

Sed jam ipse quoque prædicatur egregius accedat ad medium, et quid de hoc vitio sentiat expressius innotescat.  Ait enim in Epistula ad Ephesios, « Hoc autem scitote intellegentes, quod omnis fornicator, aut immundus, aut avarus, non habet hereditatem in regno Christi et Dei  (Ephes. 5:5) ».  Si ergo immundus in cælo nec qualemcunque habet hereditatem, qua præsumptione, quo temerario fastu in Ecclesia, quæ nihilominus est regnum Dei, obtineat insuper dignitatem?  Nunquid qui divinam legem in facinus cadendo postposuit, ascendendo etiam ad ecclesiasticæ dignitatis officium contemnere non temebit?  Et nihil sib reservat, qui Deum contemnere in omnibus non formindat.

Sed illis profecto hæc lex specialiter est indicta, a quibus exstitit violata, teste Paulo, qui ad Timotheum scribens, ait, « Justo lex non est posita, sed injustis, impiis et peccatoribus, sceleratis et contaminatis, patricidis et matricidis, homicidis, fornicariis, et masculorum concubitoribus, plagiariis, mendacibus, perjuris, et si quid aliud sanæ doctrinæ adversatur  (1 Tim. 1:9f.). »

Dum igitur masculorum concubitoribus, ut ostensum est, lex illa sit posita, ut sacros ordines temerare non audeant, a quibus, rogo, lex ista servabitur, si ab his præcipue, quibus indicta est, contemnatur?  Et si fortasse persona utilis dicitur, justum est, ut quo prudentius ingeniorum studiis viget, eo cautius authenticæ sanctionis mandata conservet.  Unusquisque enm quo melius sapit, eo deterius delinquit.  Qui inevitabiliter merebitur supplicium qui prudenter, si voluisset, potuit evitare peccatum.  Nam ut beatus ait Jacobus, « Scienti bonum facere, et non facienti, peccatum est illi  (Jac. 4:17) ».  Et Veritas dicit, « Cui plus committitur, plus ab eo requiratur  (Lk 12:48) ».  Nam si in erudito quolibet viro ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ ordo confunditur, mirum si ab ignorante servatur.  Si enim peritus quisque inordinate ad ordinem ducitur, videtur quodammodo se sequentibus, et, ut ita dicam, simplicioribus erroris semitam sternere, quam ipse aggressus est, tumido superbiæ pede calcare;  et non solum judicandus est, quia peccavit, sed etiam quia propriæ præsumptionis exemplo ad æmulationem peccandi et alios invitavit.

However, it might be said that the need is pressing, that no one is available to carry out sacred duties in the Church, and appropriately the sentence which previously was pronounced by the dictate of stern justice is softened out of present necessity.  To this I briefly respond:  was there not also a necessity when the Pontifical See was lacking a pastor?  will judgment be suspended because of the usefulness of one man, while the same judgment is firmly maintained to the abandonment of an entire people, and will that which is not relaxed for the advancement of an innumerable multitude be violated for the convenience of a single person?

But now let the outstanding preacher step forward, and let what he believes about this vice be more clearly known.  For he states in the Letter to the Ephesians, “For know ye this and understand, that no fornicator, or unclean, or covetous person hath inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.  (Eph. 5:5).”  If, therefore, those who are unclean do not have any sort of inheritance in heaven, by what presumption, by what reckless contempt might they, even more, obtain authority in the Church, which is nothing less than the kingdom of God?  Will not he who has disregarded the divine law by falling into wickedness also be unafraid of contemptuously ascending to an office of ecclesiastical dignity?  He will spare himself nothing, because he is unafraid of disregarding God in every way.

But surely this law was especially created for those who violate it, according to Paul who, writing to Timothy, says, “The Law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust, for the impious and sinners, for the wicked and contaminate, for killers of fathers and killers of mothers, for murderers, for fornicators, for men who lie with men, for human traffickers, for liars, for perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine.  (1 Tim. 9f.)”

Therefore, given that the law, as has been demonstrated, should be imposed on those who lie with males so that they will not dare to violate the sacred orders, by whom, I ask, will this law be upheld, if it is despised principally by those for whom it was created?  And if perchance a person is said to be useful, it is right that the more skillfully he excels in intellectual endeavors, the more he should cautiously uphold the rule of authentic law.  For whoever has better understanding is guilty of worse sin, because he who in his wisdom was able to avoid sin if he had so wished will inevitably merit punishment.  For as James says, “To him therefore that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin. (1 Jas 4:17)”  And the Truth says, “To whomsoever much is given, of him shall much be required: (Lk 12:48)”  For if the order of ecclesiastical discipline is confused by educated men, it will be a wonder if it is upheld by the ignorant.  For if one who is knowledgeable is inordinately led to holy orders, he is seen in a sense to pave the way of error, which he has undertaken to walk with the swollen foot of arrogance, for those who follow and, so to speak, are simpler.  And he is not only to be judged for having sinned, but also because by the example of his own presumtion he has invited others to imitate his sin.

Quis enim surda aure prætereat, immo quis non medullitus contremiscat, quod de talibus Apostolus, velut tuba vehemens, intonat, dicens, « Tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam, ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetipsis  (Rom. 1:24) ».  Et paulo post,

« Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passione ignominiæ.  Nam feminæ eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum, qui est contra naturam;  similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui, in semetipsos recipientes;  et sicut non probaverunt habere Deum in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant quæ non conveniunt  (Rom. 1:26-28) ».

Quid est enim quod post tam gravem lapsum tantopere sublimitatem ecclesiastici ordinis ambiunt?  Quid opinandum est, quid credendum est, nisi quod eos Deus in reprobum sensum tradidit?  Nec ea quæ illis necessaria sunt, peccatis exigentibus, videre permittit.  Quia enim illis occidit sol — ille scilicet, qui ascendit super occasum (Ps. 67:5), amissis interioribus oculis, nec considerare prævalent quod gravia sint mala, quæ per immunditiam perpetrarunt;  neque quam deterius adhuc sit, quod contra voluntatem Dei inordinate habere concupiscunt;  et hoc ex divinæ justitiæ regula consueto more procedit, ut hi qui se hac perditissima sorde commaculant, digna perculsi animadversione judicii, tenebras cæcitatis incurrant.  Sicut de antiquis illis hujus fœditatis auctoribus legitur:  « Quum justo Loth vim vehementissime facerent, jamque prope essent ut effringerent fores » (Gen. 19:9).  « Et ecce, » inquit Scriptura, « miserunt manum viri et introduxerunt ad se Loth, clauseruntque ostium, et eos qui foris erant percusserunt cæcitate a minimo usque ad maximum, ita ut ostium invenire non possent » (Gen. 19:10f.).

Constat autem, quia per illos duos angelos qui ad Beatum Loth venisse leguntur, persona Patris, et Filii non incongrue designatur.  Quod per hoc evidenter ostenditur, quod ad eos ipse Loth loquens, dicit, « Quæso, Domine mi, quia invenit servus tuus gratiam coram te, et magnificasti misericordiam tuam, quam fecisti mecum, ut salvares animam meam » (Gen. 19:18f.).  Qui enim sic duobus quasi uni singulariter loquitur, certum est quia in duabus personis unam substantiam veneratur.

Sodomitæ ergo ad angelos conantur violenter irrumpere, quum immundi homines ad Deum tentant per sacri ordinis officia propinquare.  Sed hi profecto cæcitate percutiuntur, quia justo Dei judicio in tenebras interiores cadunt, ita ut nec ostium invenire prævaleant, quia a Deo peccando divisi, unde ad eum revertuntur ignorant.  Qui enim non per humilitatis, sed per arrogantiæ et tumoris anfractus ad Deum accedere gestiunt, patet profecto, quia unde ingressionis aditus pateat non agnoscunt;  vel etiam quia ostium Christus est, sicut ipse dicit:  « Ego sum ostium » (Jn 10:7,9).  Qui Christum peccatis exigentibus amittunt, quasi intrare cælestium habitaculum non possint, ostium non inveniunt.

In reprobum ergo sensum traditi sunt, quia dum reatus sui pondus in propriæ mentis statera non trutinant, gravissimam plumbi massam, pœnarum inanium levitatem putant.  Quod ergo illic dicitur, « Percusserunt eos qui foris erant cæcitate » (Gen. 19:11), hoc Apostolus manifeste declarat quum dicit, « Tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum » (Rom. 1:28), et quod illic subjungitur, « ut ostium invenire non possent », hoc etiam patenter exponit quum ait, « ut faciant quæ non conveniunt. »  Ac si diceret ut intrare tentent, unde non debent.

Qui enim indignus ordine ad sacri altaris officium conatur irrumpere, quid aliud quam relicto januæ limine, per immeabilem perietis obicem nititur introire?  Et quia liber pedibus non patet ingressus, hi tales dum sibi spondent ad sacrarium posse pertingere, sua præsumptione frustrari coguntur potius in exteriori vestibulo remanere.  Et frontem quidem possunt in sacræ Scripturæ saxa percutere, sed per divinæ auctoritatis aditum nequaquam permittuntur intrare, atque dum ingredi quo non sinuntur, attentant, nihil aliud faciunt quam obtectum parietem inaniter palpant.  Quibus non immerito congruit, quod per prophetam dicitur, « sicut in nocte ita palpabunt in meridie » (Job 5:14).  Et qui recti aditus limen transcendere nequeunt, pererrando in circuitum insania rotante volvuntur.  De quibus per Psalmistam dicitur, « Deus meus, pone illos ut rotam » (Ps. 82:14).  Et item:  « In circuitu impii ambulant » (Ps. 11).  De quibus etiam Paulus, quum superius memorata loqueretur, paulo post subdit, dicens, « Qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, non solum qui illa faciunt, sed qui consentiunt facientibus » (Rom. 1:32).

Plane qui ad tam terribile apostolicæ invectionis tonitru non expergiscitur, hic projecto non dormiens, sed mortuus congrue judicatur.  Et quum Apostolus non de Judæis utcunque fidelibus, sed de gentilibus et Deum ignorantibus tanto studio sententiam districtæ animadversionis exaggeret, quid, rogo, dixisset, si tale hoc vulnus in ipso corpore sanctæ Ecclesiæ fœtere conspiceret?  Præsertim quis dolor, quis compassionis ardor pium istud pectus accenderet, si hanc peremptoriam pestem grassari et in sacro ordine didicisset?

Audiant desides clericorum, sacerdotumque rectores;  audiant, et licet de suo securi sint, alieni reatus se esse participes pertimescant.  Illi nimirum, qui ad corrigenda subditorum peccata connivent et, inconsiderato silentio, subditis peccandi licentiam præbent.  Audiant, inquam, et prudenter intellegant, quia omnes uniformiter digni sunt morte — videlicet, « non solum qui illa faciunt, sed et qui consentiunt facientibus » (Rom. 1:32).

For those who would pass by with a deaf ear, indeed, who would not shudder to the bone at the fact that the same Paul, like a trumpet, cries out vehemently with regard to such men, stating, “God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves” (Rom. 1:24).  And a little later [he writes]:

For this reason God gave them up unto vile passions.  For their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature:  and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men working shamefulness with men, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.  And even as they refused to have God in their thinking, God gave them up unto a reprobate mind, to do those things which are unseemly (Rom. 1:26-28).

For how is it that after such a grave lapse they seek so earnestly after the sublimity of ecclesiastical order?  What should one suppose, what should one believe, if not that God has turned them over to a reprobate sense?  Nor does he allow them to see, while under the influence of their sins, the things that are necessary for them.  For, because the sun has set for them (He, that is, who ascends upon the west [cf. Ps. 67:5, vg numbering]), they have lost their inner eyes and they do not even manage to consider how serious the evils are that they have perpetrated by their impurity, nor still how much worse it is that they desire inordinately to possess a grade of order against the will of God.  In accordance with divine justice, those who soil themselves with this ruinous filth, having been struck with a fitting chastisement, always incur the darkness of blindness.  Thus we read of those ancient originators of this foulness when they had “pressed very violently upon the just Lot, and were even at the point of breaking open the doors.” (Gen. 19:9)  “And behold,” says Scripture, “the men put out their hand, and drew in Lot unto them, and shut the door.  And them that were without, they struck with blindness from the least to the greatest, so that they could not find the door.” (Gen. 19:10f.)

It is certain, however, that the persons of the Father and of the Son are not inappropriately represented by those two angels who, we read, have come to the blessed Lot.  This is made evident by what Lot himself says to them:  “I beseech thee my Lord, because thy servant hath found grace before thee, and thou hast magnified thy mercy, which thou hast shewn to me in saving my life.” (Gen. 19:18f.)  For when one addresses two singularly as if they were one, it is certain that he is venerating one substance in two persons.

The sodomites, therefore, seek to violently burst in upon the angels, when impure men seek to approach God through holy orders.  However, they are certainly struck by blindness because they fall into interior darkness by the just judgment of God, and thus they cannot even find the door;  being separated from God by sin, they do not know the way back to it.  For it is surely obvious that those who seek to approach God by the path not of humility, but sinuously of arrogance and vanity, do not discern where the way of entrance lies open, or that the door is Christ, as he himself said “I am the door.” (Jn 10:7,9)  Those who lose Christ under the influence of sin fail to find the door through which they might enter the habitation of the heavenly citizens.

Therefore they have been turned over to a reprobate sense, because as long as they do not measure the weight of their guilt in their own mind with careful consideration, they regard that most heavy load of lead as the lightness of empty punishment.  The statement “He struck those who were outside with blindness” (Gen. 19:11), the apostle manifestly declares when he says “God delivered them up to a reprobate sense” (Rom. 1:28), and what is added, “so they would not be able to find the door,” he also clearly explains when he says, “to do those things which are unseemly,” as if he were to say, “so that they would try to enter where they should not.”

For he who is unworthy of holy orders is attempting to force his way into the service of the holy altar — what is he doing if not striving to enter through the immovable obstacle of a wall, having abandoned the threshold of the door?  Because free entrance is not accessible by foot, such people, while they assure themselves that they may attain to the sanctuary, are frustrated in their presumption and are forced to remain in the exterior vestibule.  They may strike their foreheads against the stones of Sacred Scripture, but they by no means are permitted to enter by the entranceway of divine authority, and when they try to enter where they are not permitted, they do nothing more than vainly grope the reinforced wall.  To them the statement of the prophet is appropriately applied, “They shall grope at noonday as in the night.” (Job 5:14)  And those who are unable to cross the threshold of the proper entrance wander madly, whirling in a circle, of whom it is said by the psalmist, “O my God, make them like a wheel” (Ps. 82:14), and likewise, “The impious walk in a circle.” (Ps. 11:9)  Regarding the same, Paul also, when he is speaking of the matters recounted above, a little later adds, “They who do such things, are worthy of death;  and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” (Rom. 1:32). 

It is clear that if the thunder of apostolic invective does not awaken one to something so terrible, he should certainly be judged not as sleeping, but as dead.  And given that the apostle so zealously augments a sentence of strict chastisement, not for Jews no matter how faithful, but for Gentiles and those who do not know God, what, I ask, would he have said, if he were to have seen this lethal wound festering in the very body of the holy Church?  In particular, what grief, what fire of compassion would have inflamed that pious heart, if he were to have learned of this destructive plague festering even in sacred orders?

May idle prelates of clerics and priests hear!  May they hear, and although they might be secure from personal guilt, may they fear themselves to be participants in the guilt of others!  Undoubtedly, those who turn a blind eye to the sins of their subjects that they are obligated to correct, also grant to their subjects a license to sin through their ill-considered silence.  May they hear, I say, and wisely understand, that all are uniformly worthy of death, indeed, “not only they that do them, but they also who consent to them that do them.” (Rom. 1:32)

Sed, o scelus inauditum!  o facinus toto lacrimarum fonte lugendum!  Si hi morte plectendi sunt, qui facientibus ista consentiunt, quod dignum illis poterit excogitari supplicium, qui cum suis spiritualibus filiis hæc mala extrema damnatione punienda committunt?  Quis jam in gregibus reperiri valeat fructus, quum pastor in ventrem diaboli tam profunda sit præcipitatione demersus?  Quis jam sub ejus imperio maneat, quem tam hostiliter a Deo extraneum non ignorat?  Qui de pænitente facit pellicem, et quem spiritualiter Deo genuerat filium, ferreo diabolicæ tyrannidis imperio per suæ carnis immunditiam subjungat servum?

Si mulierem quis violat quam de sacro fonte levavit, nunquid non absque ullo cunctationis obstaculo communione privandus esse decernitur, et sacrorum censura canonum per publicam pænitentiam transire jubetur?  Scriptum namque est, quia major est generatio spiritualis, quam carnalis.

[Sed is qui accipit hominem e mundo in ordinem clericalem venientem genuerat filium a Deo spiritualem in eodem fere modo ac is qui unum baptizare aut a fonte baptismali accipere potuisset. Institutio profecto ordinum canonicalium renuntiatio est, et baptismus quodammodo secundus.]

Sequitur ergo, ut eadem sententia digne feriatur et qui carnalem filiam perdidit, et qui spiritualem sacrilega commistione corrupit — nisi forte in hoc utriusque criminis qualitas discernatur, quod uterque, licet incestuose, naturaliter tamen, quia cum muliere peccavit, ille autem sacrilegium commisit in filium, incestus crimen incurrit in masculum, naturæ jura dissolvit.  Et, ut mihi videtur, tolerabilius est cum pecude quam cum viro in luxuriæ flagitium labi.  Quanto videlicet levius judicatur quemlibet solum perire, quam secum quoque alium ad interitus perniciem trahere.  Miserabilis quippe condicio est, ubi sic unius ruina pendet ex altero, ut dum unus exstinguitur, alter in mortem necessario subsequatur.

O unheard of crime!  O offense to be mourned with a whole fountain of tears!  If they who consent to those who do these things are to be struck with death, what can be conceived of as a worthy punishment for those who commit these evils, which are punishable by eternal damnation, with their spiritual children?  What fruit can be found in the flocks, when the pastor is so profoundly submerged in the belly of the devil?  Who might now remain under his rule who is not ignorant of his so hostile estrangement from God?  Who makes a male prostitute out of a penitent, a woman out of a man?  Who subjugates as a slave him whom he spiritually generated as a son by God, through the iron rule of diabolical tyranny by the impurity of his flesh?

If a man violates a woman whom he lifted from the sacred fountain, is he not, without any obstacle of delay, judged to be deprived of communion and ordered by the censure of the sacred canons to suffer public penance?  For it is written that spiritual parenthood is greater than carnal parenthood.

[But he who receives one coming from the world into clerical orders has generated a spiritual child from God in almost the same way as he who might have baptized or received one raised from the baptismal font.  Indeed, the institution of canonical orders is a renunciation and is, in a certain sense, a second baptism.]

It follows, therefore, both he who has ruined his carnal daughter, and he who has corrupted his spiritual daughter with sacrilegious intercourse, should suffer the same sentence, as well as he who pollutes, with abominable wantonness, a cleric whom he ordained — unless perhaps in this is the nature of the two crimes distinguished, that the first has sinned, although incestuously, yet naturally, because it was with a woman, while he who defiles a cleric has committed a sacrilege with his son, incurring the guilt of incest and dissolving the laws of nature.  And, as it seems to me, it is more tolerable to have fallen into the disgrace of lust with an animal than with a man.  Indeed, how much more lightly is he judged who perishes alone, than he who drags another to the ruin of destruction!  How miserable is the condition in which the ruin of one depends on another, and when one is destroyed, another follows necessarily to his death!

Ut autem diabolicæ machinationis argumenta non lateant, sed quæ in officina veteris malitiæ inter suos secretarios fabricat, in lucem me palificante procedant, illud absconsum iri non patior, quod quidam hujus veneno criminis satiati, dum quasi ad cor redeunt, ne reatus ad aliorum notitiam prodeat, inter se invicem confitentur;  et, dum hominum faciem erubescunt, qui reatus auctores exsistunt, ipsi judices fiunt, et indiscretam indulgentiam quam sibi quisque affectat impendi, gaudeat alteri vicaria permutatione largiri.  Unde fit ut et magnorum criminum pænitentes sint, et tamen nec ora jejunio palleant, nec corpora macie contabescant;  et dum nullo modo venter ab immoderata alimentorum perceptione restringitur, in ardorem consuetæ libidinis animus turpiter inflammatur.  Quo fit ut qui commissa necdum fleverat, adhuc deterius lugenda committat.

Sed Legis præceptum est ut, quum quis lepra perfunditur, sacerdotibus ostendatur (cf. Lev. 13:12—17);  tunc autem non sacerdotibus sed leproso potius ostenditur, quum immundus immundo peractam communem nequitiam confitetur.  Sed quum confessio utique manifestatio sit, quid, obsecro, manifestat, qui audienti cognitum narrat, aut quo pacto confessio illa dicenda est, ubi nihil a confitente manifestatur, nisi quod jampridem ab audiente cognoscitur?  Et qui sociali vinculo peractæ iniquitatis astringitur, qua lege, quo jure alterum poterit ligare vel solvere?  Frustra enim quis alium solvere nititur, qui et ipse vinculis irretitur.  Et qui cæco vult fieri dux itineris, necesse est ut ipse videat, ne sequenti se auctor præcipitationis fiat, sicut voce Veritatis dicitur, ubi ait, « Si cæcus cæcum duxerit, ambo in foveam cadunt » (Mt 15:14;  Lk 6:39).  Et iterum, « Vides festucam in oculo fratris tui, trabem autem, quæ in oculo tuo est, non consideras (Mt 7:3,5);  Hypocrita, ejice primum trabem de oculo tuo et tunc perspicies, ut educas festucam de oculo fratris tui » (Lk 6:42—42).

His evangelicis testimoniis apertissime declaratur, quia qui ejusdem reatus tenebris premitur, frustra alium ad lumen pænitentiæ revocare conatur, et dum supra vires suas alium errando perire non metuit, cum eo simul, qui sequitur, præsehtis ruinæ foveam non evadit.

So that the deceits of diabolical machination may not lie hidden, but rather that I might expose to the light those things that the devil secretly constructs with his secretaries in the workshop of ancient evil, I will not suffer it to be concealed tht certain individuals, satiated by the poison of this crime, when, as it were, they return to the heart, confess the sin to one another so that the crime may not be exposed to the notice of others.  Although as authors of the crime they cause the faces of men to blush, they themselves become judges, and each one rejoices to extend to the other an indiscreet pardon which he seeks to apply to himself by vicarious exchange.  So it is that they might be penitents of great sins, and yet their mouths are not pallid by reason of fasting, nor their bodies wasted by leanness;  and while their stomach is in no way restrained from the immoderate reception of food, the soul is shamefully inflamed in the fire of habitual lust, so that he who has not yet wept for his crimes, commits even more lamentable acts.

It is a precept of the Law that, when anyone is covered with leprosy he must be shown to the priests (cf. Lev. 13:12—17).  However, when one filthy man confesses to another the common evil that has been committed, the leper is not shown to the priests but rather to another leper.  As a confession certainly should be a revelation, what, I ask, does he reveal who narrates what is already known to his listener?  Indeed, how is that confession to be made whereby nothing is revealed by the one who confesses except what is already known by the listener?  Moreover, by what law, by what right can the one who is restrained by the social bond of an evil committed, bind and loose that of others?  For in vain does he who is also bound by chains attempt to free another.  And for him who wishes to lead a blind man on a journey it is necessary that he should see, that he may not cause the one who follows him to fall, as is said by the voice of the Truth, when he says, “If the blind leads the blind, both fall into the pit” (Mt 15:14).  And again, “Thou seest the mote in thy brother’s eye, but the beam that is in thy own eye thou considerest not (Mt 7:3,5).  Hypocrite, first cast the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to take out the mote from they brother’s eye” (Lk 6:42—42).

It is most openly declared by these evangelical testimonies, that he who is oppressed by the darkness of the same guilt, in vain seeks to restore another to the light of contrition and, if he does not fear to lead another by straying beyond his powers, he does not evade the gaping pit of ruin, together with him who follows.

Sed jam te ore ad os, quisquis es, carnalis homo convenio.  Nunquidnam ideo spiritualibus viris confiteri commissa detrectas;  quia et ab Ecclesiastico gradu cessare formidas?  Sed quanto salubrius erat in conspectu hominum temporalem perpeti verecundiam quam ante tribunal superni Judicis æternam subire vindictam?

Dicis forsitan mihi:  « Si solummodo inter femora vir cum viro ceciderit, pænitentiam quidem aget, sed piæ humanitatis intuitu irrevocabiliter a suo gradu dejici non debet. »  Quæro abs te:  Si quis sacrilege cum virgine periclitatus fuerit, nunquid in suo gradu, tuo judicio, permanebit?  Sed non est ambiguum, quin hujusmodi censeas deponendum;  consequens igitur est, ut quod de sacra virgine rationabiliter asseris, de filio spirituali etiam inevitabiliter fatearis;  ac per hoc, quod de spiritualibus patribus videris asserere, idipsum te necesse est, de clericis definire.  Hac tamen, ut dictum est, diversitate servata, quia hoc tanto perpenditur esse deterius, quanto per identitatem sexuum, naturæ probatur adversum.

Et tum in judicandis excessibus jure ad delinquentis semper recurratur arbitrium, qui masculina femora polluit, si natura permitteret, quicquid in mulieribus agitur, totum in masculo per effrenatæ libidinis insaniam perpetraret, fecit quod potuit:  ad hæc usque perveniens quæ natura negavit, et illic invitus metam criminis fixit, ubi naturæ necessitas intransmeabilem facultatis terminum collocavit.  Quia ergo eadem lex est utriusque sexus viris sacris, et clericis, concludamus necesse est ut, sicut virginis sacrilegus violator jure deponitur, ita etiam filii spiritualis prostitutor modis omnibus a suo nihilominus arceatur officio.

I now address you face to face, whoever you are, O sodomite.  Do you refused to confess your sins to spiritual men, because you also fear to lose your ecclesiastical rank?  But how much more salutary would it be to endure temporal shame in the sight of men, than to suffer eternal punishment before the tribunal of the heavenly Judge?

Perhaps you might reply to me that if a man lies with a man only between the thighs, he is certainly in need of penance, but in accordance with merciful kindness, he should not be permanently prohibited from his grade of order.  I ask you, if a monk makes an attempt upon a nun, is he to remain in holy orders according to your judgment?  But there is no doubt that you would judge that such a man should be deposed!  It therefore follows that what you reasonably assert regarding a nun you should inevitably admit of the monk, and what you would assert regarding monks it is necessary for you to apply to clerics, but, as was stated previously, with this difference:  that the latter is to be considered worse, insofar as by the identity of the sexes it is judged to be contrary to nature.

Moreover, it is right to always consider the will of the offender when judging excesses, and he who pollutes masculine thighs, if nature were to permit, would carry out completely with men whatever is done with women in the insanity of unrestrained lust.  He has done what he could, up to the point where nature has denied him, and he has there unwillingly fixed the boundary of his offense where the necessity of nature has placed the impassable limit of ability.  Therefore, because the same law is applicable to monks of either sex, it is necessary to conclude that just as the violator of a nun is deposed by law, so also he who prostitutes a monk should be removed in all ways from his office.

Et ut ad sacros, id est, exsecrabiles confessores adhuc se disputationis sermo retorqueat:  si quilibet canonicus presbyter cum muliere cecidit, cui pænitentiæ judicium vel semel indixit, a nemine prorsus ambigitur, quin synodalis censura judicii degradetur; si autem religiosus cum religioso labitur cui, videlicet, vel in danda pænitentia judex exstitit vel in accipiendo judicatus fuit, nunquid non dictante justitia sui ordinis honore carebit?  Ita namque vulgata consuetudine dicitur filius pænitentiae, sicut filius baptismi. Unde et de Beato Marco evangelista legitur:  « Quia Petri est in baptismate filius » (e prologo Monarchiano Evangelii Marci).  Et egregius prædicator dicit:  « Non enim misit me Christus baptizare, sed evangelizare » (1 Cor 1:17); ipse item dicit:  « Quæ est enim gloria mea ante Dominum?  Nonne vos? (1 Thess 2:19)  « In Christo enim Jesu per Evangelium ego vos genui » (1 Cor. 4:15).  Rursumque ad Galatas ait:  « Filioli mei, quos iterum parturio donec formetur Christus in vobis » (Gal. 4:19).  Si ergo ille genuit, ille parturiit, qui non est missus baptizare sed evangelizare , ac per hoc pænitentiam provocare congrue dicitur et ille filius, qui accipit;  et ille pater, qui pænitentiam imponit.

Jam ergo si superius dicta subtiliter attenduntur, luce clarius constat, quia ejusdem criminis reus est et, qui cum carnali, vel baptismatis filia fornicatur;  et is, qui cum filio pænitentiæ turpitudinem operatur.  Et sicut is, qui cum ea lapsus est, quam carnaliter genuit vel quam de baptismo suscepit, vel cui pænitentiæ judicium posuit;  ita etiam qui cum filio pænitentiæ per immunditiam labitur, justum est ab eo cujus administrator est ordine omnimodis segregetur.

So to respond again to the disputations of the “sacred” (that is, detestable) confessors:  if any canonical priest falls with a woman to whom he has declared the verdict of penance even once, no one denies that he should be degraded by the censure of the synodal council.  If, however, he falls with a priest or a cleric of almost equal rank for whom he is either a judge in giving penance or has been judged in receiving it, will he not lose the honor of his order in accordance with the dictates of justice?  For it is customary to call him a “penitential son” just as we say “baptismal son.”  Thus it is read of blessed Mark the evangelist that “he is the son of Peter in baptism” (from a Monarchian prologue to the Gospel of Mark), and it is the eminent preacher who says, “For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to evangelize” (1 Cor 1:17), and also says, “For what is my glory before the Lord?  Is it not you?” (1 Thess 2:19 [paraphrase])  “For in Christ Jesus, by the Gospel, I have begotten you.” (1 Cor 4:15)  And to the Galatians he says, “My little children, of whom I am in labor again, until Christ be formed in you.” (Gal. 4:19)  If then he bore, if he gave birth — he who was not sent to baptize, but to evangelize and so to urge repentance — it is rightly said that he who receives penance is a son, and that he who imposes it is a father.

Now if the above-mentioned facts are carefully considered, it will be clearer than light that he who fornicates with either a carnal or a baptismal daughter is guilty of the same crime, and he also who acts indecently with a penitential son.  And just as for him who has sinned with a female whom he generated carnally, or whom he birthed in baptism, or upon whom he imposed the judgment of penance, so also for him who sins with a penitential son through lust, it is just that he be removed in every way from the order of which he is a minister.

Sed quoniam quædam neniæ sacris canonibus reperiuntur admistæ, in quibus perditi homines vana præsumptione confidunt, ex ipsis aliquas hic apponimus ut non solum eas, sed et omnes alias sibi similes scriptas, ubicunque repertæ fuerint, falsas et omnino apocryphas liquido demonstremus.  Dicitur enim inter cetera:  Presbyter non prolato monachi voto, cum puella vel meretrice peccans, annos duos, et tribus quadragesimis, secunda, quarta, et sexta feria et Sabbato semper cum sicco pane pæniteat;  si cum ancilla Dei, aut masculo, addatur jejunium, id est, quinque annos, si in consuetudine est.  Similiter diaconi, si monachi non sunt, duos annos;  sicut et monachi qui sine gradu sunt.  Paulo post subditur:  Clericus cum puella si sine voto monachi fornicatus fuerit, dimidium annum pæniteat;  si canonicus similiter;  si frequenter, duos annos.

Item si quis peccaverit sicut Sodomitæ, quidam dicunt decem annos pænitentiæ:  qui in consuetudine habet amplius plecti debet;  si est in gradu, degradetur et sicut laicus pæniteat.  Vir qui inter femora fornicatus fuerit, uno anno pæniteat;  si iteraverit, duobus annis;  si autem in terga fornicatus fuerit, tres annos pæniteat;  si puer, duos annos pæniteat;  si cum pecude fuerit fornicatus vel jumento, decem annos pæniteat.  Item, episcopus cum quadrupede peccans, decem annos pæniteat, et gradum amittat;  presbyter quinque;  diaconus tres;  clericus duo.  Et multa alia mendosa, atque sacrilega versutia diaboli sacris canonibus reperiuntur inserta, quæ nobis magis libet obliterare, quam scribere;  magis conspuere quam tam vana ludibria schedulis inculcare.

Ecce his deliramentis carnales homines confidunt his velut somniorum portentis fidem attribuunt, et vanæ se spei securitate deludunt.  Sed videamus si canonicæ auctoritati ista conveniant;  et utrum tenenda sint, an vitanda, non tam verbis quam rebus attestantibus innotescant.

But because certain lullabies are found mixed with the sacred canons, in which corrupt men place their confidence with vain presumption, we examine some here so that we may clearly demonstrate that not only they, but all other writings similar to them, wherever they might be found, are altogether apocryphal.  For it is said, among other things, “A priest who has not taken the vow of a monk, who sins with a girl or a harlot, must do penance for two years, and for three Lents, on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, always with dry food;  if it is with a female servant of God or with a man, a fast is added of five years, if it is habitual.”  Similarly deacons, if they are not monks, as well as monks that are not in holy orders, [must do penance for] two years.  A little later the following is inserted:  “If a cleric who has not taken monastic vows commits an act of fornication, he must do penance for half a year;  if he has done so frequently, he must do a whole year of penance;  if he is a canon, likewise;  if frequently, two years.”

Likewise, if one sins in the manner of the sodomites, some dictate ten years of penance.  He who does so habitually must be punished more.  If he holds a grade of order, he must be degraded and do penance as a layman.  A man who fornicates between the thighs must do one year of penance.  If he repeats the offense, he must do penance for two years.  If he fornicates in the rear, he must do three years of penance.  If he is a child, he must do two years of penance.  If he fornicates with a sheep or a mule, he must do ten years of penance.  Likewise, a bishop who sins with quadrupeds must do ten years of penance and lose his grade of order;  a priest, five years;  a deacon, three;  a cleric, two;  and many other erroneous and sacrilegious machinations of the devil are found inserted into the sacred canons, which to us would be more pleasing to obliterate than to read — better to spit, than to write such vain foolishness on paper.

Behold, sodomites trust in these inanities;  they give faith to them as to a portent from dreams and delude themselves with the assurance of a vain hope.  But let us see if these agree with canonical authority, so that, whether they should be affirmed or rejected, they should be made known not so much by the testimony of words as by the testimony of facts.

Igitur, ut ad principium hujus captiosi capituli redeamus, dicitur:  Quia presbyter non prolato monachi voto, cum puella vel meretrice peccans, annos duos pæniteat.  Et quis tam hebes, quis tam insanus reperiri valeat, qui duorum annorum pænitentiam deprehenso in fornicatione presbytero idoneam credat?  Si quis enim quantulamcunque scientiam canonicæ auctoritatis vel summotenus attigit, ut districtiora judicia taceamus, quia lapso in fornicatione presbytero, saltem decem annorum pænitentia decernatur, patenter agnoscit.  Hæc autem duorum annorum de fornicatione pænitentia non modo non sacerdotum, sed nec laicorum esse perpenditur, quibus nimirum ex hac ruina ad satisfactionem currentibus, triennium judicatur.  Deinde additur:  Si cum ancilla Dei, aut masculo, subauditur presbyter, peccaverit, addatur jejunium, id est quinque annorum, si in consuetudine est:  similiter diaconi, si monachi non sunt, duobus annis, sicut et monachi qui sine gradu sunt, pæniteant.

Unum in capite hujus insensatæ sententiæ, quam expono, alacriter video, libenter attendo;  nimirum quod dicitur:  « Si cum ancilla Dei, aut cum masculo. »  Ecce, o bone vir Sodomita, in ipsa tua scriptura, quam singulariter diligis, quam inhianter amplecteris, quam tibi velut clipeum defensionis opponis, aperte consideras quia sive cum ancilla Dei quis peccet, sive cum masculo, nihil differt;  sed æquale peccatum par decernitur esse judicium.  Jam nihil est unde mecum confligere, nihil unde a meis jure possis allegationibus dissentire.

Sed quis tam vesane desipiat, quis tam profundæ tenebras cæcitatis incurrat, ut de lapsu cum ancilla Dei, hoc est, sanctimoniali, vel presbytero, quinque;  vel diacono, sive monacho, duorum annorum imponendam pænitentiam censeat?  Nonne hæc est insidiatrix tendicula pereuntium?  Nonne hic est errantium laqueus animarum?  Illud autem quis non poterit improbare, quod dicitur:  Quia clericus cum puella si sine voto monachi fornicatus fuerit, dimidium annum pæniteat?  Et quis ita sacræ Scripturæ scientia polleat, quis ita vel in dialecticæ subtilitatis acumine argumentosus exsistat, ut tam ex lege legem, tam laudabiliter detestandæ auctoritatis judicabile præjudicium condemnare præsumat?  Unde laico triennium datur, inde clericus dimidio anno pænitere præcipitur?  Beati ergo clerici qui fornicantur, Sodomitarum si arbitrio judicentur:  eadem quippe mensura qua metiuntur aliis, remetiri cupiunt sibimetipsis.  Satis iste auctor erroris ad lucrandas diabolo animas avidus exstitit, qui dum monachos perdere studuit, usque ad ordinem clericorum dogma suæ perversitatis extendit;  et animarum homicida, dum sola monachorum morte stomachum suæ malitiæ gulatenus explere non potuit, satiare se vel ex alio ordine concupivit.

Jam vero quod sequitur, videamus:  Si quis peccaverit sicut Sodomitæ, quidam decem annos dicunt pænitentiæ; qui in consuetudine habet, amplius plecti debet;  si in gradu est, degradetur, et sicut laicus pæniteat.  Vir, qui inter femora fornicatus fuerit uno anno pæniteat;  si iteraverit, duobus annis pæniteat;  si autem in terga fornicatus fuerit, tribus annis pæniteat.  Et quum peccare sicut Sodomita, ut ipsi perhibetis, nihil aliud sit, quam fornicari in terga;  quid est, quod vestri canones in uno pene versiculo tam multiformes inveniuntur et varii;  ut peccantibus sicut Sodomitæ, decennii pondus injungant;  in terga vero fornicantibus, quod idem est infra triennii compendium pænitentiæ lamenta coerceant?  Nonne hæc monstris merito comparantur non natura prolatis, sed industria humana compositis quorum quædam a capitibus equinis incipiunt et in hircorum ungulas terminantur?

Quibus ergo canonibus, quibus Patrum decretis ludibrio ista conveniant quæ a semetipsis tam dissona, et ultra cornuta fronte resultant?  Quæquæ semetipsa convellunt quibus auctoritatibus fulciantur?  « Omne enim regnum », ait Salvator, « in seipsum divisum desolabitur et domus supra domum cadet, et si Satanas in seipsum divisus est, quomodo stabit doctrina ipsius? » (Lk  11:17f.)  Modo enim judicium districtionis intendere modo crudelem videntur quasi misericordiam exhibere:  et velut in chimerali monstro hinc minas leonis specie terribiliter intonat, inde vilis capella humiliter beat;  et hac velut variarum diversitate formarum in risum potius excitant, quam ad pænitentiæ lamenta compungant.

Quibus quoque in errore similia sunt, quæ sequuntur:  Qui cum pecude fuerit fornicatus, vel jumento decem annis pæniteat;  item episcopus cum quadrupedibus peccans, decem annis pæniteat, et gradum amittat;  presbyter quinque, diaconus tres, clericus duos;  quum prius absolute dicat:  Quia quicunque cum pecude vel jumento fuerit fornicatus, decem annorum satisfactione multabitur;  quomodo consequens est, quod subjungitur:  ut presbytero quinque diacono trium, clerico duorum annorum de pecuali concubitu pænitentia indicetur?  Unde quicunque hoc est, quilibet etiam laicus et decennalis spatii afflictione constringitur, inde presbytero quinquennium ponitur, id est, dimidium totius pænitentiæ relaxatur.

Quibus, rogo, sacri eloquii paginis hæc frivola insomnia congruunt, quæ semetipsa tam evidenter impugnant?  Quis non perpendat, quis aperte non videat, quia hæc, et his similia sacris canonibus fraudulenter immista, figmenta sunt diabolica, atque ad decipiendas simplicium animas callidis machinationibus instituta?  Sicut enim melli, vel quibuslibet esculentioribus cibis venenum fraudulenter immittitur ut dum ad comedendum alimentorum suavitas provocat, virus, quod latet, facilius in hominis interiora se transfundat;  ita hæc subdola et mendosa commenta sacris inseruntur eloquiis, ut suspicionem effugiant falsitatis;  et quodam quasi melle sunt oblinita, dum falsæ pietatis videntur dulcedine saporata.  Sed cave ab his, quicunque es, ne te Sirenarum carmen mortifera suavitate demulceat;  ne navim tuæ mentis in Scyllææ voraginis profunda demergat:  non te sanctorum conciliorum pelagus prolata forsitan austeritate perterreat;  non te vadosi syrtes apocryphorum canonum promissa lenitate fluctuum trahant.  Sæpe enim navis procellosos fugiens fluctus, dum littoreis propinquaret arenis, naufragium pertulit;  et sæpe alta pelagi sulcans, sine jactura oneris, incolumis enatavit.

Therefore, to return to the beginning of this deceptive law code, it is said that a priest who has not taken monastic vows, and who sins with a girl or with a harlot, must do two years of penance.  And who is so stupid, who is so insane, to believe that a penance of two years for a priest caught in fornicaion is appropriate?  For whether one has only a minimal acquaintance with canonical authority or the greatest knowledge, he would freely acknowledge that if a priest falls into fornication, a penance of at least ten years should be decreed, not to mention stricter punishments.  However, this penance of two years for fornication is not only considered to be applicable to priests, but not even to the laity who, fleeing from this ruin to satisfaction, are given a sentence of three years.  Then the following is added:  “If one sins with a female servant of God, or with a male (with the understanding that a priest is meant), a fast is added; — that is, of five years, if it is habitual.”  Likewise deacons, if they are not monks, must do penance for two years, as also must monks who do not hold a grade of order.

I eagerly gaze upon one thing in the section of this nonsensical decree upon which I am expounding, gladly turning my attention to it, because it is clearly stated, “If … with a female servant of God, or with a male.”  Behold, O good man sodomite, in your own texts, which you so especially love, which you eagerly embrace, which you put forth as a shield of defense for yourself, you openly acknowledge that there is no difference if one sins with a female servant of God or with a male.  However, for an equal sin there is the determination of an equal sentence.  Now there is no basis for your disagreement with me, no way for you to rightly dissent from my arguments.

Who is so out of his mind, who so profoundly incurst the darkness of blindness, that he would impose a penance of five years on a priest for sinning with a female servant of God (that is, a nun), or a penance of two years on a deacon or a monk?  Is this not an insidious trap for the lost?  Is this not a snare for straying souls?  But who would be able to overrule what is stated — that a cleric who fornicates with a girl, if he hasn’t taken monastic vows, must do half a year of penance?  Who is so knowledgeable in Sacred Scripture, who stands out with such an abundance of expertise in dialectical subtlety, that he might presume to condemn such a law by the law itself, a blameworthy precedent whose authority is laudably detested?  Whereas three years are given to the layman, for the cleric a half year of penance is prescribed?  Blessed are the clerics who fornicate, if they are to be judged by the standards of sodomites;  indeed, the same measure which they mete out to others, they wish to grant to themselves!  This author of error, who extends the dogma of his perversity to the clerical order while he strives to ruin monks, is quite desirous of gaining souls for the devil, and because the death of monks alone cannot satisfy the gluttonous stomach of his malice, he desires to satisfy himself with the homicide of another class of souls.

Let us then see what follows:  If one sins like the sodomites, certain authorities dictate ten years of penance.  He who does so habitually must be punished more.  If he holds a grade of order, he is to be degraded and do penance as a layman.  If a man fornicates between the thighs, he must do penance for one year.  If he does so again, he must do penance for two years.  If, however, he fornicates in the rear, he must do three years of penance.  And given that sinning like a sodomite, as you yourselves adduce, must be nothing other than to fornicate in the rear, why is it that your canons in just one sentence are so various and multifarious that they burden those who sin as sodomites with ten years of penance, but then for those who fornicate in the rear — which is the same thing — they confine the laments of penance within the space of three years?  Are these things not rightly compared to monsters, not produced by nature, but composed by human industry, certain ones of which begin with equine heads and end with the hooves of goats?

So, to which canons, to which decrees of the Fathers do these laughable things correspond, which clash with each other with such dissonant faces, as if they had horns on their heads?  If they overthrow themselves, on what authorities can they rely?  “Every kingdom divided against itself shall be brought to desolation;  and house upon house shall fall.  And if Satan be divided against himself, how shall his doctrine stand?” (Luke 11:17f.)  For first they seem to apply a strict punishment, then to exhibit a cruel mercy, and like a chimerical monster here a menacing species of lion roars, and there a vile she-goat humbly blesses, and by this diversity of various appearances they provoke laughter rather than inspiring penitential lamentation.

Those that follow are similarly erroneous:  He who fornicates with sheep or a mule must do ten years of penance, and likewise a bishop who sins with quadrupeds must do ten years of penance and lose his grade of order;  a priest, five;  a deacon, three;  a cleric, two.  As the previous sentence absolutely states that whoever fornicates with a sheep or a mule will be sentenced to ten years of satisfaction, how is it consistent to add that to a priest five years, a deacon three years, and a cleric two years of penance should be applied for sexual relations with livestock?  So anyone — that is, any person, even if he is a layman — is punished with suffering for a period of ten years, and then five years is imposed on a priest;  that is, half of the penance is eliminated!

I ask, to what pages of sacred eloquence coincide these tireless frivolities, which so evidently conflict with themselves?  Who does not consider, who does not clearly see, that these and similar ones that are fraudulently mixed with these sacred canons are diabolical inventions and have been created for deceiving the minds of the simple by clever machination?  For like honey or any tastier food, the poison is fraudulently admitted, so that while the sweetness of the food provokes one to eat, the poison, which lies hidden, enters more easily into the entrails.  Thus, these deceitful and erroneous inventions are inserted into the sacred texts so as to escape the suspicion of fraud, and they are smeared, as it were, with a certain kind of honey, appearing flavored with the sweetness of a false piety.  Avoid these things, whoever you might be, lest the song of the Sirens charm you with fatal sweetness, lest it plunge the ship of your soul in the chasm of the Scylla.  The ocean of the holy councils should not perchance terrify you with its manifest austerity, and the shallow sandbanks of the apocryphal canons should not attract you with the promised gentleness of their turbulence.  For often a ship that is fleeing the violent waves suffers a shipwreck as it approaches the sandy shore, and often when it cleaves to the high sea, it escapes unscathed without the loss of a burden.

Verumtamen quis istos canones fabricavit?  Quis in purpureo Ecclesiæ nemore tam spinosos, tam aculeatos paliuri tribulos seminare præsumpsit?  Constat nimirum, quod omnes authentici canones aut in venerandis synodalibus conciliis sunt inventi aut a sanctis Patribus sedis apostolicæ pontificibus promulgati:  nec cuiquam soli homini licet canones edere, sed illi tantummodo hoc competit privilegium qui in B. Petri cathedra cernitur præsidere.  Hæc autem, de quibus loquimur, spuria canonum vitulamina, et a sacris conciliis noscuntur exclusa et a decretis Patrum omnino probantur extranea.

Sequitur ergo, ut nequaquam inter canones habeantur quæ nec decretalibus Patrum edictis, nec a sacris videntur prodire conciliis.  Quidquid enim inter species non annumeratur, a genere procul dubio alienum esse decernitur.  Quod si nomen auctoris inquiritur, certum non valet dici, quia nec poterat in variis codicibus uniformiter inveniri.  Alibi enim scribitur, Theodorus dicit;  alibi, Pænitentialis Romanus dicit;  alibi, Canones apostolorum;  aliter hic aliter titulantur illic:  et dum unum habere non merentur auctorem, omnem perdunt sine dubio auctoritatem.  Quæ enim sub tot incertis auctoribus nutant nullum certa auctoritate confirmant.  Et necesse est, ut quæ dubietatis caliginem legentibus generant a luce sacrarum Scripturarum, remota omni dubietate, recedant.

Jam vero his scænicis deliramentis de quibus carnales homines præsumebant ex numero canonum eliminatis, ac perspicua argumentorum ratione convictis, illos canones apponamus de quorum fide et auctoritate nulla prorsus ambiguitate diffidimus.  In Ancyrano quippe concilio reperitur.

Who fabricated these canons?  Who has presumed to plant such spiny, such prickly thorn bushes in the purple grove of the Church?  It is exceedingly clear that all authentic canons are either formulated in venerable synodal councils or are promulgated by the holy fathers who are pontiffs of the Apostolic See, and it is not licit for just anyone to eliminate canons, but rather this privilege is enjoyed only by those who are chosen to preside in the see of the blessed Peter.  However, these spurious shoots of canons of which we speak are both known to be excluded from the sacred councils and proven to be altogether alien to the decrees of the Fathers.

It therefore follows that those that appear not to have been issued by decrees of the Fathers nor by sacred councils are by no means to be accepted among the canons.  For whatever is not numbered among the species, is, without a doubt, determined to be alien to the genus.  If the name of the author is sought, it cannot be identified with certainty, because it is not uniformly indicated in various books.  For in one it is attributed to Theodore, in another, to the Roman Penitential, in another, to the Canons of the Apostles.  They are titled one way here, another way there, and when they do not have the merit of a single author, they undoubtedly lose all authority.  For those which waver between so many uncertain authorities confirm nothing with certain authority, and it is necessary that those things that produce the darkness of uncertainty for readers may recede far from all doubt by the light of the Sacred Scriptures.

Now, with these theatrical absurdities, in which the sodomites have trusted, eliminated from the list of the canons and convicted by the clear reasoning of arguments, let us set out those canons of whose trustworthiness and authority we have no doubt.  Indeed, they are found in the Council of Ancyra.

De his qui irrationabiliter versati sunt, sive versantur:  quotquot ante vigesimum annum tale crimen commiserunt, quindecim annis exactis in pænitentia, communionem mereantur orationum;  deinde quinquennio in hac communione durantes, tunc demum oblationis sacramenta contingant.  Discutiatur autem et vita eorum, qualis tempore pænitudinis exstiterit, et ita misericordiam consequantur.  Quod si inexplebiliter his hæsere criminibus ad agendam pænitentiam prolixius tempus insumant.  Quotquot autem peracta viginti annorum ætate, et uxorem habentes, hoc peccato prolapsi sunt, viginti quinque annorum pænitudinem gerentes in communionem recipiantur orationum, in qua quinquennio perdurantes, tunc demum oblationis sacramenta percipiant.  Quod si qui et uxores habentes et transcendentes quinquagesimum annum ætatis ita deliquerint, ad exitum vitæ communionis gratiam consequantur.

Ecce in ipso hujus venerandæ auctoritatis titulo manifeste perpendimus, quia non solum hi, qui consummato actu contra naturam delinquunt;  sed et hi qui quolibet ingenio cum masculis polluuntur, concubitoribus pecorum per omnia comparantur.  Si enim ad interjecta verba respicimus, caute et cum magnæ discretionis libramine posita pervidemus quum dicitur:  « Qui miscentur pecoribus, aut cum masculis polluuntur ».  Nam si per hoc, quod dicitur « qui cum masculis polluuntur », eos tantummodo, qui consummato actu contra naturam peccant, exprimere voluisset, nequaquam ei necesse fuisset duo verba proponere, qui quum solo eo, quod est « miscentur » potuisset suæ intentionis dicta complere.

Sufficeret quippe ad stili compendium, si totam sententiam uno verbo comprehenderet, dicens:  « Qui miscentur pecoribus, aut masculis ».  Miscentur enim uno modo et hi, qui pecora, et hi, qui masculos violant.  Sed eum alios misceri pecoribus, alios non « misceri », sed « pollui » cum masculis dicat;  patet profecto quia in fine commatis non de corruptoribus tantummodo masculorum, sed et de quolibet modo « pollutoribus » sententiam proferat.  Notandum autem hujus constitutionis edictum præcipue de laicis institutum quod facile perpenditur in eo, quod in sequentibus subinfertur:  « Quotquot autem peracta viginti annorum ætate, et uxorem habentes, hoc peccato prolapsi sunt, viginti quinque annorum pænitudinem gerentes, in communionem recipiantur orationum in qua quinquennio perdurantes, tunc demum oblationis sacramenta percipiant ».

Si ergo quilibet sæcularis hujus facinoris reus peracta viginti quinque annorum pænitentia, in communionem quidem orationum, necdum autem ad percipienda oblationum sacramenta admittuntur;  quo pacto religiosus non solum ad percipienda, sed etiam ad offerenda, et consecranda ipsa sacra mysteria idoneus judicabitur?  Si vix illi permittitur ut ecclesiam cum aliis oraturus introeat;  qualiter isti dabitur, ut ad altare Domini pro aliis intercessurus accedat?  Si ille antequam tam prolixum pænitentiæ spatium transigat, non meretur audire;  iste quomodo dignus est sacra missarum solemnia celebrare?  Si ille qui minus peccavit, ut puta per latum sæculi iter incedens, indignus est cælestis Eucharistiæ munus ore percipere;  qualiter iste merebitur tam terribile mysterium pollutis manibus contrectare?  Videamus adhuc idem Ancyranum concilium quid ex eodem crimine iterum definierit.

Regarding these who have lived irrationally or continue to do so:  Those who have committed such a crime before age twenty may be admitted to the communion of prayer after having done fifteen years of penance.  Then, after five years in this communion, they may finally receive the sacraments of offering.  However, their lives during the period of penance should be investigated before they obtain mercy, for if they insatiably adhere to these offenses, they should spend more time doing penance.  Those who have reached twenty years of age and are married and fall into this sin must do twenty-five years of penance and are then received in the communion of prayer.  After remaining in this state for five years, they may finally receive the sacraments of offering.  But those who thus sin who have wives and have passed fifty years of age should receive the grace of communion at the end of their lives.

Behold, in the same inscription of this venerable authority we clearly see that not only those who fornicate in the rear, but also those who in any way are polluted with men, are compared in every respect with those who lie with animals.  If we consider the interspersed words, we perceive that they have been placed there carefully and with very judicious discernment, as it is stated, “Those who mix with animals or are polluted with males.” For if with this phrase, “those who are polluted with males,” it had intended to indicate those who fornicate in the rear, it would not have been at all necessary for it to add two words, when only with “mix” it could have expressed its intention.

It would have sufficed indeed for brevity of style if the whole sentence had been composed with one verb, saying, “those who mix with animals, or males.” For those who adulterate themselves in one sense are those who violate animals, and in another sense are those who violate males in the rear.  But, as it says that some mix with animals, others not “mix” but “are polluted” with males, it is surely clear that at the end of the phrase it passes judgment not on corrupters of males, but on “polluters.” However, it should be noted that this regulation was principally instituted with regard to the laity, which is easily deduced from the words that follow:  “Those who have committed such a crime before the age of twenty may be admitted to the communion of prayer after having done fifteen years of penance, then, after five years in this communion, they may finally receive the sacraments of offering.”

If, therefore, any layman guilty of this crime is admitted to the communion of prayer after doing twenty-five years of penance but is not yet permitted to receive the sacraments of offering, how is it considered appropriate for a priest not only to receive but also to offer and to consecrate the sacred mysteries?  If he is barely permitted to enter the church to pray with others, how is it that he can approach the altar of the Lord to intercede for others?  If he does not have the right to hear the holy solemnities of masses before completing such a long period of penance, how is he worthy to solemnly celebrate them?  If the former, who sinned less inasmuch as he walks the broad road of the world, is unworthy of receiving in his mouth the heavenly offering of the Eucharist, how will the latter be worthy to handle such a terrible mystery with polluted hands?  Let us consult again the same Council of Ancyra and what it ordained for the same crime.

« Eos qui irrationabiliter vixerunt, et lepra injusti criminis alios polluerunt, præcepit sancta synodus inter eos orare, qui spiritu periclitantur immundo ».  Plane dum non dicit, qui lepra injusti criminis alios « corruperunt », sed « polluerunt », quod etiam cum ipsius tituli præfatione concordat, ubi non de « corruptis » sed de « pollutis » exorsum est;  liquet profecto, quia quocunque modo per ardorem libidinis vir cum viro polluitur, non inter catholicos Christianos, sed inter dæmoniacos orare præcipitur;  quatenus si carnales homines ex semetipsis nesciunt pensare quod sunt ab ipsis saltem valeant edoceri, cum quibus sunt communi orationis ergastulo deputati.

Et certe satis dignum est, ut qui contra legem naturæ contra humanæ rationis ordinem, carnem suam per tam fœda commercia dæmonibus tradunt, communem orationis angulum cum dæmoniacis sortiantur.  Nam cum his malis ipsa penitus humana natura resistat, difficultatem diversi sexus abhorreat, luce clarius constat, quia nunquam tam aversa, tam aliena præsumerent, nisi eos, ut puta « vasa iræ, apta in interitum » (Rom. 9:22) iniqui spiritus pleniter possiderent;  sed quum eos possidere incipiant, tunc per omne, quod implent invasi pectoris tartareum virus suæ malignitatis infundunt, ut jam illa inhianter appetant, non quæ naturalis motus carnis efflagitet, sed quæ sola diabolica præcipitatio sumministret.  Nam quum vir in virum ad perpetrandam immunditiam irruit, non est ille naturalis impetus carnis, sed tantum diabolicæ stimulus impulsionis.

Vigilanter ergo sancti Patres Sodomitas cum energumenis simul orare sanxerunt quos eodem diabolico spiritu invasos esse non dubitaverunt.  Quomodo ergo per sacerdotalis officii dignitatem inter Deum et populum debet mediator assistere, qui a totius populi congregatione sejunctus nunquam nisi inter dæmoniacos jubetur orare?  Sed quoniam duo ex uno sacro concilio testimonia adhibere curavimus, quid etiam magnus Basilius de eo de quo nunc agitur, vitio sentiat, inseramus:  ut « in ore duorum vel trium testium stet omne verbum » (Mt 18.16);  ait enim:

“Those who have lived irrationally and have polluted others with the leprosy of this grave offense are ordered by the holy synod to worship with those who are vexed by an impure spirit.”  As it plainly does not say those who “corrupt” others with the leprosy of this grave offense, but rather “pollute,” (which also agrees with the preceding title itself, which begins not with those who have been “corrupted” but those who have been “polluted”), it is certainly clear that if a man in any way has been polluted with another man through the ardor of lust, he is ordered to pray not among Catholic Christians, but among the demonically possessed.  For if sodomites are unable on their own to understand what they are, they might in any case be taught by those with whom they are consigned to the common penitentiary of prayer.

And it certainly is proper enough that those who trade their flesh to demons through such foul commerce against the law of nature, against the order of human reason, should receive a common place of prayer with the demonically possessed.  For as human nature itself deeply resists these evils, and the lack of sexual difference is abhorrent, it is clearer than light that they never would have dared to engage in such perversities unless evil spirits had fully possessed them as “vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction.” (Rom. 9:22)  But when they begin to possess them, they pour in the infernal poison of their malignity throughout the invaded heart that they fill, so that they might now eagerly desire not those things that a natural movement of the body demands, but that which only diabolic haste supplies.  For when a man thrusts himself upon another man to commit impure acts, it is not from a natural carnal drive, but only the stimulus of diabolical impulse.

Thus the holy Fathers, in their vigilance, sentenced sodomites to pray together with those who are demonically possessed, those whom they did not doubt of having been invaded by the same diabolic spirit.  Therefore, how can a mediator stand between God and the people in the dignity of the priestly office, who, separated from the congregation of the whole people, is ordered to only pray among demoniacs?  But now that we have undertaken to apply two testimonies from one sacred council, let us also introduce what the great Basil thinks about that vice which is currently being addressed, so that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand” (Mt 18.16), for he says:

Clericus, vel monachus adolescentum, vel parvulorum insectator, vel qui osculo, vel qui aliqua occasione turpi deprehensus fuerit, publice verberetur et coronam amittat, decalvatusque turpiter sputamentis obliniatur in facie, vinculisque arctatus ferreis, carcerali sex mensibus angustia maceretur et triduo per hebdomadas singulas ex pane hordeaceo ad vesperam feriatur;  post hæc aliis sex mensibus sub senioris spiritualis custodia, segregata in curticula degens, operi manuum et orationi sit intentus vigiliis et orationibus subjectus, et sub custodia semper duorum spiritualium fratrum ambulet nulla prava locutione, vel concilio deinceps juvenibus conjungendus.

Hic carnalis homo studiose perpendat, utrum ecclesiasticis officiis tuto ministrare valeat, quem sacra auctoritas tam ignominiosis, tam turpibus dehonestandum contumeliis judicat;  nec ex eo sibi blandiatur quia neminem corruperit, quum apertissime scriptum videat, quia qui solo osculo, vel aliqua occasione turpi deprehensus fuerit, omnibus illis probrosæ disciplinæ confusionibus merito subjacebit.

Quod si osculum tam austeræ ultionis supplicio plectitur, ipsa cum alio contaminatio quid meretur?  Ad puniendum namque cui crimini, cui immanissimo sceleri non sufficeret publice verberari, coronam amittere, turpiter decalvari, salivarum spurcitiis obliniri, carceralibus angustiis diutius comprimi ferreis insuper vinculis coarctari?  postremum quoque hordeaceo pane feriari præcipitur;  quia qui factus est « sicut equus et mulus » (cf. Ps. 31:9) congrue non cibo reficitur hominum, sed annona pascitur jumentorum.

Porro si hujus peccati pondus pensare negligimus in ipso saltem pænitentiæ judicio, quod imponitur manifestissime declaratur.  Quisquis enim canonica censura publicam subire pænitentiam cogitur, profecto ecclesiasticis indignus officiis perspicua Patrum sententia judicatur.  Unde et beatus papa Siricius inter cetera scripsit, dicens:  « Illud quoque nos par fuit providere, ut sicut pænitentiam agere cuiquam non conceditur clericorum, ita et post pænitudinem ac reconciliationem nulli unquam laico liceat honorem clericatus adipisci;  quia quamvis sint omnium peccatorum contagione mundati, nulla tamen debent gerendorum sacramentorum instrumenta suscipere qui dudum fuerant vasa vitiorum ».  Quum ergo hujus peccati obnoxium non solum duram, sed et publicam pænitentiam Beatus Basilius subire præcipiat, pænitentem vero clericatus ordinem obtinere Siricius interdicat;  manifeste colligitur, quia qui fœda cum masculo libidinosæ immunditiæ sorde polluitur, ecclesiasticis fungi officiis non meretur;  nec idonei sunt divinum tractare mysterium, qui, ut dicitur, dudum fuerant vasa vitiorum.

A cleric or monk who persecutes adolescents or children, or who is caught in a kiss or other occasion of indecency, should be publicly beaten and lose his tonsure, and having been disgracefully shaved, his face is to be smeared with spittle, and he is to be bound in iron chains, worn down with six months of imprisonment, and three days every week to fast on barley bread until sundown.  After this, spending his time separated in his room for another six months in the custody of a spiritual senior, he should be intent upon the work of his hands and on prayer, subject to vigils and prayers, and he should always walk under the guard of two spiritual brothers, never again soliciting sexual intercourse from youth by perverse speech or counsel.

Here the sodomite should zealously consider whether he whom sacred authority judges to be dishonored with such ignominious, such reproachful indignity, is safely able to carry out ecclesiastical duties.  Nor should he flatter himself for not having corrupted anyone in the rear, or for not having copulated between the thighs, when it is clearly written that he who is caught only in a kiss or other shameful occasion will be rightly subjected to all of those humiliations of shameful discipline.

For if a kiss is struck with a punishment of such severe retribution, what does fornication between the thighs merit?  For punishing what crime, for what monstrous offense would it not suffice to be publicly beaten, to lose the tonsure, to be disgracefully shaven, to be smeared with the filth of saliva, to be confined for a great length of time, and furthermore to be bound in iron chains?  And finally it is prescribed that he is to be fed on barley bread, because he who has become « like a horse and a mule » (cf. Ps. 31:9) is not properly refreshed with the food of men, but is fed with the grain of mules.

Moreover, if we fail to consider the weight of this sin, it is nonetheless clearly declared in the very judgment of penance which is imposed.  For whoever is forced by canonical censure to submit to public penance is surely judged to be unworthy of ecclesiastical duties by the clear sentence of the Fathers.  Thus the blessed Pope Siricius among other things wrote:  “It was also appropriate for us to provide, that as it is not permitted to any of the clerics to do penance, thus also after penance and reconciliation it must not be permitted to any layman whomsoever to attain to the honor of the clerical office.  For although they may be cleansed of all sin, those who were previously vessels of vices must not take up any of the instruments for conducting the sacraments.”  Given, therefore, that Basil would instruct him who is guilty of this sin to undertake not only rigorous but also public penance, while Siricius prohibits the clerical orders from penance, it is obvious that he who has been polluted with the filthy baseness of lustful impurity with a male does not deserve to carry out ecclesiastical duties, nor is it fitting for those to handle the divine mystery, who, so to speak, were previously vessels of vices.

Hoc sane vitium nulli prorsus est vitio conferendum quod omnium immanitatem superat vitiorum.  Hoc siquidem vitium mors est corporum, interitus est animarum, carnem polluit, mentis lumen exstinguit Spiritum sanctum de templo humani pectoris ejicit, incentorem luxuriæ diabolum introducit, mittit in errorem, subtrahit deceptæ menti funditus veritatem, eunti laqueos præparat, cadenti in puteum ne egrediatur oppilat, infernum aperit, paradisi januam claudit, cælestis Jerusalem civem tartareæ Babylonis facit heredem, de stella cæli, stipulam exhibet ignis æterni, abscindit membrum Ecclesiæ et in vorax projicit gehennæ æstuantis incendium.  Hoc vitium supernæ patriæ muros conatur evertere, et rediviva exustæ Sodomæ satagit mœnia reparare.  Hoc est enim, quod sobrietatem violat pudicitiam necat, castitatem jugulat, virginitatem quæ irrecuperabilis est, spurcissimæ contagionis mucrone trucidat.  Omnia fœdat, omnia maculat omnia polluit;  et quantum ad se, nihil purum, nihil a sordibus alienum, nihil mundum esse permittit:  « Omnia enim », ut Apostolus ait, « munda mundis:  contaminatis autem et infidelibus nihil mundum » (Tit. 1:15).

Hoc vitium a choro ecclesiastici conventus eliminat et cum energumenis ac dæmonio laborantibus orare compellit, a Deo animam separat, ut dæmonibus jungat.  Hæc pestilentissima Sodomorum regina suæ tyrannidis legibus obsequentem, hominibus turpem Deo reddit odibilem;  adversus Deum nefanda bella conserere, nequissimi spiritus imperat militiam bajulare;  ab angelorum consortio separat, et infelicem animam sub propriæ dominationis jugo a sua nobilitate captivat.  Virtutum armis suos milites exuit, omniumque vitiorum jaculis, ut confodiantur exponit.  In Ecclesia humiliat, in foro condemnat, fœdat in secreto, dehonestat in publico, conscientiam rodit ut vermis, carnem exurit ut ignis;  anhelat, ut voluptatem expleat;  at contra timet ne ad medium veniat, ne in publicum exeat, ne hominibus innotescat.  Quem enim ille non timeat, qui et ipsum communis ruinæ participem pavida suspicione formidat?  Ne videlicet et ipse qui simul peccat, judex sceleris per confessionem fiat, dum non modo quia peccaverit confiteri non ambigat, sed etiam cum quo peccavit consequenter adjungat:  ut sicut unus in peccato mori, nisi altero moriente non potuit;  ita et alter alteri resurgendi occasionem præbeat, quum resurgit.

Ardet caro misera furore libidinis, tremit mens frigida rancore suspicionis, et in pectore miseri hominis jam quasi tartareum chaos exæstuat, dum quot cogitationum aculeis pungitur, quodammodo tot pœnarum suppliciis cruciatur.  Infelici quippe animæ postquam hic venenatissimus coluber dentes semel infixerit ilico sensus adimitur, memoria tollitur, mentis acies obscuratur;  fit immemor Dei, obliviscitur etiam sui.  Hæc namque pestis fidei fundamentum evacuat, spei robur enervat, caritatis vinculum dissipat, justitiam tollit, fortitudinem subruit, temperantiam eximit prudentiæ acumen obtundit.

Et quid amplius dicam?  Quandoquidem omnem virtutum cuneum de curia humani cordis expellit, omnemque vitiorum barbariem, velut evulsis portarum repagulis intromittit.  Cui scilicet illa, quæ sub specie terrenæ Jerusalem dicitur, Jeremiæ sententia congruenter aptatur:  « Manum », inquit, « misit hostis ad omnia desiderabilia ejus;  quia vidit gentes ingressas sanctuarium suum, de quibus præceperas ne intrarent in Ecclesiam tuam » (Lam. 1:10).

Nimirum quem hæc atrocissima bestia cruentis semel faucibus devorat, a cunctis bonis operibus quibusdam suis vinculis obligat, per omnia nequissimæ pravitatis abrupta præcipitanter effrenat.  Mox nempe ut quisque in hanc extremæ perditionis abyssum fuerit lapsus, a superna patria exsul efficitur, a Christi corpore separatur, totius Ecclesiæ auctoritate confunditur, omnium sanctorum Patrum judicio condemnatur, inter homines in terra despicitur a cælestium civium contubernio reprobatur;  fit sibi cælum ferreum, et terra aēnëa;  neque illuc potest pondere criminis gravatus assurgere;  neque hic sua mala ignorantiæ latibulo diutius occultare:  non hic potest gaudere, dum vivit;  nec illic sperare dum deficit, quia et nunc humanæ derisionis opprobrium, et postmodum æternæ damnationis cogitur perferre tormentum.

Cui videlicet animæ bene congruit illa propheticæ lamentationis vox qua dicitur:  « Vide, Domine, quoniam tribulor venter meus conturbatus est, subversum est cor meum in memetipsa, quoniam plena sum amaritudine:  foris interficit gladius, et domi mors similis est » (Lam. 1:20).

Certainly, this vice, which surpasses the savagery of all other vices, is to be compared to no other.  For this vice is the death of bodies, the destruction of souls, pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the intellect, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, introduces the diabolical inciter of lust, throws into confusion, and removes the truth completely from the deceived mind.  It prepares snares for the one who walks, and for him who falls into the pit, it obstructs the escape.  It opens up hell and closes the door of paradise.  It makes the citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem into an heir of the Babylonian underworld.  From the star of heaven, it produces the kindling of eternal fire.  It cuts off a member of the Church and casts him into the voracious conflagration of raging Gehenna.  This vice seeks to topple the walls of the heavenly homeland and busies itself with repairing the old walls of scorched Sodom.  For it is this which violates sobriety, kills modesty, slays chastity.  It butchers virginity with the sword of a most filthy contagion.  It befouls everything, it stains everything, it pollutes everything, and for itself it permits nothing pure, nothing foreign to filth, nothing clean.  For “all things,” as the apostle states, “are clean to the clean:  but to them that are defiled and to unbelievers, nothing is clean.” (Tit. 1:15)

This vice eliminates men from the choir of ecclesiastical assembly and compels them to pray with those who are possessed and oppressed by the devil.  It separates the soul from God, to unite it with demons.  This most pestilent queen of the sodomites renders him who is submissive to the laws of her tyranny indecent to men and hateful to God.  In order to sow impious wars against God, she requires a militancy of the most wretched spirit.  She separates the unhappy soul from the fellowship of the angels, removing it from its nobility to place it under the yoke of her own domination.  She strips her soldiers of the armaments of the virtues, and to strike them down, exposes them to the darts of every vice.  In the Church she humiliates, and in the forum she condemns.  She defiles in secrecy and dishonors in public.  She gnaws the conscience like worms, burns the flesh like a fire, and pants with desire for pleasure.  But in contrast she fears to be exposed, to come out in public, to be known by others.  For whom should he not fear, who also dreads the participant in common ruin with fearful suspicion, lest the same man who sins with him become judge of the crime by confession, when he might not hesitate not only to confess his sin but also to name the one with whom he sinned?  Just as one could not die by sin without the other dying, so each one offers the other the occasion of rising again, when he rises.

His flesh burns with the fury of lust, his frigid mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion, and chaos now rages hellishly in the heart of the unhappy man while he is vexed by as many worries as he is tortured, as it were, by the torments of punishment.  Indeed, once this most poisonous snake has sunk its teeth into an unhappy soul, sense is immediately taken away, memory is removed, the sharpness of mind is obscured; it becomes forgetful of God, it forgets even itself.  This plague removes the foundation of faith, enervates the strength of hope, breaks the tie of charity, destroys justice, undermines fortitude, banishes temperance, and blunts the sharpness of prudence.

And what more shall I say?  Since indeed it expels every cornerstone of the virtues from the court of the human heart, it also, as if the bolts of the doors have been removed, introduces every barbarity of the vices.  To this, indeed, is appropriately applied the declaration of Jeremiah regarding the earthly Jerusalem:  “The enemy,” he says, “hath put out his hand to all her desirable things:  for she hath seen the Gentiles enter into her sanctuary, of whom thou gavest commandment that they should not enter into thy church.” (Lam. 1:10)

Undoubtedly, whomever this most atrocious beast devours once with its cruel jaws, it binds from all good works and unleashes in every chasm of the most evil depravity.  Whenever anyone falls into this abyss of most extreme perdition, he is exiled from the heavenly homeland, separated from the body of Christ, confounded by the authority of the whole Church, condemned by the judgment of all of the holy Fathers, despised among men on earth, and rejected from the fellowship of heavenly citizenry.  Heaven is made for him like iron and earth like brass.  Neither there can he arise, weighted down by the gravity of his fault, nor here can he hide his evils any longer under the concealment of ignorance.  He cannot here rejoice while he lives, nor there hope when he dies, because he is forced now to bear the scorn of human derision, and then the torment of eternal damnation.

Indeed, that expression of prophetic lamentation is quite fitting for such a soul, which states, “Behold, O Lord, for I am in distress, my bowels are troubled:  my heart is turned within me, for I am full of bitterness:  abroad the sword destroyeth, and at home there is death alike” (Lam. 1:20).

Ego, ego te, infelix anima, defleo, atque ex intimo pectore de tuæ perditionis sorte suspiro.  Defleo te, inquam, miserabilis anima immunditiæ sordibus dedita, toto nimirum lacrimarum fonte lugenda.  Proh dolor!  « Quis dabit capiti meo aquam et oculis meis fontem lacrimarum? » (Jer 9:1)  Nec inconvenientius hæc flebilis vox me nunc singultante depromitur, quam tunc ex ore prophetico ferebatur.  Non enim lapidea turritæ urbis propugnacula non manufacti templi subversa conqueror ædificia, non vilis vulgi agmina lamentor ad Babylonici regis imperium ducta fuisse captiva (cf. 2 Sam 36:19f.);  nobilis a me anima plangitur, ad imaginem Dei, et similitudinem condita, et pretiosissimo Christi sanguine comparata, multis clarior ædificiis, cunctis certe terrenæ fabricæ præferenda fastigiis.

Insignis igitur animæ lapsum, et templi, in quo Christus habitaverat lamentor excidium.  Oculi mei plorando deficite uberes lacrimarum rivos effundite, continuis fletibus tristia lugubres ora rigate.  « Deducant cum propheta oculi mei lacrimas per diem et noctem et non taceant, quoniam contritione magna contrita est virgo filia populi mei, plaga pessima vehementer » (Jer 14:17).  Filia quippe populi mei pessima plaga percussa est;  quia anima, quæ sanctæ Ecclesiæ fuerat filia, ab hoste humani generis telo immunditiæ est crudeliter sauciata:  et quæ in aula regis æterni lacte sacri eloquii tenere ac molliter enutriebatur;  nunc veneno libidinis pestilenter infecta in sulphureis Gomorrhæ cineribus tumefacta, ac rigida jacere conspicitur.  « Qui enim vescebantur voluptuose interierunt in viis;  qui nutriebantur in croceis, amplexati sunt stercora » (Lam 4:5).

Quare?  Sequitur propheta, et dicit:  « Quia major effecta est iniquitas filiæ populi mei peccato Sodomorum quæ subversa est in momento » (Lam 4:6).  Iniquitas quippe Christianæ animæ peccatum superat Sodomorum, quia unusquisque nunc tanto deterius delinquit, quanto et ipsa evangelicæ gratiæ mandata contemnit;  et ne remedium excusatoriæ tergiversationis inveniat, notitia illum divinæ legis instanter accusat.

Heu, heu, infelix anima!  Cur non consideras a quantæ dignitatis culmine sis ejecta, quanto splendoris et gloriæ sis decore nudata?  « Quomodo obtexit caligine in furore suo Dominus filiam Sion!  Projecit de cælo in terram, inclutam Israël » (Lam 2:1);  « egressus est a filia Sion omnis decor ejus » (cf. Lam 1:6).  Ego calamitati tuæ compatiens, et ignominiam tuam amarissime deflens, dico:  « Defecerunt præ lacrimis oculi mei;  conturbata sunt viscera mea;  effusum est in terra jecur meum super contritione filiæ populi mei » (Lam 2:11);  et tu, mala tua pensare dissimulans, atque animos a crimine sumens, « Sedeo », ais, « regina;  et vidua non sum! » (Rev 18:7).  Ego captivitatem tuam miseratus exclamo:  « Quare Jacob ductus est ut vernaculus, et Israël factus est in prædam? » (cf. Lam 2:14).  Et tu dicis:  « Quia “dives sum, et locupletatus, et nullius egeo.”  Et nescis quia tu es miser, miserabilis, et pauper, et cæcus, et nudus? » (Rev 3:17).

Perpende, miser, quanta cor tuum obscuritas premat;  animadverte, quam densa te caligo cæcitatis involvat.  In virilem sexum furor te libidinis impulit?  In tuam te speciem, hoc est, virum in virum, luxuriæ rabies incitavit?  Nunquid hircus in hircum aliquando libidine præcipitatus insiliit?  Nunquid aries in arietem ardore coitus insanivit?  Equus nempe cum equo ad unum præsæpe blande et concorditer pascitur, qui visa equa in sensibilitatem luxuriæ protinus efferatur.  Nunquam taurus taurum amore coeundi petulanter appetiit, nunquam asinus stimulo concumbendi cum asino ruditus emisit.  Hoc ergo perditi homines perpetrare non metuunt, quod ipsa quoque bruta animalia perhorrescunt:  quod ab humanæ pravitatis temeritate committitur, irrationabilium pecorum judicio condemnatur.

Dic, vir evirate;  responde, homo effeminate quid in viro quæris, quod in temetipso invenire non possis?  Quam diversitatem sexuum?  Quæ varia lineamenta membrorum?  Quam mollitiem?  Quam carnalis illecebræ teneritudinem?  Quam lubrici vultus jucunditatem?  Terreat te quæso, vigor masculini aspectus, abhorreat mens tua viriles artus.  Naturalis quippe appetitus officium est, ut hoc unusquisque extrinsecus quærat quod intra suæ facultatis claustra reperire non valet.  Si ergo te contrectatio masculinæ carnis oblectat, verte manus in te:  et scito, quia quicquid apud te non invenis, in alieno corpore in vacuum quæris.

Væ tibi, infelix anima!  de cujus interitu tristantur angeli, insultant plausibus inimici;  facta es præda dæmonum, rapina crudelium spolium impiorum:  « Aperuerunt super te os suum omnes inimici tui;  sibilaverunt, et fremuerunt dentibus, et dixerunt, “Devoravimus eam!  En, ista est dies quam exspectabamus;  invenimus;  vidimus!” » (cf. Lam 2:16).

I myself, O unhappy soul, weep over you, and from the depths of my heart I sigh over your lot of perdition. I weep over you, I say, O miserable soul given over to the dregs of impurity, you who are to be lamented with a whole fountain of tears. For grief!  “Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes?” (Jer 9:1)  And this doleful expression, now elicited from me in sobs, is no less suitable than when it was borne from the mouth of the prophet. For it is not the stony bulwark of a turreted city, not the overturned buildings of a temple made by hands that I bewail, nor do I lament the columns of common men led captive to the empire of the Babylonian king (cf. 2 Sam 36:19f.);  I mourn the noble soul, made in the image and likeness of God and united with the most precious blood of Christ, more glorious than many buildings, certainly to be preferred to all the pinnacles of earthly workmanship.

Therefore I lament the fall of the eminent soul and the destruction of the temple in which Christ had dwelt. May my eyes fail from weeping, may they pour out abundant streams of tears, and may they water sad and mournful expressions with continuous crying. “May my eyes spring forth tears with the prophet day and night, and may they not cease because the virgin daughter of my people is afflicted with a great affliction, with a very sore plague, exceedingly.” (Jer 9:1)  Clearly the daughter of my people has been crushed with the worst of blows, because the soul, which had been the daughter of the holy Church, has been cruelly injured with the dart of impurity by the enemy of the human race, and she who was once tenderly and gently nurtured by the milk of sacred eloquence in the palace of the eternal king, is now seen lying rigid and swollen in the sulfurous embers of Gomorrah, pestilently corrupted by the poison of lust. For “they that were fed delicately have died in the streets;  they that were brought up in scarlet have embraced the dung.” (Lam 4:5)

Why?  The prophet continues and says that it is because “the iniquity of the daughter of my people is made greater than the sin of Sodom, which was overthrown in a moment.” (Lam 4:6).  Indeed, the evil of the Christian soul surpasses the sin of the Sodomites, because its sin is so much worse insofar as it despises the mandates of evangelical grace, and, so that it might not obtain the remedy of self-justifying subterfuge, it is vehemently reprimanded by its own knowledge of the divine law.

Alas, alas, unhappy soul!  Why do you not consider from what great height of dignity you must be cast, of what grace of splendor and glory you must be stripped?  “How hath the Lord covered with obscurity the daughter of Sion in his wrath!  He has cast from heaven the glorious one of Israel” (Lam 2:1) ;  “all splendor has gone out from the daughter of Sion” (Lam 1:6).  I, having compassion for your calamity, and most bitterly lamenting your disgrace, say, “Mine eyes have failed for tears, my bowels are troubled:  my liver is poured out on the earth, for the destruction of the daughter of my people” (Lam 2:1).  And you, failing to consider your evils and taking courage from your crime, say, “I sit a queen, and I am no widow!” (Rev 18:7).  I proclaim your captivity with pity:  “Why is Jacob commanded like a homeborn slave, and why has Israel become a prey?” (cf. Lam 2:14).  And you say, “I am rich and made wealthy and have need of nothing.”  And thou knowest not that thou art wretched and miserable and poor and blind and naked. (Rev 3:17).

Consider, O wretched one, how much the darkness oppresses your soul.  Take note how densely the fog of blindness envelops you.  Has the fury of lust driven you towards the masculine sex?  Has the madness of excess incited you to your own type;  that is, man to man?  Does a he-goat ever leap upon a he-goat, driven by lust?  Does a ram jump upon a ram crazed by the ardor of sexual intercourse?  A stallion gently and peacefully grazes in a single manger with another stallion, but having seen a mare, he is suddenly wild with the madness of desire.  Never does a bull insolently approach another bull in sexual love, never does a male ass roar with a male ass in copulation.  Therefore, degenerate men do not fear to perpetrate an act that even brute animals abhor.  That which is done by the temerity of human depravity is condemned by the judgment of irrational cattle.

Speak, O emasculated man!  Respond, O effeminate man!  What do you seek in a man, that you are unable to find in yourself — what difference of sexes, what diverse features of members, what softness, what tenderness of carnal allurement, what pleasantness of a smooth face?  The vigor of masculine appearance should frighten you, I entreat you, and your mind should abhor virile limbs. The purpose of the natural appetite is that each one seek externally what he is not able to find within the enclosure of his own means. If, therefore, the handling of masculine flesh delights you, turn your hands to yourself, and know that whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in vain in another body.

Woe to you, unhappy soul, the destruction of which saddens the angels, and which enemies insult by applause!  You have become the prey of demons, the plunder of the cruel, the booty of the impious:  “All thy enemies have opened their mouth against thee:  they have hissed, and gnashed with the teeth, and have said:  We have swallowed her up:  lo, this is the day which we looked for:  we have found it, we have seen it.” (cf. Lam 2:16).

Idcirco ego te, o miserabilis anima, tot lamentationibus defleo, quia te flere non cerno;  idcirco ego pro te humi prostratus jaceo, quia te male erectam post tam gravem lapsum ultro etiam ad fastigium ecclesiastici ordinis contendere video.  Ceterum si tu te in humilitate deprimeres, ego de tua restauratione securus, totis in Domino visceribus exsultarem;  si contriti cordis digna compunctio pectoris tui arcana concuteret, ego non immerito ineffabilis lætitiæ tripudio jucundarer.

Idcirco ergo maxime flenda es, quia non fles;  ideo alienis doloribus indiges, quia calamitatis tuæ periculum ipsa non doles;  et eo amarioribus fraternæ compassionis es fletibus deploranda, quo nullo perpenderis propriæ tristitiæ mœrore turbata;  Ut quid damnationis tuæ pondus pensare dissimulas?  Ut quid te modo in peccatorum profunda mergendo, modo in superbiam elevando, iram tibi in die iræ thesaurizare non cessas? (Rom 2:5)  Venit, venit super te maledictio illa, quæ ex ore David in Joab, et in domum ejus est, fuso Abner sanguine, jaculata.  Pestis illa Gomorrhiana nunc in habitatione tui corporis vivit, quæ domum Joab crudelis homicidii ultione damnavit. (Cf. 2 Sam 2—3).

Percusso quippe Abner, ait David:  « Mundus ego sum, et regnum meum usque in sempiternum a sanguine Abner filii Ner:  et veniat super caput Joab, et super omnem domum patris ejus, nec deficiat de domo Joab Gomorrhianum sustinens » (Cf. 2 Sam 3:28f. [2 Kings in Vg.]).  Pro quo secunda translatio habet:  Fluxum seminis sustinens et leprosus tenens fusum, et cadens gladio et indigens pane.  Lepra quippe perfunditur, qui gravis peccati labe fœdatur.  Fusum vero tenere, est virilis vitæ fortia facta relinquere, et femineæ conversationis illecebrosam mollitiem exhibere.  Gladio cadit, qui furorem divinæ indignationis incurrit.  Pane indiget, quem a perceptione Christi corporis proprii reatus pœna coercet:  Ille est enim « panis vivus qui de cælo descendit » (cf. Jn 6:51).

Si ergo post fluxum seminis leprosus factus præcepto legis extra castra manere compelleris, cur adhuc in eisdem castris etiam honoris primatum obtinere contendis?  Nunquid non Ozias rex quum superbe adolere incensum super altare thymiamatis voluisset, postquam se plaga lepræ cælitus percussum agnovit, non modo a sacerdotibus de templo expelli patienter tulit;  sed et ipse celeriter egredi festinavit?  Scriptum quippe est:  « Quumque respexisset eum Azarias pontifex, et omnes reliqui sacerdotes viderunt lepram in fronte ejus, et festinato expulerunt eum »;  moxque subjungitur:  « Sed et ipse perterritus, acceleravit egredi, eo quod sensisset plagam Domini » (2 Chron 26:20 [2 Paralipomenon. in Vg.])

Si rex corporali lepra percussus, a sacerdotibus de templo ejici non contempsit, tu leprosus in anima cur tot sanctorum Patrum judicio a sacris altaribus removeri non pateris?  Si ipse dimisso regiæ dignitatis imperio, habitare in domo privata usque ad obitum non erubuit;  tu cur a sacerdotalis officii confunderis arce descendere, ut in pænitentiæ sepultura conclusus, te inter vivos studeas quasi mortuum deputare?  Et, ut ad illam Joab mysticam recurramus historiam, si ipse gladio corruisti, quomodo alium per sacerdotalem gratiam suscitabis?  Si ipse exigentibus meritis, indiges pane, id est, a Christi separatus es corpore, quo pacto alium poteris cælestis mensæ dapibus satiare?  Si tu Oziæ lepra es percussus in fronte, hoc est, infamiæ nota dehonestaris in facie, quomodo alium poteris obducta perpetrati criminis alluvione purgare?

Erubescat ergo tumefacta superbia, nec super se extolli inaniter appetat, quam infra se proprii reatus sarcina non mediocriter gravat;  discat mala sua subtili consideratione perpendere, discat se intra mensuræ suæ metas humiliter cohibere, ne dum id, quod nullo modo prævalet assequi, arroganter usurpet:  hoc etiam quod vera humilitas sperare potuisset prorsus amittat.

Therefore I weep over you, O miserable soul, with so many lamentations, because I do not see you weeping.  Therefore I lie prostrate on the ground on your behalf because I see you wickedly upright following such a grave fall, even wantonly striving towards the pinnacle of ecclesiastical order.  Otherwise, if you had lowered yourself in humility, I, sure of your restoration, would have exulted in the Lord with all that is in me;  if the worthy compunction of a contrite heart had shaken the hidden recesses of your soul, I would have rightly taken delight with a dance of ineffable joy.

You are most greatly to be wept over, because you do not weep.  You are in need of the sufferings of others because you do not feel the danger of your ruin, and you are to be wept over all the more by bitter tears of fraternal compassion because are not troubled by your own sorrowful lamentation.  Why do you neglect to consider the weight of your condemnation?  Why do you not cease to store up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath (Rom 2:5) by first submerging yourself in the depths of sin and then raising yourself up in arrogance?  That curse is coming, is coming upon you, which was cast by the mouth of David against Joab and his house following the spilling of the blood of Abner.  That pestilence of Gomorrah, which doomed the house of Joab in retribution of cruel homicide, now lives in the habitation of your body. (Cf. 2 Sam 2—3).

After Abner is struck down, David says:  “I, and my kingdom are innocent … forever of the blood of Abner the son of Ner:  and may it come upon the head of Joab, and upon all his father’s house:  and let there not fail from the house of Joab one that bears Gomorrah.” (Cf. 2 Sam 3:28f. [2 Kings in Vg.])  For which a second translation reads:  “… that hath an issue of seed, and that is a leper holding the distaff, and that falleth by the sword, and that wanteth bread.” For he who is befouled by the stain of grave sin is sprinkled with leprosy.  To hold a distaff, in fact, is to abandon the manly activity of a masculine life and to exhibit the alluring softness of feminine manners.  He who falls by the sword is one who incurs the fury of divine indignation.  He who is lacking in bread is restricted from the reception of the body of Christ by the penalty of his particular offense, for this is “the living bread that came down from heaven.” (cf. Jn 6:51)

So if, O unworthy priest, you will be compelled by precept of law to remain outside the encampments after the leprous flow of semen is completed, why do you still strive to obtain even the preeminence of honor in those same encampments?  Is it not true that Ozias the king, when he had haughtily wished to burn incense over the altar of incense, afterwards recognized that he had been struck by heaven with the disease of leprosy, and not only patiently accepted his expulsion from the temple by the priests, but rather himself made haste to quickly leave?  Indeed it is written:  “And when Azarias the priest looked upon him, and all of the remaining priests, they saw the leprosy on his forehead, and they quickly expelled him,” and then the following is added:  “Yea himself also being frightened, hasted to go out, because he had quickly felt the stroke of the Lord.” (2 Chron 26:20 [2 Paralipomenon. in Vg.])

If the king, having been struck with corporeal leprosy, did not despise to be ejected from the temple by the priests, why do you, who are leprous in your soul, not suffer yourselves to be removed from the sacred altars in accordance with the judgment of so many of the holy Fathers?  If he, having lost the authority of royal dignity, did not blush to live in an ordinary house until his death, why are you troubled about descending from the height of the sacerdotal office so that, enclosed in the tomb of penance as if dead, you might strive to join the ranks of the living?  And, so that we might return to that mystical story of Joab, if you yourself fell by the sword, how will you raise another by priestly grace?  If you are deservedly lacking bread — that is, you are separated from Christ in your body — how will you be able to satisfy another with the banquet of the celestial table?  If you are struck on your forehead with the leprosy of Ozias — that is, if you are disgraced by the sign of dishonor on your face — how will you be able to wash another clean of a perpetrated offense?

May bloated pride blush, therefore, and not vainly seek to be raised above itself, as it weighs well below itself by the burden of its own guilt.  May it learn to ponder its evils with subtle consideration, may it learn to contain itself humbly within its own limits, lest it arrogantly usurp that which it cannot obtain in any way and entirely lose even that for which true humility might have been able to hope.

Quid est, quæso, o damnabiles carnales homines quod tanto ambitionis ardore ecclesiasticæ dignitatis culmen appetitis?  Quid est, quod tanto desiderio vestræ perditionis nexibus Dei populum illaqueare tentatis?  Non vobis sufficit, quia vosmetipsos in alta facinorum præcipitia mergitis, nisi ruinæ vestræ periculo et alios involvatis?

Si enim fortasse quis veniat, ut pro se ad intercedendum nos apud potentem quempiam virum qui sibi iratus, nobis vero esset incognitus, dicat, protinus respondemus:  Ad intercedendum venire non possumus, quia familiaritatis ejus notitiam non habemus.  Si ergo homo apud hominem, de quo minime præsumit, fieri intercessor erubescit:  qua mente apud Deum intercessionis locum pro populo arripit, qui familiarem se ejus gratiæ esse per vitæ meritum nescit?  Aut ab eo quomodo in aliis veniam postulat, qui, utrum sibi sit placatus, ignorat?  Qua in re est adhuc aliud sollicitius formidandum, ne qui placare iram posse creditur, hanc ipse ex proprio reatu mereatur.  Cuncti enim liquido novimus, quia quum is qui displicet ad intercedendum mittitur, irati animus ad deteriora provocatur.

Qui ergo adhuc desideriis terrenis astringitur caveat, ne districti iram Judicis gravius accendens dum loco delectatur gloriæ, fiat subditis auctor ruinæ.  Sollerter ergo se quisque metiatur, ne locum sacerdotalis officii suscipere audeat, si adhuc in se vitium damnabiliter regnat;  ne is, quem crimen depravat proprium, intercessor fieri appetat pro culpis aliorum.  Parcite ergo, parcite, et furorem Dei adversum vos inexstinguibiliter accendere formidate ne quem inique agendo patenter offenditis ipsis quoque orationibus acrius irritetis, ac propria ruina contenti, cavete fieri alienæ perditionis obnoxii;  quatenus quo temperantius nunc peccando corruitis, eo facilius quandoque porrecta manu pænitentiæ per Dei misericordiam resurgatis.

Why, I ask, O damnable sodomites, do you seek after the height of ecclesiastical dignity with such burning ambition?  Why do you seek with such longing to snare the people of God in the web of your perdition?  Does it not suffice for you that you cast your very selves off the high precipice of villainy, unless you also involve others in the danger of your fall?

If perchance someone comes to urge us to intercede on his behalf with some powerful man who is angry with him, but who is unknown to us, we should immediately respond that we cannot come to intercede, because we do not know him personally.  If, therefore, one blushes to intercede with a man of whom he can presume nothing, by what reasoning does a man who does not know himself to be an intimate of the grace of God through a meritorious life, take up the duty of intercession with God on behalf of the people?  How does he plead for pardon from God on behalf of others, if he doesn’t know if God is well disposed to him?  Regarding which there is something else to be feared more anxiously:  that he who is believed to be able to placate wrath might deserve this same wrath due to his own guilt.  For all of us clearly know that when one who is displeasing is sent to intercede, he further provokes the one who is already annoyed.

He, therefore, who is still held bound by terrestrial desires, should beware, lest, stoking ever more the ire of the strict Judge while he delights in his glorious position, he might become the cause of ruin to his subjects.  Each one, therefore, should take wise measure of himself, lest he dare to act as a priest while vice continues to reign damnably within him, lest he, depraved by his own offense, seek to become an intercessor for the sins of others.  Forbear therefore, forbear, and beware of inextinguishably inflaming the fury of God against you, lest by your prayers you more sharply provoke Him whom you patently offend by your evil acts, and while your ruin is certain, beware of being made guilty of the ruin of another. For the less you fall by sinning, the more easily you may rise again by the outstretched hand of penance, through the mercy of God.

Quod si ipse omnipotens Deus de manibus vestris sacrificium dedignatur accipere, qui vos estis, qui nolenti importune præsumatis ingerere?  « Victimæ quippe impiorum abominabiles Domino » (cf. Prov. 15:8; 21:27).  Sed qui me stomachamini, atque despicitis auscultare scribentem;  ipsum saltem audite prophetico vobis ore loquentem:  ipsum, inquam, audite concionantem intonantem, vestra sacrificia respuentem vestris obsequiis publice reclamantem.  Ait enim eximius prophetarum Isaias, immo Spiritus sanctus per os Isaiæ:

« Audite, inquit, verbum Domini, principes Sodomorum, percipite auribus legem Dei nostri populus Gomorrhæ.  Quo mihi multitudinem victimarum vestrarum, dicit Dominus?  Plenus sum holocausto arietum, et adipe pinguium:  et sanguinem vitulorum, et agnorum et hircorum nolui.  Quum veneritis ante conspectum meum, quis quæsivit hæc de manibus vestris, ut ambularetis in atriis meis?  Ne offeratis ultra sacrificium frustra;  incensum abominatio est mihi:  neomenias, et Sabbatum, et festivitates alias non feram;  iniqui sunt cœtus vestri;  Kalendas vestras, et solemnitates vestras odivit anima mea;  facta sunt mihi molesta, laboravi sustinens.  Et quum extenderitis manus vestras, avertam oculos meos a vobis:  et quum multiplicaveritis orationem, non exaudiam;  manus enim vestræ sanguine plenæ sunt » (Is 1:10–15).

 » Animadvertitis igitur, quia licet omnia vitiorum mala divinæ correptionis sententia communiter feriat, in principes tamen Sodomorum et populum Gomorrhæ principaliter jaculata descendat;  ut si humanæ attestationi credere fortasse dissimulat quam sit hoc mortale vitium, divino saltem testimonio, litigiosorum temeritas acquiescat.

Si autem ab aliquo nobis opponatur, quod in prophetica locutione subjungitur:  « Manus, inquit, vestræ sanguine plenæ sunt »;  ut videlicet in divinæ inventionis oraculo magis homicidium quam carnis immunditiam velit intelligi, noverit in divinis eloquiis omnia peccata « sanguinem » nuncupari, David attestante, qui ait:  « Libera me de sanguinibus Deus, Deus salutis meæ » (Ps 50:16).  Verumtamen si et hujus vitii naturam studeamus sollerter inspicere et physicorum dicta ad memoriam revocare, invenimus seminis fluxum ex sanguinis origine procreatum.  Sicut enim agitatione ventorum aqua maris in spumam convertitur, ita contrectatione genitalium sanguis in humorem seminis excitatur.

Non ergo a sano intellectu abhorrere merito creditur si quod dictum est, « manus vestræ sanguine plenæ sunt », de peste immunditiæ dictum esse videatur.  Et hoc fortasse fuit, quod illa in Joab vindicta (1 Kings 2:28-35 [3 Kings in the Vg.]) non ex alia quam ex fusi sanguinis culpa processit;  ut qui alienum sanguinem volens effuderat, digna eum pœna percelleret, si et sui sanguinis profluvium nolendo toleraret.  Sed quia diu disputando ad hoc usque pervenimus, ut et ipsum Dominum immundorum sacrificia reprobantem, et contestatorie prohibentem liquido monstraremus:  quid nos peccatores miramur, si ab his in nostra admonitione contemnimur?  Si divinæ vocis imperium parvipendi incrassato reproborum corde conspicimus;  quid mirum si nobis non creditur, qui terra sumus?

If the omnipotent God himself disdains to accept sacrifice from your hands, who are you, who presume to importunately thrust it upon Him who does not wish it?  For “the sacrifices of the impious are abominable to God” (cf. Prov. 15:8; 21:27).  But to those among you who are angry with me and refuse to listen to the writer, at least listen to the one who speaks to you from the prophetic mouth.  Listen to him, I say, declaring, thundering, rejecting your sacrifices, publicly denouncing your services.  For Isaiah, select among the prophets — indeed, the Holy Spirit by the mouth of Isaiah — says:

“Hear the word of the Lord, ye rulers of Sodom, give ear to the law of our God, ye people of Gomorrah.  To what purpose do you offer me the multitude of your victims, saith the Lord?  I am full, I have not desired holocausts of rams, and fat of fatlings, and blood of calves, and lambs, and buck goats.  When you came to appear before me, who required these things at your hands, that you should walk in my courts?  Offer sacrifice no more in vain:  incense is an abomination to me.  The new moons, and the Sabbaths, and other festivals I will not abide, your assemblies are wicked.  My soul hateth your new moons, and your solemnities:  they are become troublesome to me, I am weary of bearing them.  And when you stretch forth your hands, I will turn away my eyes from you:  and when you multiply prayer, I will not hear … your hands are full of blood” (Is 1:10–15).

Observe, therefore, that although the sentence of divine punishment must strike all of the evils of the vices in common, it is hurled chiefly upon the princes of the Sodomites and the people of Gomorrah, so that even if the temerity of the contentious refuses to believe human testimony regarding the nature of this mortal vice, it might at least acquiesce to divine testimony.

However, if someone objects that the following is added to the prophetic statement:  “your hands are full of blood” — so that in this declaration of divine invective he wishes homicide, rather than carnal impurity, to be understood — he will discover in the divine utterances that all sins are called “blood.”  To this David attests, saying, “Deliver me from blood, O God” (Ps 50:16).  Yet if we also seek to carefully examine the nature of this vice and to recall to mind the maxims of the natural philosophers, we find that the flow of semen is generated from blood.  For as by the agitation of the winds the water of the sea is converted into foam, so by the touching of the genitals, blood is made into semen by excitation.

Therefore, one is not far from a proper understanding if one interprets “your hands are full of blood” as meaning the pestilence of impurity.  And perhaps this was because the vengeance against Joab (1 Kings 2:28-35 [3 Kings in the Vg.]) proceeded from none other than the guilt of spilled blood, so that he who had willfully spilled the blood of another would be struck with a worthy punishment if he suffered unwillingly the outflowing of his own blood.  But as we have arrived, through a long disputation, at the point of clearly showing the Lord himself reprobating and resoundingly prohibiting the sacrifices of those who are unclean, why are we sinners surprised if we are scorned by such people for our admonitions?  If we note that the authority of divine utterance is little heeded by the hardened heart of the reprobate, is it any wonder if we, who are on earth, are not believed?

Jam ergo qui sanctorum Patrum reverenda concilia despicit, qui apostolorum apostolicorumque virorum præcepta contemnit, qui canonicæ sanctionis edicta præterire non metuit, qui ipsius divinæ auctoritatis imperium floccipendit, admonendus est saltem ut diem vocationis suæ ante oculos ponat;  et quo gravius peccat, eo durius se judicandum esse non ambigat.  Sicut sub specie Babylonis ab angelo dicitur:  « Quantum se exaltavit, et in deliciis fuit tantum date ei tormenta et luctus » (Rev 18:7).

Admonendus est, ut consideret, quia quandiu hujus vitii morbo laborare non cessat, etiam si aliquid boni agere cernitur, suscipere tamen præmium non meretur.  Nec ulla religio, nulla sane mortificatio nulla vitæ perfectio oculis superni Judicis digna decernitur quæ tam turpis immunditiæ sordibus inquinatur.  Ut autem probetur verum esse quod dicitur, venerabilis Bedæ testimonium in medium deducatur:

« Qui, inquit, ita eleemosynam tribuit, ut culpam non dimittat, animam non redimit, quam a vitiis non compescit.  Hoc ille eremita suo facto probat qui cum multis virtutibus cum suo quodam collega deservisset, hæc illi per diabolum injecta cogitatio est:  ut quandocunque libidine titillaretur, sic semen detritu genitalis membri egerere deberet, tanquam phlegma de naribus projiceret;  qui ob id et dæmonibus moriens, vidente socio, traditus est.  Tum idem socius reatum ejus ignorans, sed exercitia virtutum recolens, pene desperavit, dicens:  O quis poterit salvus esse?  quomodo iste periit?  Cui mox angelus astans, dixit:  Ne turberis;  iste enim, licet multa fecerit, tamen per illud vitium, quod Apostolus vocat ‹ immunditiam › (Rom 1:24), cuncta fœdavit ».

So now, he who disdains the venerable councils of the holy Fathers, who despises the precepts of the apostles and of apostolic men, who has not feared to disregard the edicts of canonical punishment, and who thinks little of the rule of divine authority itself, is at least to be admonished to place the day of his summons before his eyes, and should not doubt that the more he sins, the more harshly he will he be judged.  As is said by the angel using the metaphor of Babylon, « As much as she hath glorified herself and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her » (Rev 18:7).

He should be admonished to consider that, however long he does not cease to suffer from the malady of this vice, even if he is acknowledged as having done some good, he does not deserve to receive a reward.  No religiosity, no self-mortification, no perfection of life which is soiled by such filthy impurity will be deemed worthy in the eyes of the celestial Judge.  However, to prove that these things are true, let the testimony of the venerable Bede be presented:

“He who thus gives alms while not discharging his guilt, does not redeem his soul which he does not restrain from vices.  This is demonstrated by the actions of that hermit who, having many virtues, had entered into the eremitic life with a certain associate of his.  The thought was injected into him by the devil that whenever his sexual passions were excited he should discharge his semen by the rubbing of his genital member, just as he might expel mucus from the nostrils.  For this reason, as he died he was turned over to demons while his companion watched.  Then the same companion, who was ignorant of his guilt, and recalling his virtuous exercises, almost despaired, saying, “Who can be saved, if this man has perished?”  Then an angel standing by said to him, « Do not be troubled, for this man, although he might have accomplished much, has nonetheless soiled everything by that vice which the Apostle (Rom 1:24) calls ‘impurity’.”

Non ergo in eo sibi quisque blandiatur, quia cum alio non corruit, si per semetipsum his luxuriantis illecebræ contaminationibus fluit;  quum iste infelix eremita qui dæmonibus in mortis articulo traditur non alium polluisse, sed semetipsum perdidisse per immunditiam doceatur.  Sicut enim ex uno vitis cæspite diversi palmites prodeunt, ita ex una Sodomitica immunditia, velut venenatissima radice quattuor illi ramusculi, quos superius enumeravimus oriuntur:  ut ex quocunque eorum quis pestiferum botryonem carpat, protinus veneno infectus indifferenter intereat.  Ex vinea enim Sodomorum vitis eorum, et propago eorum ex Gomorrha:  « Uva eorum, uva fellis, et botrus amaritudinis ipsis » (Deut 32:32).  Serpens enim iste, quem nostræ disputationis sude frangere nitimur, quadriceps est, et cujuscunque capitis dente momordit, totum mox suæ nequitiæ virus infudit.

Sive ergo semetipsum quis polluat, sive alium quocunque modo, licet discretione servata, procul dubio tamen Sodomiticum scelus perpetrasse convincitur.  Neque enim legitur, quod illi Sodomorum incolæ solummodo alios consummato actu corruperint;  sed potius credendum est quod juxta effrenatæ libidinis impetum, diversis modis sint in se, vel in alios turpitudinem operati.

Plane si quis veniæ locus in hujus vitii ruina præberetur, cui propensius remissio indulgenda competeret, quam illi videlicet eremitæ, qui nesciendo peccavit?  qui per simplicitatis imperitiam cecidit?  qui sibi hoc licere, velut naturalis officii debitum, æstimavit?  Discant miseri discant se a tam detestabilis vitii peste compescere lenocinantem libidinis lasciviam viriliter edomare petulantia carnis incentiva reprimere, terribile divinæ districtionis judicium medullitus formidare;  ad memoriam semper revocantes illam apostolicæ comminationis sententiam, qua dicitur:  « Terribile est incidere in manus Dei viventis » (Heb 10:31).  Illud etiam formidolose recolentes, quod propheta minaciter intonat, dicens:  « Quia in igne zeli Domini devorabitur omnis terra » (Zeph 1:18), « et in gladio ejus omnis caro » (Is 66:16).

Si enim carnales homines divino gladio devorandi sunt, ut quid nunc ipsam carnem damnabiliter diligunt?  ut quid carnis voluptatibus enerviter cedunt?  Ille nimirum est gladius, quem Dominus per Moysen intentat peccatoribus, dicens:  « Exacuam velut fulgur gladium meum » (Deut 32:41).  Et iterum:  « Gladius, inquit, meus manducabit carnes » (Deut 32:42);  id est, furor meus deglutiet in carnis delectatione viventes.  Sicut enim ii, qui adversus vitiorum monstra confligunt, supernæ virtutis auxilio fulciuntur;  ita e diverso carnis immunditiæ dediti, soli divinæ ultionis judicio reservantur.  Unde et Petrus:  « Novit, inquit, Dominus pios de tentatione eripere, iniquos vero in die judicii reservare cruciandos:  magis autem, qui post carnem in concupiscentia immunditiæ ambulant » (2 Pet 2:9f.).  Quos etiam alibi increpans, ait:  « Existimantes », inquit, « diei delicias coinquinationes, et maculæ deliciis affluentes conviviis suis luxuriantes in vobiscum, oculos habentes plenos adulterio, et incessabili delicto » (2 Pet 2:13f.)

Nec glorientur, qui in sacro ordine positi sunt, si exsecrabiliter vivunt:  quia quo altius stantes eminent eo profundius corruentes jacent:  et sicut alios deberent nunc in sanctæ conversationis vita præcedere, ita postmodum atrociora coguntur supplicia sustinere;  quia juxta Petri vocem:  « Deus etiam angelis peccantibus non pepercit, sed rudentibus inferni detractos in tartarum tradidit cruciandos, in judicium reservari.  Et civitates Sodomorum et Gomorrhæorum in cinerem redigens » (Gen 19), « eversione damnavit, exemplo eorum qui impie acturi sunt » (2 Pet 2:4,6).  Quid est quod beatus apostolus postquam diabolicæ damnationis præcipitium retulit, ad Sodomorum quoque, et Gomorrhæorum se mox convertit excidium;  nisi ut patenter ostenderet, quia qui nunc sunt immunditiæ vitio traditi, simul etiam cum immundis spiritibus æterna sunt ultione damnandi?  Et quos nunc ardor Sodomiticæ libidinis vexat, postmodum etiam cum ipso totius iniquitatis auctore flamma perpetuæ combustionis exurat?

Cui sententiæ etiam Judas apostolus aptissime concinit, dicens:  « Angelos », inquit, « qui non observaverunt suum principatum, sed dereliquerunt suum domicilium, in judicium magni diei vinculis æternis sub caligine servavit:  sicut Sodoma et Gomorrha, et finitimæ civitates simili modo exfornicatæ et abeuntes post carnem alteram, factæ sunt exemplum, ignis æterni pœnam sustinentes » (Jude 1:6f.).  Patet ergo, quia sicut angeli suum non observantes principatum, tartareæ caliginis meruere supplicium;  ita qui a sacri ordinis dignitate, in carnalis vitii voraginem corruunt, in perpetuæ damnationis barathrum merito devolvuntur.

Et, ut breviter cuncta concludam, quisquis quolibet eorum modo, quos supra distinximus, nefandæ turpitudinis se contagione fœdaverit, nisi fructuosæ pænitentiæ fuerit satisfactione purgatus, nunquam habere Dei gratiam poterit, nunquam Christi corpore et sanguine dignus erit, nunquam cælestis patriæ limen intrabit, quod apostolus Joannes in Apocalypsi manifeste declarat, qui dum de cælestis regni gloria loqueretur, addidit, dicens:  « Non intrabit in illam aliquis coinquinatus, et faciens abominationem » (Rev 21:27).

Therefore, no one should flatter himself that he has not fallen with someone else if he slips into these defilements of sensual enticement by himself, as that unhappy hermit who is turned over to demons at the moment of death should be understood not to have polluted another, but to have ruined himself by defilement. Just as from one planting of a vine various shoots spring forth, so from one sodomitic impurity, as a most poisonous root, those four growths enumerated above rise up, so that whoever might pick the pestilential grapes from any one of them likewise perishes, immediately infected with the poison. For their vine is from the vineyard of the Sodomites, and their offshoots are from Gomorrah. “Their grapes are grapes of gall, and their clusters most bitter.” (Deut 32:32) For this serpent, which we labor to crush with the stake of our argument, has four heads, and he injects all of the poison of his wickedness with the tooth of whichever head has bitten.

Therefore, whether one pollutes only himself, or another by fondling him with his hands, or copulating between the thighs, or even violating him in the rear, regardless of such distinctions he is without a doubt guilty of having committed a sodomitic offense. For we do not read that those residents of Sodom only fell into the rear ends of others, but rather it is to be believed that, following the impulse of unrestrained lust, they carried out their indecencies in various ways on themselves or on others.

Clearly if some place of indulgence were to be provided in the ruin of this vice, to whom would forgiveness be more applicable than to that hermit, who sinned without knowing, who fell in the ignorance of his simplicity, who concluded that it was permitted to him as a duty of natural obligation?  May such wretched people learn, may they learn to restrain themselves from the pestilence of such a detestable vice, to manfully overcome the alluring lasciviousness of sexual desire, to repress the wanton incitement of the flesh, to fear deeply the terrible sentence of divine punishment, ever calling to mind that maxim of apostolic admonition, which states, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Heb 10:31).  They should also recall that which the prophet menacingly cries out, saying that “in the fire of the zeal of the Lord all the earth will be devoured” (Zeph 1:18), “and all flesh in his sword” (Is 66:16).

For if carnal men are to be devoured by the divine sword, why do they now damnably love the same flesh? Why do they weakly cede to the pleasures of the flesh? It is undoubtedly that sword, which the Lord through Moses points at sinners, saying, “I shall whet my sword as the lightning” (Deut 32:41), and again, “My sword shall devour flesh” (Deut 32:42) — that is, my fury will swallow those who live in the delight of the flesh. For just as those who fight against the abominations of the vices are supported by the help of heavenly virtue, so those who, to the contrary, are given to the impurity of the flesh, are reserved for the sole sentence of divine vengeance.  Thus Peter also says, “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented:  and especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of unclearnness” (2 Pet 2:9f.).  And scolding them elsewhere, he says, “… counting for a pleasure the delights of a day:  stains and spots, sporting themselves to excess, rioting in their feasts with you:  having eyes full of adultery and of sin that ceaseth not” (2 Pet 2:13f.).

Those who have been placed in holy orders should not glory if they live detestably, because the higher they stand, the further they fall, and because they should now excel others in a life of holy conversation, they will later be required to endure more sever punishments.  As Peter states, “For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but delivered them drawn down by infernal ropes to the lower hell, unto torments, to be reserved unto judgement.…  And reducing the cities of the Sodomites and of the Gomorrhites into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly” (2 Pet 2:4,6).  Why does the holy apostle turn to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah after relating the fall of diabolical damnation, unless it is to clearly show that those who are now given to the vice of impurity will be damned to eternal punishment along with the unclean spirits, and that those who are now vexed by the ardor of sodomitic lust must later burn in the flame of perpetual combustion with the very author of all iniquity?

The apostle Jude most appropriately agrees with this view as well, saying, “The angels who kept not their principality but forsook their own habitation, he hath reserved under darkness in everlasting chains, unto the judgment of the great day.  As Sodom and Gomorrah and the neighboring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire” (Jude 1:6f.).  It is therefore clear, that just as the angels who do not recognize their superior position deserve to suffer in the darkness of the underworld, so also those who fall from the dignity of holy orders into the chasm of sodomy, are rightly plunged into the abyss of perpetual damnation.

Exsurge, exsurge, quæso, expergiscere, o homo qui miseræ voluptatis sopore deprimeris;  revivisce tandem, qui lethali coram inimicis tuis gladio corruisti.  Adest apostolus Paulus;  audi illum vociferantem pulsantem, concutientem, clarisque super te vocibus inclamantem:  « Exsurge », inquit, « qui dormis, et exsurge a mortuis, et exsuscitabit te Christus » (Eph 5:14).

Qui Christum resuscitatorem audis, cur de tua resuscitatione diffidis?  Audi ex ore ipsius:  « Qui credit », inquit, « in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet » (Jn 11:25).  Si vita vivificatrix te quærit erigere, tu cur ulterius feras in tua morte jacere?  Cave, cave ergo, ne te barathrum desperationis absorbeat.  Mens tua fiducialiter ex divina pietate præsumat, ne pro magnitudine criminis impænitens obdurescat.  Non est enim peccatorum desperare, sed impiorum;  nec magnitudo criminum in desperationem adducit animam, sed impietas.  Si enim tantum diabolus potuit, ut te in hujus vitii profunda summergeret;  quanto magis te virtus Christi poterit ad eum, de quo lapsus es, verticem revocare?  « Nunquid qui cecidit, non adjiciet ut resurgat? » (Cf. Ps 40:9 [vg], & Jer 8:4).

Cecidit asinus carnis tuæ in luto sub pondere;  est stimulus pænitentiæ, qui pungat;  est manus spiritus quæ viriliter extrahat.  Samson ille fortissimus quia male blandienti mulieri secretum sui cordis aperuit non solum septem crines, quibus virtus alebatur amisit, sed etiam præda factus Allophylis, oculos perdidit:  postmodum vero capillis jam renascentibus Domini Dei sui auxilium humiliter petiit templum Dagon stravit, et multo majorem quam prius hostium multitudinem interemit (Cf. Judg 16).

Si ergo te impudica caro tua mollia suadendo decepit si septem dona sancti Spiritus abstulit, si lumen non frontis sed cordis exstinxit, non concidas animo, noli funditus desperare, adhuc te in vires collige, viriliter excute, fortia tentare præsume, et sic per Dei misericordiam de inimicis tuis poteris triumphare.  Et certe Philistæi crines Samson potuerunt quidem radere, sed non evellere, quia et iniqui spiritus licet a te charismata sancti Spiritus ad tempus excluserint, nequaquam tamen prævalent divinæ reconciliationis remedium irrecuperabiliter abnegare.

Qualiter, obsecro, de largissima Domini valeas misericordia desperare, qui etiam Pharaonem arguit, quia post peccatum ad pænitentiæ remedium non confugit?  Audi certe quid dicat:  « Brachia inquit, Pharaonis regis Aegypti contrivi, et non est deprecatus ut daretur in eo sanitas, et redderetur ei virtus ad comprehendendum gladium » (cf. Ezek 30:21).  Quid dicam Achab regem Israël?  Qui postquam idola fabricatus est, postquam Naboth Jezrahelitem impie trucidavit, tandem sicut ex parte humiliatus est, ita etiam ex parte est misericordiam consecutus.  Teste enim Scriptura, postquam terrorem divinæ comminationis accepit, « scidit vestem, et operuit cilicio carnem suam, jejunavitque, et dormivit in sacco et ambulabat demisso capite » (3 Kings 21:27 [1 Kings in modern Bibles]).

Quid itaque post hæc?  « Factus est sermo Domini ad Eliam Thesbitem, dicens:  « Nonne vidisti humiliatum Achab coram me?  Quia igitur humiliatus est mei causa, non in ducam malum in diebus ejus » (3 Kings 21:28f. [1 Kings in modern Bibles]). Igitur si et illius pænitentia non despicitur, qui nequaquam per severasse cognoscitur;  cur tu ex divinæ miserationis largitate diffidas, si infatigabiliter perseverare contendas?  Statue quoque tibi certamen assiduum adversus carnem, armatus semper assiste contra importunam libidinis rabiem.  Si luxuriæ flamma in ossibus æstuat, protinus illam memoria perpetui ignis exstinguat;  si callidus insidiator lubricam carnis speciem objicit, ilico mens ad mortuorum sepulcra oculum dirigat, et quid illic suave tactu quid delectabile visu reperiatur, sollerter attendat.

Consideret itaque quia virus, quod nunc intolerabiliter fetet, quod sanies, quæ vermes gignit, et pascit quod quicquid pulveris, quicquid aridi cineris illic jacere conspicitur, olim læta caro fuit, quæ hujusmodi passionibus in sua viriditate subjacuit.  Perpendantur denique nervi rigidi, dentes nudi, ossium articulorumque compago divulsa, omniumque membrorum compositio enormiter dissipata.  Sic sic informis, atque confusæ imaginis monstrum extrahat ab humano corde præstigium.

Pensa igitur quam periculosæ vicissitudinis sit permutatio, quod per momentaneam delectationem, qua in puncto semen ejicitur, pœna, quæ sequitur, per millia annorum curricula non finitur.  Cogita quam miserum sit, quod per unum membrum, cujus nunc voluptas expletur, totum postmodum corpus simul cum anima atrocissimis flammarum incendiis perpetuo cruciatur.  His, et hujusmodi impenetrabilibus cogitationum clipeis imminentia mala propelle, præterita per pænitentiam dele.  Carnis superbiam jejunium frangat;  mens assiduæ orationis dapibus saginata pinguescat.  Hoc itaque modo præsul spiritus subjectam carnem disciplinæ freno coerceat, et ad supernam Jerusalem quotidie ferventis desiderii gradibus festinare contendat.

Arise, arise, I implore you!  Wake up, O man who sinks in the sleep of wretched pleasure!  Revive at last, you who have fallen by the lethal sword before the face of your enemies!  The apostle Paul is here!  Hear him, hear him proclaiming, urging, rousing crying out to you with clear maxims, “Rise, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall awaken thee” (Eph 5:14).

You who hear Christ the reviver, why do you despair of your own resuscitation?  Hear it from his own mouth:  “He that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live” (Jn 11:25).  If Life the vivifier wishes to raise you up, why do you bear to continue lying in your death?  Beware, then, lest the abyss of despair swallow you up.  May your soul faithfully trust in divine kindness, lest it become hardened in impenitence by the magnitude of the crime.  For it is not sinners who despair, but the impious, nor is it the magnitude of offense that leads the soul into despair, but rather impiety.  For if only the devil was able to submerge you in the depths of this vice, how much more is the strength of Christ able to return you to that pinnacle from which you fell?  “Shall he that fell rise again no more?” (Cf. Ps 40:9 [vg], & Jer 8:4).

The ass of your flesh, under the weight of a burden, has fallen into the mud;  it is the spur to penance which pricks, it is the hand of the Spirit which vigorously extracts it.  That most strong Samson, because he wrongly disclosed the secret of his heart to a coaxing woman, not only lost seven strands of hair by which his strength was maintained, but also, after being captured by the Philistines, lost his eyes.  However, after his hairs had regrown, he humbly requested the help of the Lord God, leveled the temple of Dagon, and annihilated a much greater number of the enemy than he had before. (Cf. Judg 16).

Therefore, if your unchaste flesh has deceived you by enticing you to pleasures, if it has taken away the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit (Enumerated in Is 11:2), if it has extinguished the light not of the countenance, but of the heart, do not falter in your courage, do not despair utterly;  continue to gather your strength, strive manfully, dare to attempt the courageous, and you will be able to triumph, by the mercy of God, over your enemies.  The Philistines certainly were able to shave the hair of Samson, but not to uproot it, and so although evil spirits have excluded the charisms of the Holy Spirit from you for a while, by no means are they able to irrecoverably deny the remedy of divine reconciliation.

How, I ask, are you able to despair of the abundant mercy of the Lord, who even rebuked Pharaoh for not fleeing to the remedy of penance after sinning?  Hearken to what he says:  “I have crushed the arms of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and he has not asked to be given health, and for strength to be returned to him for grasping the sword” (cf. Ezek 30:21).  What ought I say of Achab, the king of Israel?  After he constructed idols, after he impiously slaughtered Naboth the Jezrahelite, he was finally partially humiliated and also partially found mercy.  For, according to the Scripture, after receiving the terror of divine warning, “he rent his garments, and put haircloth upon his flesh, and fasted and slept in sackcloth, and walked with his head cast down” (3 Kings 21:27 [1 Kings in modern Bibles]).

What followed?  “The word of the Lord came to Elias, the Thesbite, saying, ‘Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before me?  Therefore, because he hath humbled himself for my sake, I will not bring the evil in his days” (3 Kings 21:28f. [1 Kings in modern Bibles]).  Therefore, if the penance of that man who is known to have persevered is not despised, why do you despair of the abundance of the divine mercy, if you indefatigably strive to persevere?  Enter into a constant struggle with the flesh, and always stand armed against the importunate fury of lust.  If the flame of wantonness burns in your bones, the recollection of perpetual fire should immediately extinquish it.  If the clever deceiver presents you with the sleek beauty of the flesh, your mind should immediately turn its eye to the graves of the dead and carefully note what there is agreeable to touch or delightful to see.

It should thus consider that the slime that now stinks intolerably, that the pus that gives birth to worms and feeds them, that whatever dust, whatever dry ashes are seen there to lie, were once joyful flesh that was subject to passions of this kind during its youth.  Finally, it should imagine the rigid tendons, the bare teeth, the separated structure of bones and joints, and the whole composition of members chaotically dispersed.  A monster of such terrible deformity and jumbled likeness expels illusion from the human heart.

Consider, therefore, how perilous is the exchange:  for a momentary pleasure, in which semen is ejected in an instant, the punishment that follows does not end for thousands of years!  Consider how wretched it is that, for the sake of one member whose enjoyment is now fulfilled, the whold body together with the soul is perpetually tormented by the most dreadful conflagration of flames!  Repulse such imminent evils with the impenetrable shields of this thought and others of the same kind, and eliminate those of the past through penance.  Let fasting break the arrogance of the flesh, and let the soul be enlarged, fattened by feasts of prayer.  In this way, the presiding spirit may restrain the subjected flesh by the bridle of discipline and strive daily to hasten to the heavenly Jerusalem by steps of fervent desire.

Operæ pretium quoque est ut promissa castitati præmia incessanter aspicias, quorum dulcedine provocatus quicquid versutia callidi insidiatoris opponitur libero fidei pede transcendas.  Si enim attendatur felicitas, ad quam non sine transitu attingitur leve fit quod transeundo laboratur, et conductus fossor tædium laboris alleviat, dum mercedem operis quæ debetur, inhianter exspectat.

Perpende ergo quod de militibus castitatis per prophetam dicitur:  « Hic dicit Dominus eunuchis, ‹ qui custodierint sabbata mea, et elegerint quod volui, et tenuerint fœdus meum:  dabo eis in domo mea et in muris meis locum, et nomen melius a filiis et filiabus › » (Is 56:4f.).  Eunuchi quippe sunt, qui insolentes carnis impetus reprimunt, effectumque a se pravæ operationis abscindunt.  Plerique autem eorum qui voluptati illecebræ carnalis inserviunt, memoriam sui nominis post se relinquere per posteritatem sobolis concupiscunt;  et hoc toto mentis affectu idcirco desiderant, quia nequaquam se huic mundo mori funditus deputant, si nominis sui titulum per superstites residuæ prolis germen extendant.

Sed multo clarius multoque felicius hoc ipsum cælibes munus accipiunt, ad quod proletarii tam fervidæ ambitionis æstibus inflammantur, quia apud illum eorum memoria semper vivit, qui per æternitatis statum nulla temporum lege pertransit.  Nomen igitur eunuchis melius a filiis et filiabus divina voce promittitur, quia memoriam nominis quam filiorum posteritas per breve temporis spatium potuisset extendere isti merentur absque ullo oblivionis obstaculo in perpetuum possidere:  « In memoria enim æterna erit justus » (Ps 111:7 [Vg numbering]).

Et iterum in Apocalypsi per Joannem dicitur:  « Ambulabunt mecum in albis, quia digni sunt … et non delebo nomina eorum de libro vitæ » (Rev 3:4f.).  Ubi iterum dicitur:  « Hi sunt qui cum mulieribus non sunt coinquinati;  virgines enim sunt, qui sequuntur Agnum quocunque ierit » (Rev 14:4);  et quod canticum cantant, quod « nemo possit dicere, nisi illa centum quadraginta quattuor milia » (Rev 14:3).  Singulare quippe canticum Agno virgines cantant, quia cum eo in perpetuum præ cunctis fidelibus etiam de incorruptione carnis exsultant.  Quod videlicet alii justi dicere nequeunt, licet in eadem beatitudine positi mereantur audire;  quia per charitatem quidem illorum celsitudinem gratanter aspiciunt ad eorum tamen præmia non assurgunt.  Quapropter pensandum est, atque in mente nostra omni studio revolvendum, quantæ dignitatis, quantæque sit excellentiæ illic fieri summum, ubi summa felicitas est esse vel ultimum:  illic privilegii celsa conscendere, ubi beatissimum est patria æquitatis jura servare.  Nimirum sicut attestante Veritate “non omnes capiunt verbum hoc in hoc sæculo” (cf. Mt 19:11f.);  sic ad illam egregiæ remunerationis gloriam non omnes perveniunt in futuro.

Hæc, et alia multa hujusmodi, charissime frater quisquis es, intra mentis tuæ secreta considera, totisque viribus carnem tuam ab omni peste libidinis immunem servare festina, ut, juxta apostolicæ doctrinæ sententiam, “scias vas tuum possidere in sanctificatione, et honore, non in passione desiderii;  sicut et gentes quæ ignorant Deum” (1 Thess 4:4f.).  Si adhuc stas, præcipitium cave:  quod si lapsus es ad uncum pænitentiæ, qui ubique præsto est, manum fiducialiter tende;  ut qui non potuisti quum Abraham procul a Sodomis degere, liceat vel quum Loth propinquæ combustionis excidio jamjam urgente migrare.  Quique navi incolumis subire non valueras portum, sufficiat saltem perlati fluctus evasisse naufragium:  et qui non meruisti ad littoris sinum sine jactura pertingere, libeat arenis exposito post periculum alacri voce illud beati Jonæ celeusma cantare:  « Omnes gurgites tui et fluctus tui super me transierunt, et ego dixi, ‹ Abjectus sum a conspectu oculorum tuorum, verumtamen rursus videbo templum sanctum tuum › » (Jon 2:4f.).

In work there is also recompense, so you should incessantly consider the promised rewards of chastity and, roused by their sweetness, pass over any opposing scheme of the clever entrapper with the unimpeded foot of faith.  For if one meditates on the happiness that is not obtained without toil, the labor is easily carried out, and the hired laborer lightens the tedium of work while eagerly anticipating the earnings that are owed to him.

Consider, therefore, what is said of the soldiers of chastity by the prophet:  “Thus saith our Lord to the eunchs:  ‘They that shall keep my sabbaths, and shall choose the things that I would, and shall hold my covenant, I will give unto them in my house and within my walls a place, and a name better than sons and daughters’ ” (Is 56:4f.).  Indeed, eunuchs are those who repress the insolent impulses of the flesh and cut away from themselves the performance of perverse acts.  However, most of those who are devoted to the pleasure of carnal attraction long to leave behind themselves a memory of their name through the posterity of descendants.  This they desire with all their heart, because by no means do they regard themselves as dying completely to this world if they perpetuate the glory of their name through the surviving bud of descendants who remain.

But much more gloriously and much more happily do the celibate accept the same office for which the common man is inflamed by such passions of fervent ambition, because their memory always lives with Him who is eternal, and not subject to temporal law.  Therefore, by divine declaration, a name better than that of sons and daughters is promised to the eunuchs, because they deserve to possess in perpetuity, without any hindrance of oblivion, the memory of a name that the posterity of children would have been able to extend through a brief space of time.  For “the just shall be in everlasting remembrance” (Ps 111:7 [Vg numbering]).

In the Book of Revelation it is also said through John, “And they shall walk with me in white, because they are worthy … and I will not blot out their name out of the book of life” (Rev 3:4f.), and there again it is said, “These are they which are not defiled with women.  For they are virgins.  These follow the Lamb whithersoever he shall go” (Rev 14:4), “and what song they sing, no once can say, except that 144,000” (cf. Rev 14:3).  Indeed, the virgins sing that special song to the Lamb because they perpetually exult with him over the incorruption of the flesh before all the faithful.  Clearly, others among the just cannot sing the same song, although those having the same beatitude might deserve to hear it, because in charity they indeed look joyfully upon their high position, yet do not rise to the level of their reward.  For this reason it is to be considered and reconsidered in our mind with all zeal, how dignified and how excellent it is to be elevated to the summit of that place where it is perfect happiness to be among even the lowest;  there the exalted in privilege ascend, where it is most blessed to preserve the equal rights of equity.  Doubtlessly, as the Truth testifies, “not everyone takes this proverb in this generation” (cf. Mt 19:11f.), and thus not all ultimately arrive at that glory of exceptional reward.

These things, and many others of this kind, beloved brother, whoever you are, consider in the hidden places of your soul, and with all strength make haste to keep your flesh pure from all pestilence of lust, so that, in accordance with the decree of apostolic doctrine, you might “know how to possess your vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust, like the Gentiles that know not God” (1 Thess 4:4f.).  If you still stand, beware the precipices, but if you have slipped, faithfully extend your hand to the hook of penance which is available everywhere, so that you who were not able to live far from Sodom with Abraham, may be able to emigrate with Lot, even as the fiery destruction is already urgin.  For you who had not been able to ener the port, may it at least suffice to have avoided shipwreck from the wave you endured, and may it be pleasing to you who have not merited to arrive in the bay without loss, having disembarked upon the sands following the danger, to sing the song of the blessed Jonah in a cheerful voice:  “All thy billows and thy waves passed over me.  And I said, ‘I am cast away out of the sight of thy eyes;  but yet I shall see thy holy temple again’ ” (Jon 2:4f. [Douay-Rheims]).

Si vero in cujuslibet manus libellus iste devenerit cui conscientia minime suffragante, superius comprehensa forte displiceant, meque proditorem, delatoremque fraterni criminis arguat, noverit me favorem interni Judicis toto intentionis studio quærere;  pravorum vero odia vel linguas detrahentium non timere.  Malo quippe quum Joseph, qui accusavit fratres apud patrem crimine pessimo, in cisternam innocens projici (cf. Gen 37); quam quum Heli, qui filiorum mala vidit, et tacuit, divini furoris ultione mulctari (1 Sam 2 & 4 [1 Kings in Vg]).

Quum enim per os prophetæ divina vox terribiliter comminetur, dicens:  « Si videris fratrem tuum inique agentem, et non corripueris eum, sanguinem ejus de manu tua requiram » (= Paraphrase of Ezek 3:18 & 3:30);  quis ego sum, qui in sacro ordine videam tam pestilens facinus inolescere, et velut homicida alienæ animæ, servata censura silentii, divinæ districtionis audeam ratiocinium exspectare?  et illius reatus fieri incipiam debitor, cujus nequaquam auctor exstiteram?  Et quum Scriptura dicat:  « Male dictus, qui prohibet gladium suum a sanguine » (Jer 48:10);  hortaris me ut gladius linguæ meæ in taciturnitatis theca repositus, et sibimet pereat, dum offensionis rubiginem contrahit;  et aliis non proficiat dum culpas prave viventium non configit.

Gladium quippe a sanguine prohibere, est correctionis verbum a carnalis vitæ percussione compescere.  De quo gladio rursum dicitur:  « Ex ore enim gladius ex utraque parte acutus exibat » (Rev 1:16).  Qualiter enim proximum meum sicut meipsum diligo, si vulnus quo eum non ambigo crudeliter mori, negligenter fero in ejus corde grassari?  videns ergo vulnera mentium, curare negligam sectione verborum?  Non me ita egregius prædicator docet, qui eo se a proximorum sanguine mundum credidit, quo feriendis eorum vitiis non pepercit;  dicit enim:  « Contestor vos hodierna die, quia mundus sum a sanguine omnium:  non enim subterfugi, quo minus annuntiarem omne consilium Dei vobis » (Acts 20:26f.).  Non ita me Joannes instruxit, cui videlicet angelica admonitione præcipitur:  « Qui audit, dicat:  ‹ Veni › » (Rev 22:17).  Ut nimirum cui se vox interna insinuat illuc etiam clamando, alios quo ipse rapitur, trahat;  ne clausas fores etiam vocatus, inveniat, si vocanti vacuus appropinquat.

Sane si me ratum ducis corripientem corripere, et ut ita loquar, præsumptoriæ argutionis arguere cur non Hieronymum corripis qui contra diversas hæreticorum sectas tam mordaciter disputat?  Cur non Ambrosium laceras, qui in Arianos publice concionatur?  Cur non et Augustinum, qui in Manichæos atque Donatistas tam austerus litigator invehitur?  Dicis mihi:  « Jure illi, quia contra hæreticos contra blasphemos;  tu, autem, non times carpere Christianos ».

Ad quod ego sub brevitate respondeo;  quia sicut illi nitebantur egressos et jam errantes ad ovile reducere;  ita etiam nostræ intentionis est, eos, qui qualitercunque intersunt, ne exeant, prohibere.  Illi dicebant:  « Ex nobis exierunt, sed non erant ex nobis, nam si essent ex nobis, mansissent utique nobiscum » (1 Jn 2:19).  Et nos dicimus:  “Nobiscum quidem sunt, sed male.  Studeamus ergo si possibile est, ut deinceps bene sint nobiscum ».

Illud etiam addimus, quia si pessima est blasphemia, nescio in quo sit melior sodomia.  Illa enim facit hominem errare;  ista perire.  Illa a Deo animam dividit;  diabolo ista conjungit.  Illa de paradiso ejicit;  ista in tartarum mergit.  Illa mentis oculos cæcat;  in ruinæ voraginem ista præcipitat.  Et si subtiliter indagare satagimus, quod utriusque criminis in statera divini examinis gravius penset, inquisita sacra Scriptura plenius docet.  Ubi siquidem filii Israël, qui Deum blasphemantes, idola coluerunt, in captivitatem ducti;  Sodomitæ autem cælestis ignis et sulphuris reperiuntur incendio devorati (Gen 19).

Neque ego sanctos doctores idcirco proposui, ut fumigantem torrem clarius præsumam conferre sideribus, quippe qui vix indigno ore tam excellentissimos viros sine offensione commemoro, sed hoc dico, quia quod ipsi vitia corrigendo, et confundendo fecerunt, hoc etiam juniores, ut facerent docuerunt:  et si eorum tempore cum tanta impudentiæ libertate hæc pestis fuisset oborta, non dubie credimus, quod prolixa hodie viderentur contra eam volumina codicum exarata.

Nemo me ergo dijudicet, dum adversus mortale vitium disputo:  ubi non opprobrium, sed provectum potius fraternæ salutis inquiro, ne dum corripientem persequitur, delinquenti favere videatur.

Sed ut Moysi verbis utar:  « Si quis est Domini, jungatur mecum » (Ex 32:26).  Videlicet, ut qui se Dei militem recognoscit, ad confundendum hoc vitium se ferventer accingat, hoc totis viribus expugnare non desinat:  et ubicunque fuerit repertum, acutissimis verborum spiculis confodere, et trucidare contendat;  quatenus dum captivator densa cuneorum acie circumfunditur captivus ab his, quibus servierat, vinculis absolvatur;  et dum adversus tyrannum consona vox omnium unanimiter clamat, is qui trahebatur præda fieri furentis monstri protinus erubescat:  quique ad mortem se rapi plurimorum testimonio perhibente non dubitat, in semetipsum reversus, ad vitam redire quantocius non pigrescat.

If, however, this little book might have reached the hands of anyone whose conscience cannot at all bear what is written above, and is by chance displeased by it, and accuses me of being a traitor and an informer of the crimes of my brothers, he should know that I have sought with all zeal the favor of the interior Judge, but do not fear the hatred of the depraved or the tongues of detractors.  I prefer to be thrown innocent into a well with Joseph (cf. Gen 37), who accused his brothers of the worst of crimes to their father, than to be punished by the retribution of divine fury with Eli, who saw the evil of his children and was silent (1 Sam 2 & 4 [1 Kings in Vg]).

For, knowing that the divine voice threatens frighteningly by the mouth of the prophet, saying, “If youi see your brother doing evil, and you do not correct him, I will require his blood from your hand” (Paraphrase of Ezek 3:18 & 3:30), who am I to watch such a noxious crime spreading among those in holy orders and keeping silent, to dare to await the accounting of divine punishment as the murderer of another’s soul, and to begin to be made a debtor of that guilt of which I had been by no means the author?  Moreover, while the Scripture says, “Cursed be he that withholdeth his sword from blood” (Jer 48:10), you urge me to place the sword of my tongue in a sheath of silence, so that it itself might perish while it rusts in disfavor, and be of no use to others while it does not pierce the faults of those who live depraved lives!

Indeed, to prohibit the sword from blood is to restrain the word of correction from striking carnal ways of life.  Of which sword again it is said, “From his mouth came out a sharp, two-edged sword” (Rev 1:16).  For how am I loving my neighbor as myself, if I negligently allow the wound, by which I do not doubt him to be dying a cruel death, to feser in his soul?  Seeing therefore the spiritual wounds, should I neglect to cure them by the surgery of words?  The eminent preacher who believes himself to be clean of the blood of others insofar as he does not refrain from punishing their vices, does not teach me thus.  For he says, “Wherefore I take you to witness this day that I am clear from the blood of all men.  For I have not spared to declare unto you all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:26f.).  I am not so instructed by John, who is instructed by the angelic admonition, “He that heareth, let him say, ‘Come’ ” (Rev 22:17) — indeed, so that he who receives the interior call might bring others with him by also crying out, lest even he who is called find the doors closed if he approaches alone the one who calls him.

If you think that it is right to rebuke me who rebukes, and, so to speak, to accuse me of presumptuous accusation, why do you not reproach Jerome, who disputes so caustically against various sects of heretics?  Why do you not censure Ambrose, who preaches publicly against the Arians, and why not Augustine, the severe disputant who inveighs against the Manicheans and the Donatists? — You say to me, “They acted rightly, because they reviled heretics and blasphemers, but you do not fear to do the same to Christians.

To which I briefly respond:  just as they struggled to return to the flock those who had left and were lost, so it is also our intention to prevent the exit of those who in some way remain inside.  They once said, “They went out from us, but they were not of us.  For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us” (1 Jn 2:19).  And we say, “They indeed are with us, but in a bad way.  Therefore let us strive, if it be possible, that hereafter they might be with us in a good way.”

This also we add, that if the worst sin is blasphemy, I do not know in what sense sodomy is better.  For the former causes men to stray, the latter, to perish.  The former separates the soul from God;  the latter joins it to the devil.  The former expels it from paradise;  the latter plunges it into Tartarus.  The former blinds the eyes of discernment;  the latter casts into an abyss of ruin.  And if we take care to investigate with precision which of the two crimes weighs more heavily on the scale of divine judgment, the Sacred Scripture, having been consulted, more clearly teaches us.  Given, there the children of Israel, who blaspheme God by worshipping idols, are led into captivity;  but the Sodomites are found to have been devoured in the flames of heavenly fire and sulfur (Gen 19).

I have not presented the holy doctors so that I might presume to compare the smoking firebrand to the bright stars — I indeed who am hardly able to commemorate such excellent men with my unworthy mouth without committing and offense!  However, I say that what they have done by reproaching and confounding vices, they have also taught their inferiors to do, and if in their time this plague had arisen with such liberty of impudence, we believe without a doubt that copious volumes of books written against it would be seen today.

Therefore, no one should judge me for arguing against a mortal vice, given that I do not seek opprobrium, but rather the advancement of fraternal well-being — otherwise, while persecuting the one who rebukes, one might seem to favor the offender.

To use the words of Moses, “If any man be on the Lord’s side, let him join with me” (Ex 32:26).  That is to say that anyone who considers himself to be a soldier of God should fervently gird himself to confound this vice, should not cease to fight it with all of his strength, and should endeavor to run it through and destroy it with the sharpest darts of words, wherever it might be found.  So when the captor is engulfed by a thick array of troops, the captive might be freed from those fetters with which he had been enslaved, and when all unanimously cry out in one consonant voice against the tyrant, he who was being carried away is immediately ashamed of being made the prize of the raging monster.  He who does not doubt, by the testimony of many bearing witness, that he is being carried away to death, should not be slow to return to life as soon as possible after coming to his senses.

Nunc autem ad te, papa beatissime, in ipsius Opusculi calce recurrimus, ad te stili hujus articulum revocamus, ut cui incipientis origo dirigitur, in ipsum merito peracti operis clausula terminetur.  Petimus igitur, et humiliter imploramus, ut clementia vestra si dicere fas est, sacrorum canonum decreta, quæ tamen vobis notissima sunt, sollerter inspiciat;  spirituales et prudentes viros ad consultum hujus necessariæ indagationis asciscat;  nobisque super his capitulis ita respondeat, ut omne de nostro pectore dubietatis scrupulum tollat.

Neque hoc dicere idcirco præsumimus, ut ad hoc, Deo auctore, sufficere solam profunditatis vestræ peritiam ignoremus;  sed dum sacræ auctoritatis testimonium adhibetur, dum plurimorum consensu et judicio res geritur, perversorum hominum querela, quæ fortassis e diverso mutire non erubesceret, sopiatur.  Non enim facile patet querela, quod multorum judicio constituitur.  Sæpe autem sententia, quæ ab uno considerata juris æquitate depromitur, ab aliis præjudicium deputatur.

Quattuor igitur hujus vitii diversitatibus, quas superius (in capite primo) enumeravimus, diligenter inspectis, dignetur me Beatitudo vestra decretali pagina clementer instruere, cui earum obnoxius debeat ab ecclesiastico ordine irretractabiliter adjici, cui vero prælato discretionis intuitu, possit hoc officium misericorditer indulgeri;  quo supradictorum modo, et cum quantis lapso, liceat cuique in ecclesiastica dignitate persistere;  qualiter autem, et cum quantis, si fœdatus fuerit, compellendus est in dicta necessitate cessare.  Ut ex eo quod uni dirigitur, multi, eadem laborantes ignorantia, doceantur, quatenus ambiguitatis nostræ caliginem, auctoritatis vestræ lucerna dimoveat;  atque ut ita loquar, Apostolicæ Sedis ferrum ex agro nutantis conscientiæ totius erroris radicitus germen evellat.

Annuat omnipotens Deus, reverendissime Pater, ut tempore apostolatus vestri, et hujus vitii monstrum prorsus intereat, et jacentis Ecclesiæ status undique ad sui vigoris jura resurgat.

Now to you, most blessed pope, we return at the end of this little work.  To you we recall the point of our pen, so that the ending of the work that has been carried out might be rightly completed for him to whom the beginning is directed.  We therefore request and humbly implore that your clemency, if it is right to say so, carefully examine the decrees of the sacred canons, which are already well known to you, and that you designate spiritual and prudent men for this necessary investigation, so you might respond to us regarding these chapters in order to remove every scruple of doubt from our heart.

Nor do we thus presume to say this as if we do not know how to apply to this matter the expertise of your profundity alone, which has God as its author, but so that when the testimony of sacred authority is applied, when the matter is resolved by the consensus and judgment of many, the accusations of perverse men, which perhaps they would not have blushed to mutter in opposition, might be laid to rest.  For what is established by the judgment of many is not easy to dispute.  However, it is often the case that a decision which is rendered by one individual in consideration of the impartiality of the law, is regarded as prejudiced by others.

Therefore, after having diligently inspected the four types of this vice which we enumerated above (in chapter 1), may your Beatitude deign to mercifully instruct me with a decree determiing who among the guilty must be irrevocably cast from ecclesiastical order, and who, in preference of discretion, may be mercifully permitted to remain in this office.  Regarding which form of the above-mentioned vices and number of accomplices may an offender be allowed to continue in ecclesiastical dignity, and for which form and number of accomplices with whom he was soiled is he to be compelled to cease from those duties?  Thus many who are laboring under the same ignorance may be instructed by that which is directed to one, as the light of your authority dispels the darkness of our uncertainty and, so to speak, the plow of the Apostolic See radically uproots the sprout of all error from the field of wavering conscience.

May almight God grant, O most reverend father, that in the time of your apostolate the monster of this vice may utterly perish, and the condition of the prostrate Church might everywhere be restored in accordance with the laws of its youth.

Legis præceptum est ut, quum quis lepra perfunditur, sacerdotibus ostendatur (cf. Lev. 13:12—17);  tunc autem non sacerdotibus sed leproso potius ostenditur, quum immundus immundo peractam communem nequitiam confitetur.  (Caput 7)

De his, quæ hoc in Opusculo scribit Beatus Damianus ejus mens potius spectanda quam verba.  Neque enim ille significat confessionem ejus, qui sacerdoti complici confitetur, ob potestatis defectum, invalidam esse, si ille justum titulum atque jurisdictionem obtinet;  sed vult dicere hujusmodi confessionem fructu carere, ac quodammodo delusoriam esse;  quoniam verecundiæ ruborem pænitens nec sentit, nec ad compunctionem excitari potest ab eo, cujus pravi exempli species ante oculos versatur.  Quæ omnia auctor expendit, ut in textu videre est;  ubi etiam ait, confessionem factam complici sacerdoti, non ea severitate fieri ob facilem pænitentiam condonantis.  Quare omnes Summistæ licet confessionem illam validam esse teneant, non tamen laudant, si fiat, nisi in casu extremæ necessitatis.  Sic censent Glos. in cap. Omnes, 30, quæst. 1;  Sylvester verbo Confessio, 1, n. 17, atque alii.

Sit nomen Domini benedictum.

It is a precept of the Law that, when anyone is covered with leprosy he must be shown to the priests (cf. Lev. 13:12—17).  However, when one filthy man confesses to another the common evil that has been committed, the leper is not shown to the priests but rather to another leper.  (Chapter 7)

Regarding these remarks which Blessed Damian writes in this Short Work, his idea is to be understood rather than his words.  He does not mean that the confession of the man who confesses to a complicit priest is invalid because of a defect in [the latter’s] power, if that priest has the appropriate title and jurisdiction.  He means to say that the confession of such a penitent lacks validity and is to a certain extent delusional, because he neither feels the embarrassment of shame nor can be roused to remorse by one whose vision of the perverse process hovers before his eyes.  The author passes judgment on all of this, as is to be seen in the text, where he also says that a confession made to a complicit priest does not happen with serious severity because of the light penance from the man doing the absolving.  Hence all commentators on the Summa [of St. Thomas], while holding that such a confession is valid, nonetheless do not speak well of it, if it happens, except in the case of extreme necessity.  Thus opine Glos. in chap. All, 30, quæst. 1;  Sylvester Prierias (verbo “Confessio,” 1, n. 17), and others.

May the name of the Lord be blessed.

The Church's condemnation of sodomy is based first and foremost on sodomy as a sin against God — a sin of self-idolatry and self-corruption.

That is why, especially in the early Church and during the Middle Ages, the practice of sodomy was commonly linked to pagan religious rites and temple prostitution and to heretical sects and teachings including Gnosticism and Kabalistic Judaism and later the Manichean and Albigensian heresies. ⁶

References to same-sex acts are to be found both in the Old Testament, which records God's relations with man before the Incarnation and the New Testament, which contains a compendium of the life of our Lord, Jesus Christ and his Apostles, as recorded by the Evangelists and other Apostles. ⁷  However, most references to sexual sins found in Holy Scripture are found within the context of a man-woman relationship involving acts of fornication, incest, rape and adultery. Where references to homosexual acts do appear, they are always condemned as grievous sins and an abomination before the Lord.

In the Old Testament, in addition to the universally-acknowledged Scriptural condemnation of homosexual acts found in the book of Genesis, which records God's destruction of the Sodom and Gomorrah and other Cities of the Plain, other references to the abominable vice of sodomy or unnatural lust can be found in the books of Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Judges, Kings and Wisdom.

The following is a sampling.

• 1 And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of the city. And seeing, he rose up and went to meet them: and worshipped prostrate on the ground,
• 2 And said: I beseech you, my lords, turn into the house of your servant, and lodge there: wash your feet, and in the morning you shall go on your way.  And they said: No, but we will abide in the street.
• 3 He pressed them very much to turn in unto him: and when they were come in to his house, he made them a feast, and baked unleavened bread and they ate:
• 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 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 do 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 under the shadow of my roof.
• 9 But they said: Get thee back thither. And again: thou earnest 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 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 has sent us to destroy them.
• 24 And the Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord of heaven.
• 25 And he destroyed these cities, and all the country about, all the inhabitants of the cities, and all things that spring from the earth.  (Genesis 19:1-13, 24-25)

• 22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.
• 23 Thou shall not copulate with any beast, neither shalt thou be defiled with it. A woman shalt not lie down to a beast, nor copulate with it: because it is a heinous crime.

• 13 If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an abomination, let them be put to death: their blood be upon them.  (Leviticus 20:13)

• 17 There shall be no whore among the daughters of Israel, nor whoremonger [sodomite, male prostitute] among the sons of Israel.  (Deuteronomy 23:17)

• There was a certain Levite, who dwelt on the side of Mount Ephraim, who took a wife of Bethlehem Juda:
• 14 So they passed by Jebus, and went on their journey, and the sun went down upon them when they were by Gabaa, which is the tribe of Benjamin:
• 15 And they turned into it to lodge there. And when they were come in, they sat in the street of the city, for no one would receive them to lodge,
• 16 And behold they saw an old man, returning out of the field and from the work in the evening, and he was also of Mount Ephraim, and dwelt as a stranger in Gabaa; but the men of that country were the children of Jemini.
• 20 And the old man answered him: Peace be with thee: I will furnish all things that are necessary: only I beseech thee, stay not in the street.
• 22 While they were making merry, and refreshing their bodies with meat and drink, after the labor of the journey, the men of that city, sons of Belial (that is, without yoke,) and beset the old man's house, and began to knock at the door, calling to the master of the house, and saying: Bring forth the man that came into thy house, that we may abuse him.
• 23 And the old man went out to them, and said: Do not so, my brethren, do not so wickedly: because this man is come to my lodging, and cease I pray you this folly.
• 24 I have a maiden daughter, and this man hath a concubine [wife], I will bring them out to you, and you may humble them, and satisfy your lust; only, I beseech you, commit not this crime against nature on the man.
• 25 They would not be satisfied with his words; which the man seeing, brought out his concubine [wife] to them, and abandoned her to their wickedness: and when they had abused her all the night, they let her go in the morning.  (Judges 19:1, 14-16, 20, 22-25)

• 21 And Roboam the son of Solomon reigned in Juda: Roboam was one and forty years old when he began to reign: and he reigned seventeen years in Jerusalem the city, which the Lord chose out of all the tribes of Israel to put his name there. And his mother's name was Naama an Ammonitess.
• 22 And Juda did evil in the sight of the Lord, and provoked him above all that their fathers had done, in their sins which they committed.
• 23 For they also built them altars, and statues, and groves upon every high hill and under every green tree:
• 24 There were also the effeminate [catamites, or men addicted to unnatural lust] in the land, and they did according to all the abominations of the people whom the Lord had destroyed before the face of the children of Israel.  (3 Kings 14:21-24)
• 9 So in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel, reigned Asa king of Juda,
• 10 And he reigned one and forty years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Maacha, the daughter of Abessalom.
• 11 And Asa did that which was right in the sight of the Lord, as did David his father:
• 12 And he took away the effeminate out of the land, and he removed all the filth of the idols, which his fathers had made.  (3 Kings 15:9-12)

• Josias was eight years old when he began to reign: he reigned one and thirty years in Jerusalem: the name of his mother was Idida, the daughter of Hadaia, of Besecath.  (4 Kings 22:4)
• 4 And the king commanded Helcias the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to cast out of the temple of the Lord all vessels that had been made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burnt them without Jerusalem in the valley of Cedron and he carried the ashes of them to Bethel.
• 7 He destroyed also the pavilions of the effeminate [sodomites], which were in the house of the Lord, for which the women wove as it were little dwellings for the grove.  (4 Kings 23:7)

• 9 But to God the wicked and his wickedness are hateful alike.
• 26 Forgetfulness of God, defiling of souls, changing of nature [unnatural lust], disorder in marriage, and the irregularity of adultery and uncleanness.
• 27 For the worship of abominable idols is the cause, and the beginning and end of all evil.  (Wisdom 14:9, 26-27)

In the writings of Saint Paul, the great Apostle to the Gentiles; Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles; and Saint Jude, one of the twelve Apostles who inveighed against the heretical dogma and practices of the Simonians, Nicolaites, and Gnostics, the New Testament condemnation of the unnatural vice becomes even more explicit.

Saint Paul, wrote his Epistle to the Romans at the Greek city of Corinth, whose very name at the time of the Apostles was synonymous with corruption and vice especially that of sodomy. Although it was not the first of his Epistles in the order of time, it has always been placed first by the Church because of the sublimity and universality of its message. It is special relevance that not only does Saint Paul condemn homosexual acts as being sinful in themselves, but that they may also serve as a recompense for error. As virtue is its own reward, so acts of disobedience to God bring with them the bitter fruit of vice.

• 16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth, to the Jew first, and to the Greek.
• 21 Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.
• 22 For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
• 23 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.
• 24 Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.
• 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
• 26 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.
• 27 And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of 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.
• 31 Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.  (Romans 1:16, 21-27, 31)

• 9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
• 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.  (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

• 9 Knowing this, that the law is not made for the just man, but for the unjust and disobedient, for the ungodly, and for sinners, for the wicked and defiled, for murderers of father, and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
• 10 For fornicators, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for men-stealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and whatever other thing is contrary to sound doctrine.  (1Timothy 1:9-10)

• But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction.
• 6 And reducing the cities of the Sodomites, and of the Gomorrhites, into ashes, condemned them to be overthrown, making them an example to those that should after act wickedly.
• 7 And delivered just Lot, oppressed by the injustice and lewd conversation of the wicked.
• 8 For in sight and hearing he was just: dwelling among them who from day to day vexed the just soul with unjust works.
• 9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly from temptation, but to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be tormented.  (2 Peter 2:1, 6-9)

• 3 Dearly beloved, taking all care to write unto you concerning your common salvation, I was under a necessity to write unto you: to beseech you to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints.
• 4 For certain men are secretly entered in, (who were written of long ago unto judgment,) ungodly men, turning the grace of our Lord God into riotousness, and denying the only sovereign Ruler, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
• 7 As Sodom and Gomorrha, and the neighbouring cities, in like manner, having given themselves to fornication, and going after other flesh, were made an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire.  (Jude 1:3-4, 7)

As the Church's eternal mission is the salvation of souls, so her condemnation of all sin including homosexual acts is always co-joined to that of God's infinite mercy and the need for repentance and reform of one's life.

To deliberately indulge in a serious vice places one's soul in danger of eternal damnation and renders the sinner incapable of any virtue on a supernatural level. 8 Direct refutation combined with fraternal correction in the matter therefore is an act of mercy not only for the individual caught in the vice, but as a preservative to keep others from falling into the same pit. ⁹

Although, sexual sins are generally a matter of private confession, at different periods of the Church, the sin of sodomy has been a "reserved" sin, that is, the penitent was required to confess to the pope or to a bishop. ¹⁰

From Saint Peter to Saint Felix I, the early popes together with the early Church Fathers drew up Church general decrees, and later canons and pastoral and penitential codes and instituted a series of synods and councils by which their decrees in matters of faith and morals, including the immorality of all homosexual acts, were made known to the universal Church.

At the Spanish Council of Elvira (305-306) the Church condemned homosexual acts especially pederasty excluding from Communion, even at the point of death (articulo mortis), one who does violence to boys (the stuprotores puerorum). ¹¹

At the Council of Ancira (Ancyra) held in Asia Minor in 314, canons 16 and 17 prescribed heavy penances by both age and condition for both sodomy and bestiality and bishops were ordered to root out these practices from among the people. ¹²

Special provisions including 15 years of penance and a five-year period of probation before being reunited with the communion of the faithful and receiving Holy Communion were made for those who committed these acts before age of 20. For those aged 20 and over and married, the penance was extended to 25 years. And for the married, over 50 years of age, the grace of Holy Communion was reserved until the time of death. ¹³

In practical terms of letting the punishment fit the crime, harsher punishment for both laymen and clerics were applied to sexual crimes involving sacrilege, force and the seduction and corruption of the young.

Offenders including defrocked clerics were often turned over to public authorities for punishment. ¹⁴ As a general rule however, if given a choice, offenders found guilty of sodomy preferred to be tried by the Church rather than secular courts as the former was held to be more restrained and compassionate than the latter.

Among the Fathers of the early Church who specifically condemned sodomy and pederasty in their writings and sermons were Saint Athanasius, Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Augustine.

Of Emperor Hadrian's homosexual affair with the young and beautiful Antinous, Saint Athanasius, (296-373), the Bishop of Alexandria and Confessor and Doctor of the Church and slayer of Arianism wrote in 350 AD:

And such a one is the new God Antinous, that was the Emperor Hadrian's minion and the slave of his unlawful pleasure; a wretch, whom that had worshipped in obedience to the Emperor's command, and for fear of his vengeance, knew and confessed to be a man, and not a good or deserving man neither, but a sordid and loathsome instrument of his master's lust.

This shameless and scandalous boy died in Egypt when the court was there; and forthwith his Imperial Majesty issued out an order or edict strictly requiring and commanding his loving subjects to acknowledge his departed page a deity and to pay him his quota of divine reverences and honours as such: a resolution and act which did more effectually publish and testify to the world how entirely the Emperor's unnatural passion survived the foul object of it; and how much his master was devoted to memory, than it recorded his own crime and condemnation, immortalized his infamy and shame, and bequeathed to mankind a lasting and notorious specimen of the true origin and extraction of all idolatry. ¹⁵

Saint Athanasius did not hesitate to label his archenemy Arius, the handsome deposed priest of the Alexandrian Church an "effeminate." ¹⁶ Arius' heretical doctrine was championed by the powerful eunuch Eusebius, grand chamberlain of the Byzantine Imperial court under the Emperor Constantine and later his son, Constantius I.

Saint John Chrysostom (344?-407), the Patriarchate of Constantinople and a Doctor of the Church famous for his great oratory and sermons, was unrelenting in his public attack on the unnatural and diabolic desires of the sodomites. He lashed out at the sodomites who had "devised a barren coitus, not having for its end the procreation of children" and attacked the paederasts who came to church to look with lustful curiosity upon handsome youth. ¹⁷ He describes sodomy as an unpardonable insult to nature and a sin that destroys the soul inside the body. ¹⁸

Likewise, Saint Augustine, the great Bishop of Hippo and convert from Manicheanism, also warred against sodomy declaring the vice should be punished wherever and whenever it was appeared:

Offenses against nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and should be punished. Such offenses, for example, were those of the Sodomites; and, even if all nations should commit them, they would all be judged guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which has not made men so that they should ever abuse one another in that way. For the fellowship that should be between God and us is violated whenever that nature of which he is the author is polluted by perverted lust. ¹⁹

With special reference to Saint Paul's First Epistle to the Romans, (Romans 1:26) Saint Augustine observed:

Still thou dost punish these sins which men commit against themselves because, even when they sin against thee, they are also committing impiety against their own souls. Iniquity gives itself the lie, either by corrupting or by perverting that nature which thou hast made and ordained. And they do this by an immoderate use of lawful things; or by lustful desire for things forbidden, as 'against nature'; or when they are guilty of sin by raging with heart and voice against thee, rebelling against thee, 'kicking against the pricks'; or when they cast aside respect for human society and take audacious delight in conspiracies and feuds according to their private likes and dislikes. ²⁰

With an all-male clergy, it is not surprising that the issue of homosexuality and pederasty in the religious life should have been a matter of serious consideration and deliberation by early Church Fathers. Then as now, the problem of predatory homosexuality in clerical circles was more of a reflection of the general moral corruption of the day rather than the specific failing of clerics and monks. ²¹

However, if the instructions of Saint Basil were the norm, we can surmise that where the accused cleric was found guilty of engaging in or attempting to engage in same-sex activities, the consequences were swift and painful.

Saint Basil of Cesarea, the 4th century Patriarch of Eastern monks and one of the four great Doctors of the East held that:

The cleric or monk who molests youths or boys or is caught kissing or committing some turpitude, let him be whipped in public, deprived of his crown [tonsure] and, after having his head shaved, let his face be covered with spittle; and [let him be] bound in chains, condemned to six months in prison ... after which let him live in a separate cell under the custody of a wise elder with great spiritual experience...let him be subject to prayers, vigils, and manual work always under the guard of two spiritual brothers, without being allowed to have any relationship ...with young people. ²²

It should be noted that the exposition of a public flogging which exposed the offending cleric or monk to open ridicule would virtually insure that the offender would never rise to hold an office in the Church. ²³

On the question of whether or not a layman who had committed acts of pederasty or sodomy could apply for and receive Holy Orders, we can refer to the directives on the norms for priestly ordination issued by Pope Saint Siricius (384-399) on 10 February, 385:

We deem it advisable to establish that, just as not everyone should be allowed to do a penance reserved for clerics, so also a layman should never be allowed to ascend to clerical honor after penance and reconciliation. Because although they have been purified of the contagion of all sins, those who formerly indulged in a multitude of vices should not receive the instruments to administer the sacraments. ²⁴

Thus, any layman having been once caught up in the vice of sodomy in any form, even though he had served out his penance, by implication, would not be permitted to enter the clerical state.

The text of Pope Siricius's decree on key aspects of church discipline and clerical celibacy is of special importance because it is the oldest completely preserved papal decretal (edict for the authoritative decision of questions of discipline and canon law) and reflects the pope speaking with the consciousness of his supreme ecclesiastical authority and of his pastoral care over all the churches.

Not surprisingly, beginning in the 2nd century and continuing through the late 5th century, the preaching and writings of these early Church Fathers combined with the edicts of the early popes in the realm of sexual morality had made their influence felt in the Roman Imperial courts both in the West and in the East. ²⁵

Indeed, the names of many of these early Church leaders particularly those of Saint Athanasius, Saint John Chrysostom and Saint Ambrose are inscribed, for both good and ill, in the chronicles of the Imperial court of the early Empire. The timing was propitious.

During these early years of the Empire, there was a recurring spirit of stoicism reflected both in the realm of the public and political affairs of the Roman Senate and of the Imperial courts and their emperors.

Roman jurisprudence reflected this trend. So much so, that by the time Constantine the Great had ascended the throne in 312, Roman law had already come to view the inveterate sodomite as a danger to both Church and State. ²⁶ Homosexual acts, specifically pederasty and homosexual rape, were placed in the category of capital offenses. Thus it was, Roman law, influenced by the old Mosaic Law and now backed by the emerging powerful sect known as Christianity, came to serve as the basis for anti-sodomy legislation in Italy and throughout Europe from the 3rd century until the beginning of the 20th century. ²⁷

On December 16, 342, Constantine's sons, Constantine II and his younger brother Constans issued a decree making it a capital offense for a married man, of his own free will, to play the role of a woman, that is the role of the passive partner in a homosexual liaison. Homosexual prostitution was discouraged, but not totally prohibited. Eunuchs were also exempt from the law since as castrated males they were viewed as androgynous beings not real men. ²⁸

The emperor's second son, Constantius II, a protector of Arians and a persecutor of Saint Athanasius, also enacted a minor piece of anti-sodomical legislation that severely punished any male who married an effeminate (literally a woman) and then permit his own body to be penetrated by that effeminate male. This rather odd sexual configuration, that is, the "marriage" of a man to a male eunuch who would act the part of a "wife," was an arrangement not unknown at the time.

Later emperors of both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires reenforced and extended anti-sodomy legislation.

In the Eastern Empire, under the great Christian emperor Theodosius I (379-395), a royal decree was twice-posted on May 14 and again on August 6, 390 at the Roman hall of Minerva, a popular gathering place for artisans and actors, stating that any man, including prostitutes and eunuchs, who permitted his body to be used like a women (anal penetration) would be consigned to the flames. The death penalty was also instituted for those who forced a male into homosexual prostitution.

At that time, Theodosius was under an eight-month public penance set by Saint Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, for the massacre of 7000 citizens of Thessalonica in retaliation for the killing of the emperor's officials. The emperor was also under pressure to rid Rome of the stench of moral corruption and to rid the city of the remaining visages of paganism. He vigorously attacked the Arian heretics who denied the divinity of Christ and the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.

The ancient writer Palladius sings the praises of the reign of Theodosius in his book The Lausiac History, written in 419 AD. 29 Theodosius became an intimate of Saint Ambrose, who preached his funeral oration and was in attendance at the First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus I in 381. His successor Arcadius, (395-408) continued the attack against heresy and paganism including the closing of the pagan temples at Gaza.

To complete the task of his father, in 438, Arcadius's son, Emperor Theodosius II (408-450) enacted the famous Theodosian Code (9,7,6) ordering the death of all men, without distinction, who permitted their bodies to be used like a woman, that is, who assumed the passive role in a homosexual relationship. ³⁰

In 410, while Theodosius II occupied the Imperial throne in the East; his brother Honorius (395-423) wag emperor of the Western Empire; and Pope Saint Innocent I occupied the Chair of Peter, Rome was sacked for the first time by the Goths. Forty-five years later, the Vandals sacked Rome, this time with Pope Leo the Great (the first bishop actually called "Pope") at the head of the Church.

In the West, the figurehead rule of Romulus Augustulus, last in the unbroken line of Roman emperors, came to an end in 476. The Germanic leader Odoacer [Auðawakr] of the Heruli tribe entered Italy and became king.

Although King Odoacer, an Arian, respected the Catholic Church; he did seek to influence the election of the new pope after the death of Pope Saint Simplicius (468-483), but to no avail.

In other parts of Europe, Gaul was taken by the Franks, Burgundians and Visigoths; the Visisgoths and Sueves divided Spain between them; the Vandals took control of North Africa; and Roman Britain fell to the Anglo-Saxons. The so-called Dark Ages had fallen on the West.

In the Eastern Roman Empire, however, the reign of Byzantine emperors continued until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The greatest of these rulers of the later empire was Flavius Anicius Julianus Justinianus, known to history as Justinian I. ³¹ The most enduring legacy to the world of this great Christian emperor was the codification of Roman law that would later serve as a model for the common law system in England and the New World.

The Justinian Code, a well-ordered and complete codex of all Roman law, past and present, including the old Theodosian Code with its antisodomy laws, appeared in its final and complete form in 534.

In keeping with the Christian tradition of tempering justice with mercy, and since male homosexual acts were viewed as sins against God as well as crimes against the State, the supreme penalty of death was applied only to the obdurate and the unrepentant. ³² Although the law provided that the Crown was entitled to take independent action, it was the Church that exercised a general jurisdiction over homosexual offenders and imposed its own spiritual discipline upon those whom its courts convicted. ³³

Under the new Constitution, which heavily castigated both blasphemy and homosexuality, if a man was found guilty of engaging in an act of peccata contra naturam with another man,' he must confess his mortal sin in the presence of the Most Blessed Patriarch and do penance to avert civil punishment. This public confession made it virtually impossible for a laymen or cleric found guilty of sodomy from entering the priesthood or religious life or from advancing to a higher ecclesiastical rank in the Church.

The Justinian Code was particularly effective against the ancient Greco- Roman practices of pederasty and homosexual and child prostitution.

In the late 500s and early 600s, the Church began to assume a greater role in the judging of sinful acts, some of which, like sodomy, were also held to be crimes against the State. With the rise in the practice of private confession, confessors began to seek out the aid of penitential guides.

Held to be Frankish in origin, these penitential texts simply listed and then briefly described the exact nature of the sin in question, noting its objective gravity and recommending suitable penances that took into consideration the age of the penitent and any special circumstances surrounding the commission of the act. ³⁴ The lists of various types of homosexual acts were remarkably detailed for the age and included not only those between two men or a man and a boy, but also acts of sodomy committed by a man on a woman. Since the penitentials were simply listings, they cannot be used to indicate the frequency or habitual nature of these sins. ³⁵

Pope Gregory I began his 14-year reign as supreme pontiff in 590 (the first monk to become pope), with his Liber pastoralis curae on the role of the bishop as the pre-eminent physician of souls entrusted by God to his care and supervision, a doctrine he practiced as well as preached. ³⁶ His sermons, based largely on Holy Scripture drew immense crowds and set the pattern for the future pattern of many famous preachers of the Middle Ages. His indelible influence in the areas of Church doctrine, organization and discipline make him one of the most remarkable figures in ecclesiastical history.

Pope Gregory held a distinctive view of Church-State relations. He saw the Imperial government centered at Constantinople together with the Church as forming a united whole. At the same time each had its own sphere of control — one ecclesiastical and the other secular. Still, the pope did not hesitate to call upon the Crown, as protector of the Church and keeper of the peace, to not only suppress schism, heresy, or idolatry, but also to enforce discipline among monks and clergy.

Pope Gregory's teaching on sodomy did not break new ground, but rather reflected the summing up of the teachings of the earlier Fathers of the East and West at the beginning of the Middle Ages on the nature of the crime. Using the Old Testament text from Genesis 19:1-25 describing the terrible fate of Sodom and Gomorrah, the pope declared:

Brimstone calls to mind the foul orders of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of the flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone, so that through this just chastisement they must realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire. ³⁶ '

The reader will note that Pope Gregory not only condemned the act of sodomy as a "crime," but also denounced the desires of the sodomites as "perverse." Thus, lustful homosexual thoughts and desires, willfully entertained, are not only sinful (even where the act is not carried out), but they are unnatural and perverse as well.

The Spanish Visigothic Code of 600 (Lex visigothica) provided for a particularly harsh punishment in ordering homosexual offenders who "carnally united with men" to be castrated prior to death. If married, their goods were to be immediately inherited by their children or heirs. ³⁸

At the Council of Toledo in 693, Egica, the Gothic king of Spain, exhorted the clergy to strenuously fight against homosexual practices and "...to decisively extirpate this obscene crime committed by men who sleep with men, whose terrible conduct corrupts the grace of honest living and provokes the wrath of the Supreme Judge of heaven." ³⁹

The alleged warning of Saint Bernard (778-842), Archbishop of Vienne, France to Pope Eugene II that "Your brothers, the cardinals, must learn by your example not to keep young, long-haired boys and seductive men in their midst," is probably an indication of the degree to which the morals of the clergy had fallen by the 9th century in Medieval Europe. ⁴¹ For the next 300 years until the era of the Gregorian reforms of the mid-12th century, wholesale violations of the vows of chastity by priests, monks and nuns and the rise of sodomy and pederasty among religious, ranked second only to the crisis of usury and simony, as major problems facing the Catholic Church.

However, it appears that whenever Holy Mother Church has had a great need for a special kind of saint for a particular age, God, in His infinite mercy, has never failed to fill that need. And so, in the year 1007 AD, a boy child was born to a noble but poor family in the ancient Roman city of Ravenna, who would become a doctor of the Church, a precursor of the Hildebrandine reform in the Church and a key figure in the moral and spiritual reformation of the lax and incontinent clergy of his time.

Tradition tells us that Saint Peter Damian's entrance into this world was initially an unwelcome event that overtaxed and somewhat embittered his already large family. He was orphaned at a young age. His biographer John of Lodi tells us that were it not for the solicitude of his older brother Damian, an archpriest at Ravenna, the youth might have lived out his life in obscurity as a swineherd, but God deemed otherwise. Peter's innate intellectual talents and remarkable piety in the light of great adversity were recognized by the archpriest, who plucked his younger brother from the fields and provided him with an excellent education first at Ravenna, then Faenza and finally at the University of Parma. In return, Peter acknowledged his brother's loving care by adopting Damian as his surname. ⁴²

Although he excelled in his studies and quickly rose in academic ranks, Peter felt drawn to the religious rather than university life. His spirituality would be formed by his love for the Rule of Saint Benedict and his attraction to the rigorous penance and individualistic practices of Saint Romuald.

In his late twenties, he was welcomed into the Benedictine hermitage of the Reform of Saint Romuald at Fonte-Avellena where he eventually became prior — a position he retained until his death on February 21, 1072, while also serving as Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia, an honor bestowed upon Peter by Pope Stephen IX in 1057. The life of the well-traveled holy monk was distinguished by his great learning and a marvelous knowledge of Holy Scripture and by great penitential acts, which served both as a rebuke and as an inspiration to his fellow monks and the secular clergy at a time in the Church when moral turpitude was endemic in clerical ranks.

Owen J. Blum, OFM, Saint Peter Damian's chief translator and biographer in modern times in one of his many works on the hermit-monk, St. Peter Damian: His Teaching on the Spiritual Life, states that, for Damian, the spiritual life was first and foremost a life of prayer, especially the recitation of the Divine Office. Damian also promoted and practiced a special devotion to the Blessed Virgin. ⁴³

The two hallmarks of the holy monk's teachings on the spiritual life were his great hatred of sin and his fundamental and overriding interest in the spiritual advancement of the Catholic priesthood. As Blum noted,

"Damian thought of the priesthood as an order of the greatest dignity. Indeed, it was the exalted nobility of this office that caused him to speak in such dire terms to priests who forgot their position and tarnished their souls with incontinence." ⁴⁴

Damian showed remarkable insight into the importance of model episcopal leadership, stating that "the example of a virtuous life" filters down from "the princes of the Church to all levels of the clergy and laity." ⁴⁵ The holy monk was equally insistent on the deposition of unworthy incumbents to the priesthood, the duty of which fell to the local bishop. ⁴⁶

Much of the success of his program of clerical moral reform was due to the fact Damian was able to closely link his own efforts with that of the papacy. Indeed, his wise council and diplomatic skills were employed by a long succession of popes.

Damian died in the odor of sanctity on February 22, 1072 at the age of 66 in Faenza while returning to Rome after a papal mission to Ravenna. ⁴⁷

Among Saint Peter Damian's most famous writings is his lengthy treatise, Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus) written in 1049 AD, which contains the most extensive treatment and condemnation by any Church Father of clerical pederasty and homosexual practices. ⁴⁸ His manly discourse on the vice of sodomy in general and clerical homosexuality and pederasty in particular, was written in a plain and forthright style that makes it quite readable and easy to understand.

In keeping with traditional Church teachings handed down from the time of the Apostles, he held that all homosexual acts are crimes against Nature and therefore crimes against God who is the author of Nature.

It is always refreshing to find an ecclesiastic whose first and primary concern in the matter of clerical sexual immorality is for God's interests, not man's, especially with regard to homosexuality in clerical ranks. Also, his special condemnation of pederastic crimes by clergy against young boys and men (including those preparing for Holy Orders) made over 900 years ago, certainly tends to undermine the excuse of many American bishops and cardinals today who claim that they initially lacked specific knowledge and psychological insights by which to assess the seriousness of clerical pederastic crimes.

Upon a first reading of the Book of Gomorrah, I think the average Catholic would find himself in a state of shock at the severity of Damian's condemnation of clerical sodomical practices as well as the severe penalties that he asks Pope Leo IX to attach to such practices.

Part of this reaction, as J. Wilhelm asserts with regard to modern Catholics' adverse reaction to the severity of medieval penalties (including capital punishment for heresy), can be attributed to the fact that we live in an age that has "less regard for the purity of the faith," and have, in sharp contrast to medieval saints like Saint Peter Damian, lost a sense of sin. ⁴⁹

One of the most remarkable things about the Book of Gomorrah, written as it was about 950 years ago, is how many of Damian's insights can be applied to the current pederast and homosexual debacle here in the United States and abroad including the Vatican. His treatise certainly stands as a masterful refutation of contemporary homosexual apologists who claim that the early Fathers of the Church did not understand the nature or dynamics of homosexuality. Rather, as Damian's work demonstrates, the degradation of human nature as exemplified by sodomical acts is a universal phenomenon that transcends time, place and culture.

A dominant theme of Damian's work was the holy monk's insistence on the responsibility of the bishop or superior of a religious order to curb and eradicate the vice of sodomy from their ranks. ⁵⁰ He minced no words in his condemnation of those prelates who refused or failed to take a strong hand in dealing with clerical sodomical practices either because of moral indifferentism or the inability to face up to a distasteful and potentially scandalous situation. ⁵¹

Other issues tackled by Saint Peter Damian, which have a particular relevance today, are:

• • The problem of homosexual bishops or heads of religious orders who engage their "spiritual sons" in acts of sodomy.
• • The sacrilegious use of the sacraments by homosexual clerics and religious.
• • The special problems for the Church related to the seduction of youth by clerical pederasts.
• • The problem of overtly lax canons and penances for clerical and religious offenders that make a mockery of the seriously sinful nature of homosexual acts.

When the humble monk and future saint, Peter Damian presented his Letter 31, the Book of Gomorrah, to Pope Leo EX, he made it clear that his first and overriding concern was for the salvation of souls. While the work is addressed specifically to the Holy Father, its distribution was intended for the universal Church, most especially the bishops of secular clergy and superiors of religious orders.

In his introduction, the holy writer made it clear that the Divine calling of the Apostolic See makes its primary consideration "the welfare of souls." Therefore, he pleaded with the Holy Father to take action against "a certain abominable and most shameful vice," which he identified forthrightly as "the befouling cancer of sodomy," that was ravaging both the souls of the clergy and the flock of Christ in his region, before God unleashed his just wrath on the people. ⁵² Recognizing how nauseating the very mention of the word sodomy must be to the Holy Father, he nevertheless asked with blunt frankness:

...if a physician is appalled by the contagion of the plague, who is likely to wield the cautery? If he grows squeamish when he is about to apply the cure, who will restore health to stricken hearts ? ⁵³

Leaving nothing to misinterpretation, Damian distinguished between the various forms of sodomy and the stages of sodomical corruption beginning with solitary and mutual masturbation and ending with interfemoral (between the thighs) stimulation and anal coitus. ⁵⁴ He noted that there is a tendency among prelates to treat the first three degrees of the vice with an "improper leniency," preferring to reserve dismissal from the clerical state for only those men proven to be involved in anal penetration. The result, Damian stated, is that a man, guilty of the "lesser" degrees of the vice, accepts his milder penances, but remains free to pollute others without the least fear of losing his rank. The predictable result of his superior's leniency, said Damian, was that the vice spreads, the culprit grows more daring in his illicit acts knowing he will not suffer any critical loss of his clerical status, he loses all fear of God and his last state is worse than his first. ⁵⁵

Damian decried the audacity of men who are "habituated to the filth of this festering disease," and yet dare to present themselves for Holy Orders, or if already ordained, remain in office. ⁵⁶ Was it not for such crimes that Almighty God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, and slew Onan for deliberately spilling his seed on the ground? he asked. ⁵⁷ Quoting Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians (Ephesians5:5) he continued, "...if an unclean man has no inheritance at all in heaven, how can he be so arrogant as to presume a position of honor in the Church, which is surely the kingdom of God?" ⁵⁸

The holy monk likened sodomites seeking Holy Orders, to those citizens of Sodom who threatened "to use violence against the upright Lot" and were about to break down the door when they were smitten with blindness by the two angels and could not find the doorway. Such men, he said, are stricken with a similar blindness and "by the just decree of God they fall into interior darkness." ⁵⁹

"If they were humble they would be able to find the door that is Christ, but they are blinded by their "arrogance and conceit," and "lose Christ because of their addiction to sin," never finding "the gate that leads to the heavenly dwelling of the saints," Damian lamented. ⁶⁰

Not sparing those ecclesiastics who knowingly permit sodomites to enter Holy Orders or remain in clerical ranks while continuing to pollute their office, the holy monk lashed out at "do-nothing superiors of clerics and priests," and reminded them that they should be trembling for themselves because they have become "partners in the guilt of others," by permitting "the destructive plague" of sodomy to continue in their ranks. ⁶¹

Then comes the bitterest blast of all reserved for those bishops who "commit these absolutely damnable acts with their spiritual sons." ⁶² "Who can expect the flock to prosper when its shepherd has sunk so deep into the bowels of the devil. ...Who will make a mistress of a cleric, or a woman of a man? ...Who, by his lust, will consign a son whom he spiritually begotten for God to slavery under the iron law of Satanic tyranny," Damian thundered. ⁶³

Drawing an analogy between the sentence inflicted on the father who engages in familial incest with his daughter or the priest who commits "sacrilegious intercourse" with a nun, with the defilement of a cleric by his superior, he asked if the latter should escape condemnation and retain his holy office? ⁶⁴ Actually, the latter case deserves an even worse punishment said Damian, because whereas the prior two cases involved natural intercourse, a religious superior guilty of sodomy has not only committed a sacrilege with his spiritual son, but has also violated the law of nature. Such a superior damns not only his own soul, but takes another with him, Damian said. ⁶⁵

Next, Damian denounced as one of "the devil's clever devices" concocted in "his ancient laboratory of evil," by which confirmed clerical sodomites, experiencing a pricking conscience, "confess to one another lest their guilt come to the attention of others." ⁶⁶ As Damian observed, however, though such men have become "penitents involved in great crimes," they appear to look none the worst for their penances, "...their lips are not pale from fasting nor are their bodies wasted by self-denial," nor are their eyes red from weeping for their sins. ⁶⁷

The holy monk questioned the validity of such confessions asking, "By what right or by what law can one bind or loose the other when he is constrained by the bonds of evil deeds common to them both?" ⁶⁸ Quoting Holy Scripture concerning "the blind leading the blind," (Matt 8:4, Luke 5:4)

Damian continued, "...it becomes perfectly clear that he who is oppressed by the same guilty darkness tries in vein to invite another to return to the light of repentance. While he has no fear of extending himself to outstrip the other in erring, he ends up accompanying his follower into the yawning pit of ruin." ⁶⁹

Since this practice remains a common one today within the homosexual underworld of diocesan priests, bishops and religious and between pederast priests and their young victims, it may be well to recall that under the revised 1983 Code of Canon Law, the absolution of a partner (clerical or layperson) in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death (Can. 977) and a priest who acts against the prescription of Can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, the lifting of which is reserved to the Apostolic See (Can. 1378 §1). Unless the offending priest has his excommunication lifted by the Sacred Penitentiary or the Holy Father, he has not been validly absolved. Should he attempt to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in a state of moral sin he compounds his offenses with the grave sin of sacrilege.

In a lengthy and scathing attack on faulty and "spurious" canons and codices related to penalties for various sodomical acts that were in use by the Church in the mid-lOOOs, Damian compared them to the harsh and long penances assigned to laymen guilty of unnatural acts with men and beasts by the Church Fathers at the Council of Ancyra (314 AD) and found them wanting. ⁷⁰

If, under earlier Church laws, a layman guilty of sodomy can be deprived of the Holy Eucharist for up to 25 years or even till the end of his life, how is it possible that a similarly offending cleric or monk is let off with minor penances, and is judged worthy to not only receive the Holy Eucharist but consecrate the Sacred Mysteries? he asked. ⁷¹ If the holy fathers ordained that sodomites should "pray in the company of demoniacs," how can such a cleric hope to rightly exercise his priestly office as a "mediator" between God and His people? Damian continued.' ⁷²

Later, Damian returned to this same theme and exclaimed, "For God's sake, why do you damnable sodomites pursue the heights of ecclesiastical dignity with such fiery ambition?" ⁷³ He warned these clerics, who persisted in their unnatural lusts, against inflaming the wrath of God, "lest by your prayers you more sharply provoke Him whom your wicked life so obviously offends." ⁷⁴ At the conclusion of this section, Damian reminded clerics and prelates alike that, "It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." (Heb 10.31) ⁷⁵

In his description of the unnatural passions that rule over the sodomite, Damian revealed an extraordinary degree of perception regarding the narcissistic, promiscuous and compulsive psychosexual aspects of homosexual behavior.

"Tell us, you unmanly and effeminate man, what do you seek in another male that you do not find in yourself?" he asked. "What difference in sex, what varied features of the body? " he continued.

Then he explained the law of life. "For it is the function of the natural appetite that each should seek outside himself what he cannot find in his own capacity. Therefore, if the touch of masculine flesh delights you, lay your hands upon yourself and be assured that whatever you do not find in yourself, you seek in vain in the body of another," he concluded.' ⁷⁶

A wise Dominican once told this writer, that once the vice of sodomy has contaminated a seminary, Church authorities have only two options — close the place down and send everyone home or do nothing and simply wait for the moral rot to spread until the foundation collapses on its own.

Why is this particular vice so deadly to the religious life?

According to Damian, the vice of sodomy "surpassed the enormity of all others:"

Without fail it brings death to the body and destruction to the soul. It pollutes the flesh, extinguishes the light of the mind, expels the Holy Spirit from the temple of the human heart, and gives entrance to the devil, the stimulator of lust. It leads to error, totally removes truth from the deluded mind. ...It opens up hell and closes the gates of paradise. ...It is this vice that violates temperance, slays modesty, strangles chastity, and slaughters virginity. ...It defiles all things, sullies all things, pollutes all things. ...This vice excludes a man from the assembled choir of the Church. ...it separates the soul from God to associate it with demons. This utterly diseased queen of Sodom renders him who obeys the laws of her tyranny infamous to men and odious to God. ...She strips her knights of the armor of virtue, exposing them to be pierced by the spears of every vice. ...She humiliates her slave in the church and condemns him in court; she defiles him in secret and dishonors him in public; she gnaws at his conscience like a worm and consumes his flesh like fire ...this unfortunate man (he) is deprived of all moral sense, his memory fails, and the mind's vision is darkened. Unmindful of God, he also forgets his own identity. This disease erodes the foundation of faith, saps the vitality of hope, dissolves the bond of love. It makes way with justice, demolishes fortitude, removes temperance, and blunts the edge of prudence. Shall I say more ? ⁷⁷

Repent find Reform Your Lives

Like every saint before him and every saint that will ever come after him, Saint Peter Damian exhorted the cleric caught in the vice of sodomy to repent and reform his life and in the words of the Blessed Apostle Paul,

"Wake up from your sleep and rise from the dead, and Christ will revive (enlighten) you." (Eph 5:14 ) ⁷⁸ In a remarkable affirmation of the Gospel message, he warned against the ultimate sin of despairing of God's mercy and the necessity of fasting and prayer to subdue the passions:

...beware of drowning in the depths of despondency. Your heart should beat with confidence in God's love and not grow hard and impenitent, in the face of your great crime. It is not sinners, but the wicked who should despair; it is not the magnitude of one's crime, but contempt of God that dashes one's hopes . ⁷⁹

Then, in one of the most beautiful elocutions on the grandeur of priestly celibacy and chastity ever written, Damian reminded the wayward cleric or monk of the special place reserved in heaven for those faithful priests and monks who have willingly forsaken all and made themselves eunuchs for Christ's sake. Their names shall be remembered forever because they have given up all for the love of God, he said. ⁸⁰

One of the very interesting historical sidebars to Damian's treatise is that he made no reference to the popular practice of distinguishing "notorious" from "non-notorious" cases of clerical immorality — a policy which can be traced back to the 9th century and the canonical reforms on ecclesiastical and clerical discipline by the great German Benedictine scholar and Archbishop of Mainz, Blessed Maurus Magnentius Rabanus (776?-856).

Under this policy, the removal of clerics found guilty of criminal acts including sodomy, depended on whether or not his offense was publicly known, or was carried out and confessed in secret.

In cases that had become "notorious," the offending cleric was defrocked and/or handed over to the secular authorities for punishment. But if his crime was known only to a few persons such as his confessor or religious superior, the offending cleric was privately reprimanded, served a penance and then was permitted to continue at his post, or transferred to a similar post in a different diocese. ⁸¹ Given the aggressive and predatory nature of the vice of sodomy, it is highly likely that such a policy contributed to, rather than inhibited, sodomical practices among clerics and religious between the mid-800s and the early 1000s. In any case, it was unlikely that Damian, who openly expressed his condemnation of too lenient canonical regulations related to the punishment of clerical sodomites and was so judicious in preserving the integrity of the priesthood and religious life, would have approved such a policy.

Saints are realists, which is no doubt why Saint Peter Damian anticipated that his "small book" which exposed and denounced homosexual practices in all ranks of the clergy including the hierarchy, would cause a great commotion in the Church. And it did.

In anticipation of harsh criticism, the holy monk puts forth his own defense as a "whistle-blower." He stated that his would-be critics will accuse him of "being an informer and a delator of my brother's crimes," but, he said, he had no fear of either "the hatred of evil men or the tongues of detractors." ⁸²

Hear, dear reader, the words of Saint Peter Damian that come thundering down to us through the centuries at a time in the Church when many shepherds are silent while clerical wolves, some disguised in miters and brocade robes, devour its lambs and commit sacrilege against their own spiritual sons:

... I would surely prefer to be thrown into the well like Joseph who informed his father of his brothers' foul crime, than to suffer the penalty of God's fury, like Eli, who saw the wickedness of his sons and remained silent. (Sam 2-4.) ...Who am I, when I see this pestilential practice flourishing in the priesthood to become the murderer of another's soul by daring to repress my criticism in expectation of the reckoning of God's judgement? ... "How, indeed, am I to love my neighbor as myself if I negligently allow the wound, of which I am sure he will brutally die, to fester in his heart... So let no man condemn me as I argue against this deadly vice, for I seek not to dishonor, but rather to promote the advantage of my brother's well-being. Take care not to appear partial to the delinquent while you persecute him who sets him straight. If I may be pardoned in using Moses' words, 'Whoever is for the Lord, let him stand with me." (Ezekiel 32.26) ⁸³

As he drew his case against the vice of clerical sodomy to a close, Saint Peter Damian pleaded with another future saint, Pope Leo IX, urging the Vicar of Christ to use his office to reform and strengthen the decrees of the sacred canons with regard to the disposition of clerical sodomites including religious superiors and bishops who sexually violate their spiritual sons.

Damian asked the Holy Father to "diligently" investigate the four forms of the vice of sodomy cited at the beginning of his treatise and then provide him (Damian) with definitive answers to the following questions by which the "darkness of uncertainty" might be dispelled and an "indecisive conscience" freed from error:

1. 1) Is one who is guilty of these crimes to be expelled irrevocably from Holy Orders?
2. 2) Whether at a prelate's discretion, moreover, might one mercifully be allowed to function in office?
3. 3) To what extent, both in respect to the methods mentioned above and to the number of lapses, is it permissible to retain a man in the dignity of ecclesiastical office?
4. 4) Also, if one is guilty, what degree and what frequency of guilt should compel him under the circumstances to retire? ⁸⁴

Damian closed his famous letter by asking Almighty God to use Pope Leo IX's pontificate "to utterly destroy this monstrous vice that a prostrate Church may everywhere rise to vigorous stature." ⁸⁵

Before describing the reception that Saint Peter Damian's treatise on sodomy received at the papal court of Leo IX, I think it helpful to briefly examine the early life of this extraordinary pope, the precursor to the great Hildebrand reform in the Catholic Church.

Unlike Peter Damian, Bruno entered the world under much more favorable emotional and material circumstances than those of the holy monk. He was born at Egisheim, near the borders of Alsace on June 21,1002. At the age of five, his influential, loving and pious parents committed him to the care of the energetic Berthold, Bishop of Toul, who had a school for the sons of the nobility. The future pope's principle biographer and intimate friend, Wilbert, records that the youth was handsome, intelligent, virtuous and kindly in disposition, a description which later manifested itself in the distinguishing title given him when he served as chaplain at the Imperial court — "the good Bruno." ⁸⁶

In 1027, Bruno became Bishop of Toul, the frontier town of his youth that was now plagued both by war and famine. He remained at this rather obscure see for more than 20 years until his ascendancy to the Chair of Peter on February 12,1049.

When the saintly Bruno, after his election at Worms, entered Rome dressed humbly in a friar's robe and barefooted, he was greeted by a cheering populace who acclaimed with one voice that they would have no other but Bruno as their new pope. Little wonder, as under the on-again off-again reign of the dissolute Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048) the papacy had fallen into serious disrepute. Bruno's predecessor, Damasus II, the Bishop of Brixen, had died of malaria after only 20 days in office. ⁸⁷

Like any pontiff set on reforming abuses within the Church, Pope Leo IX immediately surrounded himself with like-minded virtuous and able clerics including the remarkable Benedictine abbot, Hildebrand of Tuscany, the future Pope Gregory VII, one of the greatest popes of the Church. ⁸⁸ In 1049, the pope appointed Hildebrand administrator of the Patrimony of St. Peter's (Vatican finances) and made him promisor of the monastery of St. Paul extra Mucros which had fallen into moral and physical ruin. Historian Thomas Oestreich states that "Monastic discipline was so impaired that the monks were attended in their refectory by women; and the sacred edifices were so neglected that the sheep and cattle freely roamed in and out through the broken doors." ⁸⁹ Deplorable conditions indeed, but soon to be remedied.

Only four months after his election, Pope Leo IX held a synod to condemn the two notorious evils of the day — simony, i.e., the buying, selling or exchange of ecclesiastical favors, offices, annulments and other spiritual considerations, and clerical sexual incontinence including concubinage (permanent or long-standing cohabitation) and sodomy. Immediately following the April synod, he began his journeys through Europe to carry out his message of reform. In May 1049, he held a council of reform in Pavia, which was followed by visits and councils in Cologne, Reims (many decrees of reform were issued here) and Mainz before returning to Rome in January 1050. ⁹⁰ It was during this period that Damian brought his treatise on sodomy to the attention of the Holy Father.

The approximate date that Damian delivered the Book of Gomorrah to Pope Leo IX is generally held to be the second half of the first year of the pontiff's reign, i.e., mid-1049, although some writers put the date as late as 1051. We do know, absolutely, that the pope did respond to Damian's concerns, as that response in the form of a lengthy letter (JL 4311; ItPont 4.94f., no. 2) is generally attached to manuscripts of the work. ⁹¹

Pope Leo IX opened his letter to "his beloved son in Christ, Peter the hermit," with warm salutations and a recognition of Damian's pure, upright and zealous character. He agreed with Damian that clerics, caught up in the "execrable vice" of sodomy "...verily and most assuredly will have no share in his inheritance, from which by their voluptuous pleasures they have withdrawn." "...Such clerics, indeed profess, if not in words, at least by the evidence of their actions, that they are not what they are thought to be, " he declared. ⁹²

Reiterating the category of the four forms of sodomy which Damian lists — solitary masturbation, mutual masturbation, and interfemoral and anal coitus, the Holy Father declared that it is proper that by "our apostolic authority" we intervene in the matter so that "all anxiety and doubt be removed from the minds of your readers." ⁹³

"So let it be certain and evident to all that we are in agreement with everything your book contains, opposed as it is like water to the fire of the devil," the pope continued. "Therefore, lest the wantonness of this foul impurity be allowed to spread unpunished, it must be repelled by proper repressive action of apostolic severity, and yet some moderation must be placed on its harshness," he stated. ⁹⁴

Next, Pope Leo IX gave a detailed explanation of the Holy See's authoritative ruling on the matter.

In light of divine mercy, the Holy Father commanded, without contradiction, that those who, of their own free will, have practiced solitary or mutual masturbation or defiled themselves by fornicating between the thighs, but who have not done so for any length of time, nor with many others, shall retain their status, after having "curbed their desires" and "atoned for their infamous deeds with proper repentance." ⁹⁵

However, the Holy See removed all hope for retaining their clerical status from those who alone or with others for a long time, or even a short period or with many, "have defiled themselves by either of the two kinds of filthiness which you have described, or, which is horrible to hear or speak of, have sunk to the level of anal intercourse." ⁹⁶

He warned potential critics, that those who dare to criticize or attack the apostolic ruling stand in danger of losing their rank. And so as to make it clear to whom this warning is directed, the pope immediately added, "For he who does not attack vice, but deals with it lightly, is rightly judged to be guilty of his death, along with the one who dies in sin." ⁹⁷

Pope Leo IX praised Damian for teaching by example and not mere words and concluded his letter with the beautiful hope that when, with God's help, the monk reaches his heavenly abode, he may reap his rewards and be crowned, "...in a sense, with all those who were snatched by you from the snares of the devil." ⁹⁸

Clearly, on the objective immorality of sodomical acts, both Damian and Pope Leo IX were in perfect accord with one another. However, in terms of Church discipline, the pope appeared to have taken exception with Damian's appeal for the wholesale deposition of all clerics who commit sodomical acts. I say, appeared, because I believe that even in the matter of punishing known clerical offenders, both men were more in agreement than not.

Certainly, Damian, who was renowned for his exemplary spiritual direction of the novitiates and monks entrusted to his care, was not unaware of certain mitigating circumstances that would diminish if not totally remove the culpability of individuals charged with the crime of sodomy in all its forms. For example, some novices or monks may have been forced or pressured by their superiors to commit such acts. No doubt, it is circumstances such as these that prompted Pope Leo IX to use the term, "who of his own free will" in describing a cleric guilty of sodomy. ⁹⁹ Also among the four varieties of sodomy Damian discusses in his treatise, he stated that inter- femoral and anal coitus are to be judged more serious than solitary or mutual masturbation. ¹⁰⁰

All in all, what this writer found to be most remarkable about the pope's letter to Damian was the absolutist position Pope Leo IX took concerning the ultimate responsibility of the offending cleric's bishop or religious superior. If the latter criticized or attacked this apostolic decree, he risked losing his rank! Prelates who fail to "attack vice, but deal lightly with it," share the guilt and sentence of the one who dies in sin, the pope declared. ¹⁰¹

Considering the utterly deplorable state of the secular clergy and monastic life during the tenth and eleventh centuries, I think we can say, without contradiction, that the publication of the Book of Gomorrah must have sent shock waves throughout the Church.

Leslie Toke, whose biography of Saint Peter Damian appears in New Advent, confirmed that his work "caused a great stir and aroused not a little enmity against its author." Toke conjectured that "Even the pope, who had at first praised the work, was persuaded that it was exaggerated and his coldness drew from Damian a vigorous letter of protest." ¹⁰² I do not think that this assessment is a valid one.

That Damian's treatise proved to be controversial and unwelcome especially among superiors and members of the hierarchy who were sodomizing their "spiritual sons" or those with bad consciences resulting from an inability or an unwillingness to exercise their authority in severely disciplining offending clerics or monks, is not surprising.

But as to the charge that the holy monk was guilty of exaggerating the seriousness and extent of sodomy among the secular clergy and monks not only in his region, but also in the Church at large, I believe that charge to be false.

We know, for example, that among the first actions taken by Pope Leo IX at the Council of Reims in 1049 was the passage of a canon against sodomy (de sodomitico vitio). ¹⁰³

Also, the probability that Damian was, in fact, speaking the full truth concerning the extent of this plague in the Church can be discerned from a number of subsequent events including the condemnation of clerical immorality including sodomy at the Synod of Florence attended by Damian in June, 1055, under the pontificate of Pope Victor II (1055-1057). ¹⁰⁴ Almost 50 years after Damian's death, the Council of Nablus assembled in 1120 under the direction of Garmund, Patriarch of Jerusalem and Baldwin, king of Jerusalem, continued to issue edicts and penalties against the vice and crime of sodomy. ¹⁰⁵

We also know that Saint Anslem (1033-1109) as the Archbishop of Canterbury, England, confirmed Damian's thesis of the wide-spread practice of sodomy not only among clergy, but commoner and courtier as well, when he stated that "...this sin (sodomy) has been publicly committed to such an extent that it scarcely makes anyone blush, and that many have fallen into it in ignorance of its gravity." ¹⁰⁶

Certainly, Damian's reputation and credibility was not diminished in the minds of the great and holy men of his day by either the writing or the publication of his treatise on sodomy. Pope Leo IX and future popes continued to seek out his services and advice including Pope Nicholas II (1059-1061) and Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085). Also, Pope Stephen X (1057-1058) made Damian a cardinal in 1057 and consecrated him Cardinal-Bishop of Ostia and appointed him administrator of the Diocese of Gubbio.

Although never formally canonized, Saint Peter Damian was revered as a saint at the time of his death and his cultus has existed since then at the monastery of Faenza, at the desert hermitage of Fonte-Avellana, at the great abbey of Monte Cassino and at Hildebrand's Benedictine monastery at Cluny. In 1823, Pope Leo XII extended his feast (February 23) to the whole Church and pronounced Saint Peter Damian, a Doctor of the Church. ¹⁰⁷

The Church's condemnation of homosexuals acts continued to be expressed in many different ways throughout the medieval period — by traditional means such as council edicts and papal declarations and by more personal and unusual initiatives as Saint Damian's Book of Gomorrah and 120 years later, Alan of Lille's The Plaint of Nature.™

I was introduced to this marvelous work of Alan of Lille by my long-time friend and pro-life colleague, Dr. Herbert Ratner, editor of Child and Family magazine and one of the 20th century's most illustrious family physicians, who frequently referred to "Nature" as the "Vicar-General" of God the Father, a phrase taken from Alan's work.

The famous monk, poet, theologian, eclectic philosopher and moral reformer was born in Lille in Flanders in 1116 and died at the Cistercian Monastery of Citeaux in 1203. A devotee of Plato, his works reflected a phenomenal knowledge of both classical and Christian literature and made him one of the most celebrated teachers of his day. ¹⁰⁹

Alan took part in the Third Lateran Council in Rome in 1179 called by Pope Alexander III and attended by the Emperor Frederick I and more than 302 bishops. Included among the many edicts directed at the reformation of morals was the provision that any cleric found guilty of the "sin against nature" was to be demoted from his state and kept in reclusion in a monastery to do penance. If he were a layman, he was to be excommunicated and "kept rigorously distant from the communication of the faithful." ¹¹⁰

The Plaint of Nature (De Planctu Naturæ), written in Menippean-style with strong satirical quasi-comic overtones, was Alan's most enduring work. Dated 1160-1165, I have used the translation and commentary of James J. Sheridan of St. Michael's College, Toronto.

The heroine of the poem is Nature herself who has been appointed by God as "His Substitute, His vice-regent," to ensure that there would be no deviations in the natural order. All goes well for a time, until Nature abandons her post in favor of an incompetent delegate (Venus) who opens up the door of vice and unnatural sexual practice to man, who of all God's creatures is capable of turning his back on the natural order. ¹¹¹ In the end, Nature is forced to outlaw and "excommunicate" those who indulge in these vices. ¹¹²

The Plaint of Nature opens with our poet beset by sorrow arising from man's contempt for Nature's laws regarding sex and generation. Homosexuality has become rampant. Women have lost their attractiveness and the great lovers are no more. ¹¹³

In the midst of his trance-like state, the poet is visited by a beautiful creature wearing a crown of stars and a dress forever changing colour. She reveals herself to him — She is Nature. ¹¹⁴ Her (com)plaint and the reason she has come to earth is that man, upon whom she has lavished many honours and privileges, has turned against her and is indulging in many sexual perversions. Yet Nature's laws cannot be eradicated she insists for they guide all things, keep the world in order and bind things together which cannot be untied. ¹¹⁵ It is man who must reform or Nature will punish him for his intransigence. ¹¹⁶

The poet then asks Nature why she attacks sodomy so bitterly in light of the claim that even the gods, for example Jupiter, Baccus and Apollo, are said to indulge in same-sex practices.

She replies that the works of these poets are "naked falsehoods made attractive by artistic appeal, or falsehoods dressed in a cloak of probability."

Man finds these lies attractive, Nature explains, because by associating unnatural sex with the gods, man is better able to excuse his own deviant behavior.

The poet then asks how it came to be that God's vice-regent should find herself under such violent attack and Nature tells him her tale of woe.

Nature says she retired and sub-delegated her work to Venus, whom she gives explicit instructions that her laws and blueprint for generation are to be followed literally and without exception. Sexual unions are to be strictly between males and females. But Venus gets bored and abandons both her husband Hymenaeus to whom she has pledged her troth and her legitimate son Desire to take up an illicit affair with Antigenius with whom she spawns a bastard son, Sport Qocus), who becomes the font of all perversions

Nature charges Venus with unmanning man and changing "hes" into "shes." ¹¹⁷ Venus has turned him into a hermaphrodite.

Using a grammatical metaphor, Alan, speaking through Nature, laments that, whereas, under Nature's laws, man is the subject and woman the predicate, man has betrayed his nature by attempting to become at once both subject and predicate — but it is an utter impossibility. ¹¹⁸

In opening the door to such sexual transgressions, Nature asserts, Venus has also opened the door to other vices including injustice, fraud, gluttony, avarice, arrogance, envy, prodigality and disrespect for the law.

However, Nature attests, man can and must combat these vices by practicing the opposite virtues — chastity, temperance, generosity and humility.

Among the remedies she proposes are fasting, restrain from strong drink that unleashes lust, custody of the eyes and generosity. ¹¹⁹

At the end of our tale, Nature calls upon her cohort Genius who dons his official robes and reads the sentence of excommunication — the punishment for man who has sinned against Nature. Nature and her attendants with their candles then depart, darkness descends and the poet awakes from his ecstasy. ¹²⁰

Although Alan's condemnation of sodomy took quite a different form than that of Saint Peter Damian, both writers appeared to be of one mind with the early Church Fathers with regard to the steps necessary to conquer the vice of homosexuality.

Among the great Dominican Doctors of the Church of the Middle Ages, two — Saint Albertus Magnus and Saint Thomas Aquinas — were uncompromising in their condemnation of sodomy.

The "Doctor Universalis," Saint Albert the Great (1206-1280), scientist, philosopher and theologian, who was recognized for his extraordinary genius and extensive knowledge, condemned sodominical acts on four grounds:

1. 1. They proceed from a burning frenzy that subverts nature.
2. 2. They are acts of disgusting foulness of high and low estate.
3. 3. The vice tenaciously binds its adherents making it difficult for a man to extricate himself from the practice.
4. 4. The vice passes quickly from one person to another. ¹²²

The equally gifted "Doctor Angelicus," Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225?- 1274), known for both his intellectual genius and humble Christocentric piety, held that all sexual acts between persons of the same-sex, even if consensual, are nevertheless transgressions of the Divine law by which man's sexual nature is governed. ¹²³ He contends that any sin "against nature" (peccatum contra naturam) debases man to a level beneath that of an animal. ¹²⁴

The Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215, held under Pope Innocent III and attended by Saint Dominic, was the most import council of reform of the medieval period.

In terms of sacramental and moral reform, the council mandated personal confession, including the confession of sexual sins. This necessitated a better-educated clergy capable of making moral distinctions with regard to the exact nature and seriousness of the sins of the penitent, which in turn, contributed to a greater appreciation of and special insights into the complexities of human psychology and behaviors including sexual behaviors.

The council also included the promulgation of a number of canons designed to counteract the heretical teachings of the Albigensians and Cathari — sects to which the crime of sodomy has been traditionally linked.

These sects were highly aggressive and hostile not only to the Church but to the State and legitimate civil authority as well.

Following the close of the council, the Church began a lengthy process of standardizing canonical and criminal procedures many of which had historic roots in both Roman and English law. ¹²⁵ A new form of inquiry or "inquisition" using papal delegates and judges was established to combat the growing menace of the heretical sects and to administer justice in the name of the Church. ¹²⁶

Because of their wide support among the populace and their superior theological training and detachment from worldly considerations, the Order of Preachers, popularly known as the Dominicans, and the Franciscans were chosen by Pope Gregory IX (1227-1241) to organize and conduct these tribunals. ¹²⁸ These early inquisitions were not a distinct and separate entity, but rather a grouping of permanent judges who executed their doctrinal functions in the name of the Church. Where they sat, there was the Inquisition.

According to Edward Peters, author of the landmark study Inquisition, "The essential purpose of the inquisitors was to save the souls of the heretics and those close to them and to protect the unity of the Church." ¹²⁹

This was in sharp contrast to the secular courts where the objective in the sentencing of convicted heretics was strictly a punitive one. ¹³⁰ The sentences given out by the offices of the Inquisition were issued in the form of penance following an act of contrition and a promise of reform by the penitent and absolution by the priest. ¹³¹

Peters noted that sodomy and bestiality were "part of that general class of moral offenses that were the legitimate concern of spiritual and temporal courts in an age when religion...was regarded as the fundamental bond and basis of all social, political, and legal structures." ¹³² Although the State was entitled to take independent action, it was the Church that exercised general jurisdiction over homosexual offenders. ¹³³

The Church, guided by canon law, undertook the role of spiritual rehabilitation of the offending cleric or layman and leveled suitable penances upon those convicted of sexual sins and crime and as a whole the Inquisition tempered its justice with restraint and compassion in dealing with sex offenders, especially the young. However, cases involving unrepentant habitual sodomites or those which involved sexual violence (rape), the seduction of minors or incompetents, or heretical religious practices, were turned over to State for punishment. It was the State and not the pope or the inquisitors acting in his name, that pronounced and carried out the sentence for these grave crimes which was usually death by fire, the common punishment for capital crimes in those times. ¹³⁴

Throughout the remainder of the 13th century and for the next 200 years — the period of European history known as the Renaissance — the condemnation and punishment of sodomy as a crime against God and the State would remain essentially unchallenged and unchanged.

1. 1 Chris Scarre, Chronicle of the Roman Emperors (London: Thames and Hudson, 1995) 8-9. Gaius Octavius (Octavian) who defeated Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, became Caesar Augustus, the first Roman emperor through a series of tactical political maneuvers whereby the office of emperor was grafted onto the traditional constitutional government. He ruled from 27 BC-14 AD. The emperor was the head of state and supreme military commander under the protection of the praetorian guard. However his position of supreme power was always precarious at best as the record shows. According to Scarre, of the first 12 emperors only four died of natural causes, four were assassinated, two committed suicide, and two were most likely murdered.
2. 2 See Romano Amerio, Iota Unum — A Study of Changes in the Catholic Church in the XXth Century. Translated from the 2nd Italian Edition by Rev. Fr. John R Parsons (Kansas City, Mo.: Sarto House, 1996), 68. Amerio states that the Church teaches that man is corrupt from original sin and needs religion to heal him and save his soul. Catholicism takes man as he is while not accepting him as he is, and tries to make him a new man in Christ, Amerio continues. This thinking is in contrast to the popular belief that the Church must accept man, including homosexuals, as he is.
3. 3 Amerio, 391. As defined by Saint Thomas Aquinas "The natural law is a participation in the eternal law and an impression of the divine light in the rational creature, but which it is inclined to its due action and end."
4. 4 Saint Thomas held sodomy to be a species of lust, but more serious because it is both contrary to reason and to nature.
5. 5 Rocke, 10. Technically the Church's definition of sodomy, especially during the Middle Ages, included bestiality and the anal penetration of a women by a man. However, the term was commonly applied to same-sex acts, that is, males with males and females with females. This language served as the religious and juridical standard throughout the Middle Ages and into modern times.
6. 6 Down through the centuries, sexual deviancy has been connected to religious deviancy, especially the teachings of dualism as promoted by sects such as the Cathars, Kabalistic Jews, and centuries later the Free Spirit Movement. The teachings of Catharism, especially its dualistic doctrine of good and evil and its condemnation of material creation including human procreation, were linked by the Church to the promotion of various forms of sexual deviancy including sodomy. See Norman Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961) and Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee A Study in Christian Dualism (London: Cambridge University Press, 1982).
7. 7 Old and New Testament texts are taken from The Holy Bible, translated from the Latin Vulgate, using the Douay-Rheims edition republished in 1899 by the John Murphy Company. For the King James version of these texts see Rueda's The Homosexual Network, 253-256.
8. 8 Alan of Lille, Plaint of Nature, Translation and Commentary by James J. Sheridan (Toronto, Canada: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1980), 48.
9. 9 Amerio, 80-81.
10. 10 Bailey, 110.
11. 11 Atila Sinke Guimaraes In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, from the Collection Eli, Eli, Lamma Sabacthani?  Vol. 1 (Mettairie, La.: MAETA, 1997), 356.
12. 12 Pierre J. Payer, Book of Gomorrah — An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual Practices (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Lauder, University Press, 1982), 8.
13. 13 Guimaraes, 356-357.
14. 14 Foucault, 37-39.
15. 15 See Andrea Marie Brokaw, "Hadrian and Antinous." Full text available from http://ladyhedgehog.hedgie.com/antinous.html.
16. 16 For an excellent review of the life of Saint Athanasius see Cornelius Clifford's work on the "Father of Orthodoxy" and defender of the doctrine of the Incarnation against the Arians as transcribed by David Joyce. The text is available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02035a.htm. Eusebius; was one of a number of eunuchs who rose to power in the Byzantine era and promoted the doctrines of the Arians.
17. 17 Bailey, 26, 83.
18. 18 Ibid., 83. Also Guimaraes, 361.
19. 19 Saint Augustine, Confessions, Book III, Chapter VIII, online edition available from http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/saints/augcon3.htm.
20. 20 Ibid.
21. 21 Bailey, 100.
22. 22 Guimaraes, 361. Along with Saint Basil, Saint Clement of Alexandria the great Athenian-born Christian apologist and missionary theologian to the Hellenistic world railed against pederasty in Greek society, particularly the practices of one called Hercules of whom he said had become "effeminate among the Greeks, and a teacher of the disease of effeminacy to the rest of the Scythians, so much so that it was becoming tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys."
23. 23 Owen J. Blum, OFM, Peter Damian Letters 31-60 (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America, 1990), 29.
24. 24 Guimaraes, 357. See also Blum, 30.
25. 25 With the death of Emperor Antoninus Pius in 161 AD and up until the reign of Constantine in 312 AD, the tribunician power was often divided between East and West.
26. 26 At the great battle of Milvian Bridge, Constantine defeated the Eastern emperor Licinius and reunited the divided Roman Empire. In gratitude for the protection that the Christian ensign had afforded his outnumbered but ultimately victorious troops in battle, he ended the persecution against Christians in both the East and West and permitted them free practice of their faith along side of the Jews and pagans. Gradually, the emperor granted the Church more and more privileges and in return, the early Church acknowledged the cult of the emperor under many forms. Constantine brought his children up as Christians although he himself remained a catechumen to the end of his life. He was known to prefer the company of Christian bishops rather than that of pagan priests, and was present at the First Council of Nicaea (Nicea) in 325 AD which formulated the Nicean Creed that held against Arius that Christ was the true Divinity of the Son of God. For an excellent summary of the life of Constantine I (312-337 AD) see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm.
27. 27 Guimaraes, 368. The author quotes jurist Pietro Agostino d'Avack, "During successive centuries, this lay temporal legislation was substantially unaltered and was nearly identical everywhere, whether in Italy or in the other European States...." D'Avack cites anti-sodomy laws from Ferrara in 1566, Milan, Rome, and the Province of Marche in the 17th century, Florence in 1542,1558,1699, Sicily in 1504, and from Portugal and Spain.
28. 28 The male eunuch was commonly used as a woman in homosexual relations. However, even though he was castrated, he was capable of having an erection and he could therefore play the active role in an act of sodomy. As a prelude to the action taken against Arianism, Theodosius I in 389 had already moved to deprive neo-Arian eunuchs from making or benefiting from wills.
29. 29 Robert T. Meyer, Ph.D., translator, Palladius: The Lausiac History, Ancient Christian Writers — The Works of the Fathers in Translation Series (Ramsey, N.J.: Newman; Longmans, Green & Co., 1965), 31.
30. 30 Edward Peters, Inquisition (Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988), 29-30. The Codex Theodosianus, contains the collection of imperial decrees made in 453 from the reign of Constantine onwards. The Corpus Iuris Civilis of Justinian issued in 534, codified and regularized the great mass of Roman legal rule and doctrine.
31. 31 Justinian I like many Christian Emperors played an important role of the early councils of the Church. At the Second General Council of Constantinople in 553 with 165 bishops in attendance Emperor Justinian I and Pope Vigilius, condemned the errors of Origen and confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.
32. 32 Bailey, 158-159.
33. 33 Arthur Frederick Ide, Unzipped, The Popes Bare All (Austin, Texas: American Atheist Press, Inc., 1987), 154.
34. 34 Tannihill, 158-159.
35. 35 Bailey, 99. Bailey noted that during this time period, in the normal life of a well-governed monastery, sodomy was rare or non-existent despite the temptations of life in an all male environment. He added that heterosexual violations of the law of celibacy were much more common than homosexual acts.
36. 36 Saint Gregory the Great was born in the still-garrisoned city of Rome about 540 into a wealthy and saintly patrician family with large holdings in Sicily and a mansion on Caelian Hill in Rome. In 574, he forsook his public career as a Roman lawyer and administrator and took the cowl of a monk. Only four years later, Pope Benedict I (575-579) took him from seclusion, ordained him and made him one of the seven deacons (regionarii) of Rome. From 579-585 Gregory served as permanent ambassador to the Court of Byzantium in Constantinople — an experience that convinced the future pope that the future of the Roman Church laid in the West and not the East. His election to the papacy was confirmed by Emperor Maurice in 590. Pope Gregory began the long process by which monastic bodies have come under direct control of the Holy See rather than the bishopric in which the monastery is located. An excellent summary of the life and teachings of Pope Saint Gregory written by G. Roger Hudleston and transcribed by Janet van Heystsee is available from http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/CEGREGRY.HTM.
37. 37 Guimaraes, 262.
38. 38 Ibid., 367.
39. 39 Ibid., 357.
40. 40 This segment on Saint Damian originally appeared in Catholic Family News under the title "St. Peter Damian's Book of Gomorrah A Moral Blueprint for Our Times" by Randy Engel as a two-part series in June and July 2002 and is available from http://www.catholicthought.com/.
41. 41 The Millenari, Shroud of Secrecy — The Story of Corruption Within the Vatican (Canada: Key Porter Books, 1999), 149. According to retired Vatican prelate Msgr. Luigi Marinelli, the Millenari, i.e., the authors of this work, are a group of influential and knowledgeable Roman clerics who wish to remain anonymous.
42. 42 For an excellent summary of the life and list of complete writings of Saint Peter Damian see the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Peter Damian," by Leslie A. St. L. Toke, transcribed by Joseph C. Meyer available from http://www.new advent.org/cathen/11764a.htm. Also Catholic Online Saints, "St. Peter Damian," from http://saints.catholic.org/saints/peter damian.html; Owen J. Blum, OFM, St. Peter Damian: His Teaching on the Spiritual Life — A Dissertation (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University Press of America, 1947); and Christopher Rengers, OFM Cap., The 33 Doctors of the Church (Rockville, Ill.: Tan Publishers, 2000).
43. 43 Blum, 81.
44. 44 Ibid., 81, 185.
45. 45 Ibid., 177.
46. 46 Ibid., 181.
47. 47 Ibid., 35.
48. 48 This text is based on two translations of Peter Damian's the Book of Gomorrah. The most accurate is by Owen J. Blum, OFM, Peter Damian, Letters 31-60, part of the Fathers of the Church — Medieval Continuation Series (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1990. An earlier bastardized translation, Book of Gomorrah  — An Eleventh-Century Treatise Against Clerical Homosexual Practices, by Pierre J. Payer, (Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Wilfrid Laurier, University Press, 1982), is ideologically driven as evidenced by the author's references to the works of well known pro-homosexual writers including John Boswell, Anthony Kosnick, and John McNeil in his introduction.
49. 49 See comments of J. Wilhelm on "Heresy," transcribed by Mary Ann Grelinger and available from http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/07256b.htm#REF_IV
50. 50 Blum, 15.
51. 51 Payer, 29-30.
52. 52 Blum, 5-6.
53. 53 Ibid., 6.
54. 54 Ibid., pp. 6-7. Throughout the history of the Church the definition of sodomy has varied somewhat especially with regard to the issues of self-abuse, mutual masturbation by use of hands and bestiality. However, it has always included anal penetration, usually of another male, although in some cases of a female. Saint Peter Damian makes no reference to fellatio either as a form of masturbation or as a homosexual practice.
55. 55 Ibid., 8.
56. 56 Ibid.
57. 57 Ibid., 8-9.
58. 58 Ibid., 10-11.
59. 59 Ibid., 12-13.
60. 60 Ibid., 12-14.
61. 61 Ibid., 15.
62. 62 Ibid.
63. 63 Ibid.
64. 64 Ibid., 16.
65. 65 Ibid.
66. 66 Ibid.
67. 67 Ibid., 17.
68. 68 Ibid.
69. 69 Ibid., 17-18.
70. 70 Ibid., 20-27.
71. 71 Ibid., 27.
72. 72 Ibid., 28.
73. 73 Ibid., 38.
74. 74 Ibid.
75. 75 Ibid., 42.
76. 76 Ibid., 35.
77. 77 Ibid., 30-32. Here the term "vice" (Lat. Vitium ) is used in its traditional sense as a habit inclining one to sin. This habit or vice, which according to Saint Thomas Aquinas, stands between power and act, is the product of repeated sinful acts of a given kind and when formed is in some sense also their cause. While Saint Thomas Aquinas holds that, absolutely speaking, the sin surpasses the vice in wickedness, he also states while the sin may be removed by God the vice or vicious habit may remain. One conquers vice by the continuous practice of all virtues, but particularly that virtue to which it is opposed. In the case of the vice of sodomy that particular virtue is chastity. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403c.htm.
78. 78 Ibid., 44.
79. 79 Ibid., 44-45.
80. 80 Ibid., 47-49.
81. 81 Payer, 17.
82. 82 Blum, 49.
83. 83 Ibid., 48-49.
84. 84 Ibid., 53.
85. 85 Ibid.
86. 86 An excellent and extensive biography of Saint Leo IX, from which this short profile was taken, is available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09160c.htm. The biography was written by Horace K. Mann, and transcribed by W. G. Kofron.
87. 87 For a biography of Damasus II see http://www.newadvent.org/ cathen/04614a.htm. For background material on Benedict IX see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm. According to the New Advent biography by Horace K. Mann, transcribed by Kryspin J. Turczynski, Abbot Luke of the Abbey of Grottaferrata reports that Saint Bartholomew convinced Benedict to definitely resign the pontificate. Benedict died in penitence at Grottaferrata.
88. 88 A comprehensive biography of Pope Gregory VII by Thomas Oestreich, transcribed by Janet van Heyst, is available at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm.
89. 89 See Horace K. Mann essay on St. Leo IX at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09160c.htm.
90. 90 Ibid.
91. 91 Owen J. Blum, OFM, Peter Damian Letters 31-60. Fathers of the Church — Mediaeval Continuation Series (Washington, D.C: Catholic University of America, 1990), 3.
92. 92 Ibid., 3-4.
93. 93 Ibid., 4.
94. 94 Ibid.
95. 95 Ibid., 5.
96. 96 Ibid.
97. 97 Ibid.
98. 98 Ibid.
99. 99 Ibid., 4.
100. 100 Ibid., 7.
101. 101 Ibid., 5.
102. 102 See Leslie A. St. L. Toke (transcribed by Joseph C. Meyer), "St. Peter Damian," New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia at ' http://www. newadvent.org/cathen/11764a.htm.
103. 103 Payer, 21.
104. 104 Toke, 1.
105. 105 Guimaraes, 357.
106. 106 H. Montgomery Hyde, The Love That Dared Not Speak Its Name (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970), 35-36.
107. 107 Toke, 2.
108. 108 Also called Alain de 1'Isle, Alain of Lille, and Alain Von Ryssel. I have chosen Alan of Lille as it is the name used by James J Sheridan in his translation and commentary of The Plaint of Nature.
109. 109 For biographical data and a review of Alan of Lille's writings see William Turner, "Alain de l'lsle," at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01244e.htm.
110. 110 Guimaraes, 358.
111. 111 Sheridan, 33-35, 99.
112. 112 Ibid., 46.
113. 113 Ibid., 35.
114. 114 Ibid., 36-38.
115. 115 Ibid., 56.
116. 116 Ibid., 39.
117. 117 Ibid., 67.
118. 118 Ibid., 68.
119. 119 Ibid., 46.
120. 120 Ibid., 45.
121. 121 For an interesting comparison of the two great giants of the Church see Simon Tugwell, OP, Albert & Thomas (New York: Paulist Press, 1988).
122. 122 Hyde, 32. Also Guimaraes, 363. Note: Hyde misdates Saint Albert the Great as living in the 800s.
123. 123 Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, I — II, q. 95, a. 2.
124. 124 Guimaraes, 363.
125. 125 Edward Peters, Inquisition (Berkley, Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1988), 52.
126. 126 For an introduction to the Inquisitional system of ecclesiastical justice see "Inquisition," by Joseph Blototzer and transcribed by Matt Dean available from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08026a.htm.
127. 127 At the Council of Vienne, (1311-1313) held in France by order of Pope Clement V the first of the Avignon popes, the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, 300 bishops, and three kings, Philip IV of France, Edward II of England, and James II of Aragon, were present. The synod dealt with the crimes and errors imputed to the Knights Templars, the Fraticelli, the Beghards, and the Beguines. Acts of sodomy were among the crimes impugned to the Knights Templars. Also on the agenda was the opening of a new crusade and the reformation of the clergy.
128. 128 Peters, 58.
129. 129 Ibid., 64.
130. 130 Ibid., 129.
131. 131 Ibid., 66.
132. 132 Ibid., 87.
133. 133 Bailey, 154.
134. 134 Peters, 67.