The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans. biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.
The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.
It's about these people were so reprobate in their thinking, nothing was out of bounds for them. Ramapant homosexual sex and sexual perversions of all kinds, there was no level they wouldn't sink to, to satisfy their abominable cravings and appettites. Even the RAPE OF OTHER MEN. This is evidently clear and sound teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, regardless WHICH SIDE OF THE SCHISM YOU ARE ON.
You go ahead and try to protestant-ize your own version of sodomy or scripture, but CATHOLIC teaching is abundantly clear;
"If there's any misrepresenting going on, it's being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?
Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."
Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.
While the citizens of Sodom have the intentions of raping Lot's guests, it is still an inhospitable behavior as hospitability requires the host to treat the guest with respect. The act of raping is not respect especially given that it is non
consensual between the two parties. Clearly, the situation also showed that that the men wanted to rape Lot's visitors who are Angels given that Lot's automatic reply was to offer his daughters to the men instead. This clearly shows rape as, Lot is simply trying to assure the safety of his guests whom he obviously knows are Angels sent from the Lord himself, by offering his daughters. Further on, we see the men getting violent, furthering the allusion of their attempt to break in and rape the angels at all costs.
Clearly, such an act is inhospitable given that these are the residents of Sodom that should instead do the right thing by treating their guests with respect and dignity. Clearly, their immediate demand for Lot to 'know' his guests show that these men do not even asked for the consent of these angels, hereby making the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as partially being "inhospitable".
Genesis 13:13 prior also make note that the people of Sodom were "were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure."
When compared to Ezekiel 16:49, it compliments Genesis 13:13 and the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Sins of Sodom in which also affirmed Sodom neglecting the poor and the needy by giving money to beggars and refusing to sell them food, leaving them to die and then after that, reclaim the money. Biro is wrong when he/she?? said that the sin of Sodom is the neglectance of Widows and its daughters, the verse ezekiel 16:49 focuses on the Sodomites lack of empathy and care for the poor. He/she?? is still right in the sense that it is not solely
homosexuality that is the sin of Sodom, it is one of its sins.
In regards to your accusation of the Anglican Communion, it should be noted that they have a divided stance on homosexuality, they don't all unanimously accept homosexuality. All the Anglicans I know of are against homosexuality and there was even one that I know of that gotten offended by the mere mention of homosexual Anglican priests. I know you may be heated up that some of us here take a liberal stand towards homosexuality but it could simply be out of an act of sympathy and empathy due to how much they have to suffer. I honestly can say that at times, I actually come close to accepting it as "normal" until getting hit by the reminder that Sacred Scriptures and Tradition does not affirm or accept it. I can only say that I support the notion that the discrimination of homosexuals should stop but I must say in regards to marriage, I must disagree on religious and logical grounds.