utrum talibus hoc officium peragere to act as priests if the Church has need of it

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 stem 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, (i 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. (i 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.

CAPUT QUINTUM

That those who desire ordination after having

' been involved in this vice are of a reprobate sense.

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, ''Godgave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves'' (Rom. i: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. I9:i0f.)

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: "1 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. I9:i8f.) 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 “/ 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, "0 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)

Damian is not, as some hostile commentators have claimed, recommending the death penalty for sodomy. He is quoting part of Romans 1:29 —32, in which St. Paul lists a large number of sins, including pride, disobedience to parents, dissoluteness, contumely, avarice, sodomy, and others, and concludes that “they who do such things are worthy of death (i.e., the metaphor of the “wages of sin” being “death”); and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.” The reference is to the gravity of the sin, not a recommedation for capital punishment by the state.

CAPUT SEXTUM

On rectors of the Church who are soiled with their spiritual children.

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!

CAPUT SEPTIMUM

Of those who confess their offenses to those with whom they have fallen.

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 pzt” (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.

CAPUT OCTAVUM

Just as is the case with those who violate nuns, a prostitutor

of monks must be deposed in accordance with the law.

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.

CAPUT NONUM

That both he who falls with his carnal or spiritual daughter, and he who is soiled with his penitential son, should be accountable for the same offense.

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" (i Cor 1:17), and also says, 'Tor 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." (i 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.

CAPUT DECIMUM

Regarding apocryphal laws, in which whoever trusts is altogether deceived.

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.

CAPUT UNDECIMUM

The justifiable rejection of the above laws.

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 incurs! 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 li:i7f.) 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.

CAPUT DUODECIMUM

That such mockeries are rightly excluded from the list of canons, because their authorship is uncertain.

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.

CAPUT TERTIUM DECIMUM

Of those who fornicate irrationally; that is, who mix with animals or are polluted with males.

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.

CAPUT QUARTUM DECIMUM

Of those who were once polluted either with animals

or with males, or who continue to languish in this vice.

“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 “zh the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand’’’ (Mt 18.16), for he says:

CAPUT QUINTUM DECIMUM

Of clerics or monks who persecute moles.

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.

CAPUT SEXTUM DECIMUM

The proper condemnation ofsodomitic indecenty.

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 bums 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, 0 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).

CAPUT SEPTIMUM DECIMUM

A weeping lamentation over the souls surrendered to the dregs of impurity.

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:i9f.); I moum 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.” (Jer9:l) 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 oflsroeH (Lam 2:i); "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 homebom slave, and why has Israel become a prey?” (cf. Lam 2:14). And you say, “/ 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 hove seen it.'' (cf. Lam 2:16).

CAPUT DUODEVICESIMUM

That the soul should be mourned, because it does not mourn.

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: and my kingdom are innocent

...forever of the blood of Abner the son ofNer: 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 thatfalleth 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 iooked upon him, and aii of the remaining priests, they saw the ieprosy on his forehead, and they quickiy expelled him," and then the following is added: "Yea himseif aiso being frightened, hasted to go out, because he had quickiy feit 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.

CAPUT UNDEVICESIMUM

That the service of an unworthy priest is the ruin of the people.

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.

CAPUT VICESIMUM

That God does not wish to receive sacrifice from the hands of the impure.

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 offatlings, and blood of calves, and

Iambs, 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 hatethyour 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, 0 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 (l 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?

CAPUT VICESIMUM PRIMUM

That no holy offering is received by God if it is stained by the filth of impurity.

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’.”

CAPUT VICESIMUM ALTERUM

That all of the above-named forms constitute sodomy.

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 bitterT (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, ‘7t is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living Cod’" (Heb 10:31). They should also recall that which the prophet menacingly cries out, saying that “zn 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 Vet 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 Pet2:13f.).

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 bum 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 l: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.

To briefly conclude, whoever has soiled himself with the contamination of sodomitic disgrace, in whatever way distinguished above, unless he is cleansed by the fulfillment of fruitful penance, can never have the grace of God, will never be worthy of the body and blood of Christ, and will never cross the threshold of the celestial homeland, as is manifestly declared in the Book of Revelation by the apostle John who, while speaking of the glory of the heavenly kingdom, adds: ‘There shall not enter into it anyone defiled and thatworketh abomination'' (Rev 21:27).

CAPUT VICESIMUM TERTIUM

An exhortation to the man who has fallen into sin, that he might rise again.

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 humbied before me? Therefore, because he hath humbied himseiffor my sake, I will not bring the evii in his days" (3 Kings 2l: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 bums 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.

CAPUT VICESIMUM QUARTUM

That for the taming of sexual desire, it should be sufficient to contemplate the rewards of chastity.

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 ore 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” (ef. 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:Ilf.), 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, 7 am cast away out of the sight of thy eyes; but yet I shall see thy holy temple again'" (Jon 2:4f. [Douay-Rheims]).

CAPUT VICESIMUM QUINTUM

Where the writer defends himself honorably.

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'' (i 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.

CAPUT VICESIMUM SEXTUM

Where a statement is addressed to the lord pope.

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.

SCHOLIA

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, quaest. 1; Sylvester Prierias (verbo ''Confessio,” 1, n. 17), and others.