The 2025 LGBTQIA Jubilee Pilgrimage at the Vatican: A Historic Event Amidst Controversy

The 2025 LGBTQIA Jubilee Pilgrimage at the Vatican: A Historic Event Amidst Controversy

In September 2025, the Vatican hosted a historic event as part of the Catholic Church’s Jubilee Year of Hope: an officially recognized pilgrimage of over 1,400 LGBTQIA+ Catholics and their supporters. This marked the first time an LGBTQIA+ pilgrimage was included in the Vatican’s official Jubilee calendar, a significant milestone for a community that has long felt marginalized within the Catholic Church. The pilgrimage, which included prayer vigils, a Mass, and a procession through the Holy Door of St. Peter’s Basilica, was celebrated by some as a sign of growing acceptance and inclusion, while others viewed it as a departure from traditional Catholic teachings. The event sparked intense debate, particularly on social media, with some Catholics expressing outrage over displays of pride colors, immodest attire, and a controversial t-shirt bearing the phrase “fck the rules.” This article explores the reasons behind the pilgrimage, the role of Father James Martin, the reactions from Catholics, the enforcement of the Vatican’s dress code, and the broader theological implications of welcoming marginalized communities while upholding Church doctrine.

 Why the Pilgrimage Happened

The 2025 Jubilee Year, themed “Pilgrims of Hope,” is a significant event in the Catholic Church, occurring every 25 years to encourage prayer, repentance, and pilgrimages to holy sites. During a Jubilee, pilgrims pass through designated “Holy Doors” at St. Peter’s Basilica and other major basilicas, symbolizing forgiveness and reconciliation. The inclusion of an LGBTQIA+ pilgrimage in the Vatican’s official calendar was a historic step, reflecting a shift in the Church’s pastoral approach under Pope Francis and his successor, Pope Leo XIV.

The pilgrimage was organized primarily by La Tenda di Gionata (Jonathan’s Tent), an Italian LGBTQIA+ Catholic advocacy group, with participation from international organizations such as DignityUSA, New Ways Ministry, and Outreach, a U.S.-based ministry led by Father James Martin. The event was listed on the Vatican’s general calendar, which caused some initial controversy when it was briefly removed before being reinstated. Vatican officials, including spokeswoman Agnese Palmucci, clarified that the listing was logistical, not an endorsement, ensuring that all groups had access to the Holy Door during the busy Jubilee season.

The roots of this pilgrimage can be traced to the papacy of Pope Francis (2013–2025), who made significant strides in fostering a more welcoming environment for LGBTQIA+ Catholics. His famous 2013 remark, “Who am I to judge?” about gay priests, set a new tone for the Church’s engagement with the community. Francis supported civil unions for same-sex couples, authorized blessings for same-sex couples under specific conditions, and met with LGBTQIA+ advocates, including transgender individuals. These gestures, while not altering Church doctrine, which holds that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered,” signaled a pastoral shift toward inclusion and mercy.

The 2025 pilgrimage was a culmination of these efforts, reflecting years of dialogue between advocacy groups and Vatican officials. Organizers like Alessandro Previti of Jonathan’s Tent noted that the event was planned during Francis’ pontificate, with support from key figures such as Archbishop Rino Fisichella, head of Holy Year events, and Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, president of the Italian Bishops’ Conference. The pilgrimage included a vigil service at the Church of the Gesù, a Mass celebrated by Bishop Francesco Savino, and the procession through the Holy Door, symbolizing the Church’s openness to all pilgrims, regardless of identity.

 Father James Martin’s Involvement

Father James Martin, a Jesuit priest and editor-at-large at America Magazine, played a prominent role in the pilgrimage. A leading advocate for LGBTQIA+ Catholics, Martin has long worked to bridge the gap between the Church and the community. His 2017 book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity, laid the groundwork for his ministry, which emphasizes dialogue and inclusion. In 2021, he founded Outreach, a resource center for LGBTQIA+ Catholics, in partnership with America Media.

Martin’s involvement in the pilgrimage was multifaceted. He led a group of approximately 40 pilgrims from Outreach, participated in a panel discussion at the Jesuit headquarters near St. Peter’s Square, and spoke at the vigil service at the Church of the Gesù. His presence was particularly significant due to his private audience with Pope Leo XIV on September 1, 2025, in the Apostolic Palace. During this half-hour meeting, Martin reported that Pope Leo expressed a desire to continue Pope Francis’ approach of openness and welcome toward LGBTQIA+ Catholics. Martin described the encounter as “consoling and encouraging,” noting that Pope Leo, the first American pope, affirmed his ministry and emphasized synodality—a Church that listens to all, including those on the margins.

Martin’s role extended to social media, where he actively shared updates about the pilgrimage. On September 5, he posted about the standing-room-only vigil service, describing an “immense” crowd of about 1,200 people. The following day, he highlighted Bishop Savino’s Mass, noting the bishop’s warm reception and the applause that interrupted his homily. Martin’s visibility and endorsements from both Pope Francis and Pope Leo have made him a polarizing figure, celebrated by progressive Catholics but criticized by conservatives who view his ministry as compromising Church teachings.

 Catholic Reactions on Social Media

The pilgrimage elicited a wide range of reactions from Catholics on social media platforms, particularly X, reflecting the deep divisions within the Church on issues of sexuality and inclusion. Progressive Catholics and LGBTQIA+ advocates celebrated the event as a historic moment of acceptance. For example, Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, contrasted the 2025 pilgrimage with the Vatican’s hostility toward the 2000 WorldPride event in Rome, noting a “sea change” in the Church’s approach. Pilgrims like Justin del Rosario, who carried a crucifix through the Holy Door with his male partner, expressed profound emotional connections, describing the experience as “touching the hand of God.”

However, conservative Catholics voiced strong opposition, particularly over the visible displays of pride symbols, such as rainbow crosses and attire. Some criticized the pilgrimage as an affront to Church tradition, arguing that it appeared to affirm lifestyles contrary to Catholic moral teaching. A post from the account @Protestia in June 2025, while not directly addressing the pilgrimage, condemned Father Martin’s advocacy for celebrating Pride Month, reflecting broader conservative sentiment. Critics pointed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.

The most contentious issue was the attire of some pilgrims, particularly reports of gay men wearing shorts and other clothing deemed immodest by traditional standards. St. Peter’s Basilica enforces a strict dress code, requiring shoulders and knees to be covered as a sign of respect for the sacred space. Photos circulating on social media showed some male pilgrims in shorts, which sparked outrage among conservative Catholics who viewed this as disrespectful. Even more controversial was an image of a man wearing a t-shirt with the phrase “fck the rules,” a vulgar display that many felt desecrated the sanctity of the basilica.

Social media posts amplified these concerns, with some users questioning the absence of ushers, who are typically stationed at St. Peter’s to enforce the dress code. Comments on X and other platforms expressed frustration, with phrases like “Where were the ushers?” and “This is a mockery of our faith.” Conservative outlets, such as Charisma Magazine, framed the pilgrimage as evidence of “apostasy” in the Church, warning that it could lead to a broader erosion of Christian values.

 The Vatican’s Dress Code and the Absence of Ushers

The Vatican’s dress code for St. Peter’s Basilica is well-documented and strictly enforced. Visitors are required to wear clothing that covers shoulders and knees, and signs at the entrance clearly outline these expectations. Ushers, often members of the Vatican’s security or lay staff, are tasked with ensuring compliance, politely turning away those who do not meet the standards. The presence of pilgrims in shorts and the man wearing the “fck the rules” t-shirt raised significant questions about how such attire was permitted in the basilica.

Several factors may explain this lapse. The Jubilee Year attracts millions of pilgrims—32 million were expected in 2025—creating logistical challenges for Vatican staff. The sheer volume of visitors may have overwhelmed ushers, particularly during a high-profile event like the LGBTQIA+ pilgrimage, which drew over 1,400 participants. Additionally, the pilgrimage’s inclusion in the official calendar may have led to a more permissive approach, as organizers had coordinated with Vatican officials to ensure access to the Holy Door. It’s possible that ushers, aware of the event’s significance, hesitated to intervene to avoid appearing exclusionary, especially given the Church’s recent emphasis on welcoming marginalized groups.

However, the lack of enforcement sparked significant backlash. Conservative Catholics argued that allowing immodest attire and vulgar slogans undermined the sacredness of St. Peter’s Basilica, a symbol of the universal Church. Some speculated that the Vatican’s desire to project an image of inclusivity may have led to a relaxation of standards, though no official statement confirmed this. The incident highlighted the tension between pastoral outreach and maintaining traditional norms, a recurring theme in the Church’s engagement with the LGBTQIA+ community.

 Outrage Over Pride Colors and Displays

The display of pride colors, including rainbow crosses and attire, was a focal point of outrage for many Catholics. The rainbow flag, widely recognized as a symbol of LGBTQIA+ pride, was seen by critics as incompatible with Catholic teaching on sexuality. A Charisma Magazine article described the acceptance of a rainbow cross in St. Peter’s Basilica as evidence of the Church “drifting” from biblical principles, arguing that it affirmed lifestyles that Scripture deems sinful. Social media posts echoed this sentiment, with users labeling the pilgrimage a “scandal” and accusing the Vatican of endorsing homosexuality by allowing such symbols in a sacred space.

This outrage reflects a broader theological divide. Traditionalists argue that the Church must uphold its moral teachings, which view homosexual acts as sinful and marriage as a sacrament between a man and a woman. They fear that visible displays of pride colors signal a departure from these doctrines, potentially confusing the faithful. Some pointed to Pope Francis’ 2023 decree allowing blessings for same-sex couples as a precursor to the pilgrimage, arguing that it opened the door to further liberalization.

On the other hand, supporters of the pilgrimage viewed the pride colors as expressions of identity and faith, not defiance. Pilgrims like Victoria Rodriguez, a transgender Catholic woman from Spain, spoke of the spiritual significance of being recognized as part of the Church. The rainbow cross, carried by pilgrims like Andrea Mattei, symbolized a reclaimed identity as children of God, not a rejection of Church teaching. Organizers emphasized that the pilgrimage was about inclusion and reconciliation, not a demand for doctrinal change.

 The Church as a Field Hospital

Pope Francis often described the Church as a “field hospital,” a metaphor that captures its mission to heal and welcome those who are wounded or marginalized. He stated, “I see the Church as a field hospital after battle. It is useless to ask a seriously injured person if he has high cholesterol or diabetes. You have to heal his wounds. Then we can talk about everything else.” This imagery resonates with the 2025 LGBTQIA+ pilgrimage, which brought together individuals who have often felt excluded from the Church. The event’s inclusion in the Jubilee calendar reflects this pastoral approach, prioritizing welcome over judgment.

Field hospitals, by their nature, can get messy. They are places of urgency, where the immediate needs of the wounded take precedence over order and protocol. The Vatican’s decision to allow the pilgrimage, despite the presence of pride colors and instances of immodest attire, can be seen as an acknowledgment of this messiness. By opening the Holy Door to LGBTQIA+ pilgrims, the Church signaled a willingness to meet people where they are, as Pope Francis often advocated. This approach aligns with his emphasis on synodality—a Church that listens to all voices, including those on the margins.

However, the Church’s mission as a field hospital does not end with welcome. Jesus’ encounter with the woman caught in adultery (John 8:11) provides a model: He showed mercy, saying, “Neither do I condemn you,” but also called her to “go and sin no more.” This balance of mercy and repentance is central to Catholic teaching. The Vatican cannot validate or endorse homosexuality, as it contradicts the Church’s understanding of human sexuality as ordered toward marriage and procreation. The pilgrimage, while a gesture of inclusion, was not an affirmation of LGBTQIA+ lifestyles but an invitation to encounter Christ’s mercy.

 Meeting People Where They Are, Calling Them to Conversion

The tension between mercy and repentance lies at the heart of the Church’s pastoral mission. Pope Francis’ approach, continued by Pope Leo XIV, emphasizes meeting people where they are—acknowledging their struggles, identities, and experiences without immediate judgment. The LGBTQIA+ pilgrimage embodied this principle, offering a space for pilgrims to express their faith and identities within the Church. Testimonies from the vigil service, such as those from gay couples and the mother of a transgender child, highlighted the pain of rejection and the hope of inclusion.

Yet, the Church’s mission extends beyond welcome to transformation. Catholic teaching calls all individuals to repentance and conversion, aligning their lives with God’s will. For LGBTQIA+ Catholics, this means navigating the Church’s teachings on chastity and sexuality, which can be a challenging and deeply personal journey. The pilgrimage did not signal a change in doctrine but rather an opportunity for dialogue and encounter. As Father Martin noted, Pope Leo’s message was one of continuity with Francis’ approach, emphasizing welcome while upholding the Church’s moral framework.

The controversy over the pilgrimage underscores the difficulty of balancing these priorities. Conservative critics argue that the Church risks appearing to condone sin by allowing pride symbols and lax dress code enforcement. Supporters, however, see the event as a step toward healing wounds and building bridges, trusting that encounter with the Church will lead to deeper conversion over time. The challenge for the Vatican is to maintain this balance, ensuring that gestures of mercy do not obscure the call to holiness.

 Conclusion

The 2025 LGBTQIA+ Jubilee Pilgrimage was a historic moment for the Catholic Church, reflecting a shift toward greater inclusion under the papacies of Francis and Leo XIV. Father James Martin’s involvement highlighted the Church’s commitment to dialogue with the LGBTQIA+ community, while the event’s inclusion in the Vatican’s calendar signaled a logistical and pastoral openness. However, the pilgrimage also sparked controversy, with social media amplifying outrage over pride colors, immodest attire, and a vulgar t-shirt. The lapse in dress code enforcement raised questions about the Vatican’s priorities during a busy Jubilee Year, while the broader debate revealed deep divisions among Catholics.

The Church’s role as a “field hospital” allows for messiness, as it seeks to meet people where they are. The pilgrimage embodied this mission, welcoming a marginalized community while inviting them to encounter Christ’s mercy. Yet, the Church’s call to repentance and conversion remains unchanged, as it cannot endorse lifestyles contrary to its teachings. The challenge moving forward is to continue this delicate balance, offering love and welcome while guiding all toward holiness. The 2025 pilgrimage, with its triumphs and controversies, is a testament to the Church’s ongoing journey to live out this mission in a complex and divided world.

 Sources

- Fox News, “LGBTQ Catholics march through St. Peter’s Basilica in Jubilee rite as Vatican calendar entry stirs controversy,” September 7, 2025.[](https://www.foxnews.com/faith-values/lgbtq-catholics-march-st-peters-basilica-jubilee-rite-vatican-calendar-entry-stirs-controversy)

- National Catholic Reporter, “‘Semi-official’ LGBTQ+ Jubilee marks watershed moment at Vatican for long-marginalized Catholics,” September 5, 2025.[](https://www.ncronline.org/vatican/vatican-news/semi-official-lgbtq-jubilee-marks-watershed-moment-vatican-long-marginalized)

- The New York Times, “L.G.B.T.Q. Catholics Have Jubilee With Pope’s Blessing, if Not His Presence,” September 6, 2025.[](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/06/world/europe/lgbtq-catholics-jubilee-pope-leo.html)

- Outreach, “Father James Martin: Pope Leo’s message for LGBTQ Catholics,” September 2, 2025.[](https://outreach.faith/2025/09/father-james-martin-pope-leos-message-for-lgbtq-catholics/)

- New Ways Ministry, “LGBTQ+ Jubilee Year Pilgrimage Is a Reminder of How Far We’ve Come,” December 10, 2024.[](https://www.newwaysministry.org/2024/12/10/lgbtq-jubilee-year-pilgrimage-is-a-reminder-of-how-far-weve-come/)

- BBC, “LGBTQ+ Catholics make historic pilgrimage at Vatican,” September 6, 2025.[](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cge2jy27xgjo)

- CNN, “A historic pilgrimage: Why LGBTQ Catholics hope Pope Leo will take up Francis’ legacy,” September 6, 2025.[](https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/06/europe/lgbtq-catholics-pope-leo-pilgrimage-intl)

- Reuters, “Pope Leo meets James Martin, US priest known for LGBT ministry,” September 1, 2025.[](https://www.reuters.com/world/pope-leo-meets-james-martin-us-priest-known-lgbt-ministry-2025-09-01/)

- National Catholic Reporter, “Pope Leo embraces Francis’ legacy on LGBTQ+ Catholics, Fr. James Martin says,” August 31, 2025.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

- Charisma Magazine, “Vatican Includes LGBTQ Pilgrimage and Rainbow Crucifix in 2025 Jubilee Celebrations,” August 29, 2025.[](https://mycharisma.com/news/vatican-includes-lgbtq-pilgrimage-and-rainbow-crucifix-in-2025-jubilee-celebrations/)

- AP News, “LGBTQ+ Catholics make Holy Year pilgrimage to Rome and celebrate a new feeling of welcome,” September 6, 2025.[](https://apnews.com/article/vatican-pope-lgbtq-197507e47890e2e5115a7f784d0bef04)

- X Post by @JamesMartinSJ, September 5, 2025.

- X Post by @Protestia, June 4, 2025.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraphs 2357–2359.

- Pope Francis, “Evangelii Gaudium,” 2013.

Fr. James Martin SJ Revisionist Take on Sodom & Gomorrah

An Exegetical and Theological Defense of the Traditional Interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah: Homosexuality as a Central Sin

Introduction

The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, found in Genesis 18–19, has been a subject of intense theological and scholarly debate, particularly regarding the nature of the sins that precipitated their divine destruction. In a recent post on X dated July 21, 2025 (James Martin: Sodom & Gomorrah), Fr. James Martin, SJ, a prominent Jesuit priest and author, referenced an Old Testament scholar to suggest that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not primarily related to homosexuality but rather to other moral failings, implicitly challenging the traditional interpretation upheld by the Catholic Church and much of Christian tradition (Martin, 2025). This paper seeks to defend the Church’s teaching, drawing on biblical exegesis, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the original Hebrew and Greek texts, to argue that homosexuality—specifically in the form of attempted sexual violence against the angelic visitors—was a central element of the sin that provoked God’s judgment. Furthermore, it will address the mischaracterization of the narrative as solely a matter of "lack of hospitality," engaging with the text, tradition, and magisterial documents such as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986).

Biblical Exegesis of Genesis 19: The Hebrew Text and Context

The account in Genesis 19 provides the critical details of the destruction of Sodom. After Abraham’s intercession with God in Genesis 18, where the patriarch bargains for the city’s salvation based on the presence of righteous individuals, the narrative shifts to Lot, Abraham’s nephew, residing in Sodom. Two angels, disguised as men, arrive at Sodom, and Lot extends hospitality by inviting them into his home (Genesis 19:1–3). However, the men of the city surround the house and demand, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (יָדַע, yada‘) them” (Genesis 19:5, RSV). The Hebrew verb yada‘, meaning "to know," is pivotal here. While yada‘ can denote general knowledge or acquaintance in other contexts (e.g., Genesis 4:1, where it refers to sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve), the narrative context of Genesis 19 strongly suggests a sexual intent.

Lot’s response is telling: he goes outside and pleads, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly (רָעַע, ra‘a‘). Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Genesis 19:7–8). The use of ra‘a‘ ("wickedly") indicates a grave moral transgression, and Lot’s offer of his daughters as a substitute underscores that the men’s desire was sexual in nature, directed toward the male visitors. This act of offering his daughters, while perceived as morally problematic by modern standards, reflects an ancient Near Eastern cultural priority of protecting guests under one’s roof, even at great personal cost.  That is mentioned in the story as a comparison to the evil being done in Sodom and Gomorrah. They were so evil and wicked that Lot offering his daughters was the "greater good," if you will.  Lot may have been facetious when stating that. The men’s rejection of this offer and their attempt to break down the door (Genesis 19:9) further confirm their lustful intent.

The question arises: in what way were the men of Sodom lacking in hospitality? Hospitality in the ancient Near East involved welcoming strangers and providing for their safety, as Lot initially did. However, the men of Sodom’s demand to "know" the visitors was not a failure of hospitality but a perverse inversion of it—seeking to violate the guests rather than protect them. Was Lot supposed to permit their rape of the handsome men, who were angels in disguise? Clearly not; his desperate offer of his daughters was intended as a lesser evil to avert the greater wickedness of homosexual rape. Lot’s declaration that their intent was "wicked" (Genesis 19:7) aligns with the biblical portrayal of homosexual acts as an abomination, a theme elaborated in later texts.

The New Testament Witness: Jude and "Unnatural Flesh"

The New Testament provides further clarity on the nature of Sodom’s sin. In Jude 1:7, the author writes, “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, sarkos heteras), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (RSV). The Greek phrase sarkos heteras, often translated as "strange flesh" or "unnatural flesh," is significant. The term heteras (from heteros, meaning "other" or "different") suggests a deviation from the natural order, specifically heterosexual relations as ordained by God in Genesis 1:27–28 and 2:24. This interpretation is reinforced by the context of "immorality" (ekporneuō, a compound of porneuō, meaning sexual immorality), indicating that the sin involved perverse sexual behavior.

The reference to "eternal fire" echoes the destruction described in Genesis 19:24–25, where “the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Jude’s linkage of this event to "unnatural lust" aligns with the traditional understanding that the attempted homosexual rape of the angels was a key factor in God’s judgment. This New Testament perspective complements the Genesis narrative, reinforcing that the sin was not merely inhospitality but a profound moral corruption, including sexual perversion.

The Church Fathers and Tradition

The early Church Fathers consistently interpreted Sodom’s destruction as a judgment on homosexuality. St. Augustine, in The City of God (Book 16, Chapter 30), describes the men of Sodom as driven by “unnatural lust” and cites their attempt to assault the angels as evidence of their depravity. Similarly, St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Genesis (Homily 43), condemns the Sodomites for their “lawless passion” and contrasts their behavior with Lot’s attempt to uphold righteousness. Tertullian, in Against Marcion (Book 3, Chapter 12), explicitly connects Sodom’s fate to its indulgence in “vices against nature,” a phrase traditionally understood to include homosexual acts.

This patristic consensus shaped the Church’s theological tradition, which views Sodom and Gomorrah as exemplars of divine retribution for sexual sins, particularly homosexuality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) reflects this heritage, stating in paragraph 2357 that “basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’” The footnote cites Genesis 19 among other texts, affirming the narrative’s relevance to this teaching.

Addressing the "Lack of Hospitality" Argument

Some modern scholars, including those referenced by Fr. Martin, argue that the sins of Sodom were primarily social injustices, such as pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor, as listed in Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” However, verse 50 continues, “They were haughty and did abominable things (tō‘ēbāh) before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it” (RSV). The Hebrew term tō‘ēbāh ("abomination") is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to describe acts God finds detestable, including homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). The conjunction of social sins with tō‘ēbāh suggests that the sexual immorality of Genesis 19 was the culminating offense.

The "lack of hospitality" interpretation often hinges on the cultural expectation of protecting strangers, which the men of Sodom violated. Yet, this reading fails to account for the sexual nature of their demand. If the sin were merely inhospitality, Lot’s offer of his daughters would be irrelevant; the issue was not their refusal to host but their intent to rape. The narrative’s focus on the men’s lust for the angels—described as “very handsome” (Genesis 19:1, Hebrew tōb mĕ’ōd, "very good" or "beautiful")—underscores that their desire was homosexual in orientation and lustful. The Bible does not describe lack of hospitality as a sin warranting such catastrophic vengeance; rather, it reserves this level of judgment for sins that “cry out to heaven,” a category that includes homosexual acts alongside murder and oppression of the poor (CCC 1867, Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 4:10, Jas 5:4).

Magisterial Teaching: Cardinal Ratzinger’s On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict XVI) 1986 letter, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, provides authoritative guidance on this issue. Ratzinger acknowledges the dignity of persons with homosexual inclinations, condemning violence against them as deplorable (Ratzinger, 1986, para. 10). However, he firmly states that “the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin… [but] it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (para. 3). Regarding acts, he reiterates the Church’s teaching that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can never be approved” (para. 7), citing Genesis 19 and other scriptures.

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 judgement 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. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons)

This document aligns with the traditional exegesis of Sodom and Gomorrah, viewing the attempted assault as a manifestation of the “intrinsic moral evil” of homosexual acts. Ratzinger’s emphasis on the objective disorder of such acts reinforces the biblical portrayal of Sodom’s sin as a rejection of the natural order established by God, a theme echoed in Jude’s reference to “unnatural flesh.”

The Sin That Cries Out for Vengeance

The Catholic tradition identifies certain sins as so grave that they “cry out to God for vengeance” (CCC 1867), including the blood of Abel (Genesis 4:10), the sin of the Sodomites (Genesis 18:20), and the cry of the oppressed (Exodus 3:7–10). The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is explicitly linked to this category, with Genesis 18:20 noting, “Then the Lord said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave.’” The sexual violence intended by the men of Sodom, directed at the angels, fits this framework, as does the broader context of homosexual behavior condemned in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (tō‘ēbāh).” The annihilation of the cities was indeed an act of divine vengeance, proportionate to the gravity of their sins, with homosexuality as a central component.

Conclusion

The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, when examined through the lens of biblical exegesis, Church Fathers, and magisterial teaching, reveals that homosexuality—particularly in the form of the attempted rape of the angelic visitors—was a key sin leading to their destruction. The Hebrew yada‘ and the Greek sarkos heteras in Jude 1:7 point to sexual perversion, while the context of Lot’s response and the men’s lustful intent discredit the "lack of hospitality" thesis as the sole or primary cause. The Church’s tradition, from Augustine to Ratzinger, upholds this interpretation, viewing homosexual acts as abominable and contrary to natural law. While social injustices contributed to Sodom’s guilt, the sexual immorality (homosexuality) of Genesis 19, culminating in the demand to “know” the angels, was the sin that cried out for vengeance, justifying God’s judgment. Fr. Martin’s suggestion of an alternative focus requires reconsideration in light of this robust scriptural and theological evidence. It is revisionist nonsense meant to give a political spin to the Scriptures.  

Anyone preparing homilies for this weekend will notice that the First Reading is Abraham's bargaining with God to prevent God's wrath against Sodom and Gomorrah. Here is a distinguished Old Testament scholar on what the sins of those cities really were. https://t.co/3Xyk7I2yZW

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 21, 2025

 References

- Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1993.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

- Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Genesis. Translated by Robert C. Hill. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

- Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html.

- Tertullian. Against Marcion. Translated by Peter Holmes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869.

- The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. New York: National Council of Churches, 1971.

-"What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities." - Jude 1:7

- http://www.robgagnon.net/homosex7thDayAdvArticleSodom.htm

 

Just In Time For 'Gay Pride:" A New STD Fungal Infection

Understanding the Emergence of a New Sexually Transmitted Fungal Infection in NYC

New York City, a bustling metropolis known for its diverse population and vibrant culture, is also a hub for public health surveillance due to its dense urban environment. Recently, the city has become the focal point for the emergence of a new sexually transmitted fungal infection, marking the first known case in the United States. This is just in time fo Gay Pride where its demographics are known for introducing new diseases and spreading them among the population. 

The infection, caused by the fungus Trichophyton mentagrophytes type VII, was identified in a man in his 30s who had traveled to California, England, and Greece and had gay sex with multiple men. Upon his return to New York City, he developed symptoms consistent with a fungal infection, including an itchy red rash on his groin, genitals, and buttocks. This case has raised concerns among healthcare professionals due to the highly contagious nature of the fungus and its potential to be mistaken for other skin conditions, such as eczema.

Trichophyton mentagrophytes type VII is not just a concern for its physical symptoms but also for its resistance to standard antifungal treatments. This resistance can lead to prolonged infection and, in some cases, permanent scarring. The rarity and resilience of this fungus underscore the importance of prompt diagnosis and treatment.

The recent case in New York City serves as a reminder of the ever-evolving landscape of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and the need for ongoing public health vigilance. It also highlights the critical role of travel in the spread of infectious diseases, as individuals can acquire and transmit infections across international borders.

Healthcare providers are advised to be on the lookout for similar cases, especially in patients who are sexually active, have recently traveled, and present with unusual rashes. Early detection and treatment are key to preventing the spread of this and other STIs.

As the medical community continues to monitor and respond to this new threat, the public is encouraged to practice safe sex and seek medical attention for any concerning symptoms. Education and awareness are vital components in the fight against the spread of infections, and this case serves as a stark reminder of the importance of sexual health in overall well-being.

However, it is to be seen if gay men will take their lives and health seriously and stop their promiscuous lifestyles.  With the existence of gay apps like Grindr, JackD, A4A and others, it is most likely that we will see another endemic among gay people.  

Source:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamadermatology/article-abstract/2819235

First case of a rare, sexually transmitted fungal infection reported in the U.S. (nbcnews.com)

First U.S. Case of Sexually Transmitted Fungal Infection | TIME

New sexually transmitted fungal infection detected in NYC — the first case in the US (nypost.com)