I was reading comments on Fr. Martin's FB post on the Belgian Cardinal de Kesel's statement that Catholic teaching on homosex is untenable and needs to be changed. Two women responded in favor of what the Cardinal said by pointing out that the Biblical prohibitions were outdated and no longer apply to our times. One cited Romans and that Paul's condemnation was against pederasty. Another cited Genesis and said the Sodomite were intent upon raping the visitors. (Modern exegeses interpreted that exclusively as 'inhospitality' based upon a passage in Ezekiel.) Hence my response, "Who told you that?"
If you Google these questions it all shows up. The condemnations aren't against homosexuality but pederasty, rape, and inhospitality - oh, and not being nice to the poor. These interpretations have become canon among those who seek to undermine Catholic teaching and authority. The mid-20th century exegeses and revisionists claims have become embedded in the literature and curriculum of universities. It is generally accepted by Protestants and Catholic like Fr. Martin, SJ and Cardinal de Kesel. It's an exclusive interpretation with the intent of approving homosexual acts and gay marriage.
"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ." This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. - CCC
Cardinal Ratzinger disputed these interpretations of scripture, as Pope he wrote privately on the errors of dismissing traditional exegesis on the major scriptural prohibitions and so on. The Holy See is responsible for correct interpretation of scripture and doctrine - there is no 'sola scriptura' clause in Roman Catholicism. Tradition and the Fathers of the Church handed down the understanding of these passages which condemn homosexual acts. As Cardinal head of the CDF, Ratzinger clearly emphasized the veracity of the passage:
Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgment made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion. - Holy See
It is one thing to welcome and accompany, to even live and let live as regards the homosexual person. It is another to lie and revise scripture to remove the prohibition against homosexual acts. I've sometimes wondered if the final sin of Sodom wasn't so much the generalized decadence, corruption and 'radical inhospitality', but was the insistence that Lot and his family conform to Sodomite cult and ritual? Demanding Lot hand over his guests so the Sodomites could 'have their way with them' is kind of what is happening in our day. People are demanding the Church conform her teaching to suit contemporary morality, accepting and approving homosexual acts and 'marriage'. That's my own crackpot-private meditation/opinion BTW - nothing more.
It seems to me that the attacks against Church teaching, as well as demanding homosexual inclusion in ritual, along with forcing approval based upon false interpretations of scripture, is sacrilegious and idolatrous. Which is why I understood the homo-sex acts reported in the Irish parish church the other day to be a cult-like attempt to defy Catholic teaching on homosexual acts, which states: under no circumstance can they be approved. (Again, my private interpretation/opinion.) Even gay Christians don't like to hear that.
Honey, this sounds like a cult!