The faithful of the Church or Rome would be taken aback by the Papal Decree granting same-sex marriages. Understanding the history of the Church of Rome, comprehension comes with ease. Consider the following: Reflecting on Same-Sex Unions;  

As revised 'Christianity' has diluted the truth of the history of the faith, contorting scripture to fit the narrative of the 'New Faith' has caused many social ills and divisiveness among the professed faithful. Saint Sergio and Saint Baucus were indeed lovers and saints united through a religious rite known in Greek as “adelphopoiesis,” a same sex union which was blessed by the Church. Revealed by John Boswell and described in his book "The Weddings of Similarities", Sergio and Baco were two martyrs of the Church of Rome who in the early Catholicism were a homosexual couple and defenders of the faith. Both were contracted in marriage and would later be murdered, though according to history not for their sexual orientation... which is odd given they were held in high esteem until it became known that they were Christians for refusing to take part in pagan sacrifices to the Roman gods.

For their refusal they were tortured and publicly humiliated by being dressed in women’s clothing, chained and paraded through the streets of the city. St. Bacchus was beaten to death and St. Sergius was beheaded in the city of Rasafa, present day Syria. Tehy would be canonized after performing several recorded miracles proven verified by the Church.In the research done by Boswell, who in addition did his work in the libraries of the Vatican, he discovered that at the beginning of Christianity, weddings between men were common, who were mostly warriors. The couple in question went to the villages evangelizing but they had this characteristic: they were married to the same Church of Rome.After the publication of the book, the Vatican only thought to say that Boswell had invented everything, but the evidence is exposed and public already in this 1996 book.On the other hand, the Church of St. Sergio and St. Bacus (Greek, E itaσσ conα τ duranteν duranteν ambulε seου queα se ñaα antinου se encuentraν το plo musulμ ςσ ánου), known in Turkish as the Little Saint Sophia Mosque (Küçuk Ayasofya Camii) is a mosque in Istanbul located in Constantinople, which became a Muslim temple during the empire ottoman.

​

Homosexuality and the 'Christ Movement'

​

​

The word "Homosexual" itself, wasn't invented until the mid-1800's and had NEVER found in scripture until it appeared in the Revised Standard Version Bible, 1946. This also ignores the history of the Church of Rome wherein Sergius and Bacchus, two male saints depicted throughout the long history of their veneration as lovingly committed to each other in a depth unquestioned until the rise of that modern category of “homosexual” and the reactionary need to deny that they were lovers by those worried that the long-venerated duo might qualify.

This fourth-century same-sex couple married in The Church were particularly popular throughout the Mediterranean area. For nearly a thousand years Sergius and Bacchus were the heavenly protectors and official patrons of the Byzantine army. References to their relationship were regularly invoked in rituals for same-sex partnerships.

 

The Vatican has recently issued a new doctrinal declaration, Fiducia Supplicans, approved by Pope Francis, which explains when those in same-sex couples and others in “irregular situations” can be blessed. Howewver, this doctrine becomes greatly confusing befoe the faithful as the Church follows up by stating:

 

"Te declaration specifies that such blessings should not imply a validation of the couple’s status nor create confusion with the Sacrament of Marriage. According to Vatican News, Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, emphasized the need for “pastoral prudence” in discerning blessing forms that do not convey a mistaken concept of marriage but rather pastoral closeness."

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE TORAH         

 

We are all aware of the Biblical prohibition on homosexuality, which often relies on the prohibition in Leviticus 18, the context in which this prohibition was promulgated. Priestly male sacred prostitutes were common in biblical Israel, as in other Semitic cultures. Sacred prostitutes were active even in the Great Temple in Jerusalem as we learn from scripture… Deuteronomy 23:18, “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel”… where the Jewish Publication Society translation (and others) uses the term “sodomite” for the word “qadesh”, the feminine form of which, “qdesha”, meaning  a holy prostitute. (It is from the German translations which use of a cognate for “whore” which aided in the rise of the currently debated word play dilemma.)
 

Only in the period of Josiah’s reform, when the cults of foreign gods were uprooted, was sacred male prostitution prohibited. Since the cult was so popular among the people, it was necessary to make the prohibition in a particularly stringent way, inducing a presentation of the concept of an abomination. However, Deuteronomy relates to a pagan cult of this sort, not to sexual acts themselves.  Leviticus 20:13 may have been initiated to address the threat of a specific ancient Greek pederastic practice and therefore was not originally intended as an outright ban on male homosexuality. That interpretation may have come later, in response to the harsh anti-homosexual laws enacted in 324 C.E. by Emperor Constantine, and rabbis may actually have chosen a necessary politically motivated shift in the former interpretation to protect Hebrew homosexuals from being put to death.
 

Looking at the precise Hebrew verbiage used in Leviticus 20:13, it is fascinating to note what we actually read and what ‘may be inferred’ via politically motivated theological concepts. What the text prohibits is a sexual relationship between a “man” (“ish” {mighty man} in Hebrew) and a male (“zachar” {manchild} in Hebrew), not between an “ish” and another “ish.” This may sound like quibbling, but where the Torah is concerned, every word counts. Nowhere here do we find the Torah referring to a “female” in discussing forbidden relations; it is “man with woman” in every instance. Only here does the text digres
 

So why is this particular word “manchild” used in this verse? Is it possible that this is not a prohibition against male homosexuality after all, but rather of pederasty? Ancient Greek culture suggests just such a possibility. In that world, there was a popular and common social custom of men of a certain class socializing with younger males… in a context where mentoring, socializing, partying, and sexual activities would or could occur between the two groups.
 

These specific words used in Greek translations,  “[ἀρσενοκοῖται] [liers with men]” (in Hebrew “ish” or “man”) and “[μαλακοὶ] [soft men]” (in Hebrew, “zachar” or “manchild”), were used precisely in descriptions of ancient Greek custom as at that time, only men who were of adult age and of sufficient substance to own land, vote, and marry, could legally be called “men.” Those who were too young to vote, own land, or marry could only be referred to as “young males” under Greek law.
 

It is even possible that the term “men with males” was a well understood phrase… perhaps even being idiomatic and axiomatic at the time.

​

If man with manchild is a specific term referring to Greek pederasty, then its use in Leviticus 20:13 would make that verse a prohibition of the practice of pedophilia and not of homosexuality in general. That would also mean that there is no such condemnation anywhere else in the Torah (Leviticus 18:22 also uses the word zachar, rather than ish). The use of “man” and “manchild” here so precisely mirrors the Greek terminology that another inference can be drawn, as well-that pederasty was an abhorrent alien practice not common to Israel. If it had been a common Israelite custom, a distinctly Hebrew word for “young boy,” such as bachur or yeled (child), would have been used in the text, rather than “zachar” (“manchild”).

 

Similarly, if the verse was meant to refer to adult homosexual behavior, the style of usage in both Leviticus 20 and the earlier Leviticus 18 would require that ish upon ish be used, not ish upon zachar. The fact that “isha” (woman) is used in both Leviticus verses adds to this. “An ish should not lie with a zachar as he would with an isha” makes less contextual sense than “an ish should not lie with an ish as he would with an isha.” Only if zachar has a specific meaning does its use here make sense. Absent such a specific meaning in Hebrew usage (other than to mean “male” in general), the specific meaning we do find is its Greek meaning … that is, that “man upon young male” signifies a pederasty relationship and it is this that the Leviticus verses outlaw.

 

We know this verse was reinterpreted in response to Constantine’s harsh legislation. Suffice it to say that when homosexual behavior is made subject to the death penalty, it would make perfect sense for rabbinic authorities to seek Torah-based ways of discouraging such behavior in order to discourage Jewish men from incurring such a final penalty. Does this mean that the Torah does not object to homosexual behavior per se? No, it does mean however, that there is no verse in the Torah (original Hebrew) to directly support such an objection.