Correcting Fr. James Martin Yet Again, Differences Between Catholics &

  • Thread starter Thread starter irenaeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

irenaeus1

Guest

Fr. James Martin responds to Franklin Graham with an incoherent tweet. In part, Fr. Martin states that we should “e careful: the Bible says a lot about marriage.” And then cites examples of polygamy as if Jesus did not positively teach God’s original design and intent for marriage as between one man and one woman joined together for life. Are we to assume that Fr. Martin is claiming that we are not to take Jesus’ admonition literally, but rather advocate for polygamy and polyamorous unions?
 
It’s sad to see one priest slander another in public. There wasn’t anything wrong with what Fr. Martin said. But apparently Fr. Longenecker is making projections and connections which aren’t there, he is seeing what he wants to see. It’s juvenile for Fr. Longenecker to call Fr. Martin names. His bishop should reign him in.
 
Last edited:
I agree that the petty insults aren’t helping matters, but I wonder why else Fr. Martin would bring up, “The Bible says a lot about marriage: Solomon, Moses, and Abraham all had multiple wives” except to insinuate that the Bible gets things wrong on polygamy, therefore, the Bible is also wrong with regards to same sex marriage. If there’s another way to interpret his words, I’d like to hear it.
 
A priest calling another priest to task is not slander. Besides there’s a lot wrong with what Fr. Martin said… certainly by inference and by what he did not say. As I already pointed out, is Fr. Martin claiming that we are not to uphold Jesus’ admonition and teaching on marriage, but rather advocate for polygamy and polyamorous marriage or unions? If not, then what was the point of this statement.
 
I remain confused why any Christian would cited the Old Testament over what is explicit in the New Testament.
 
Fr. Martin is an expert in making statements supportive of liberal interpretations of the Bible and church teaching while being vague enough that he can maintain plausible deniability that what he said is unorthodox, and others can claim it can be interpreted in an orthodox manner. He spreads confusion with such statements.

Whether Fr. Longnecker is in good standing or not, he is at least consistent and clear in his statements and in this instance has rightfully pointed out the dangers of Fr. Martin’s ambiguity on such matters. Trent Horn pointed this out well in one of his latest podcasts. Are we now going to say that Trent Horn is out of line?
 
Last edited:
irenaeus1 said:
A priest calling another priest to task is not slander.
Click to expand...
That’s not what this is. This is another priest accusing Fr. Martin of things he didn’t say, and calling him names. Are saying that calling someone names is “taking them to task”.
irenaeus1 said:
is Fr. Martin claiming that we are not to uphold Jesus’ admonition and teaching on marriage, but rather advocate for polygamy and polyamorous marriage or unions?
Click to expand...
I don’t know and I don’t care. If Fr. Longenecker wants clarification then he can call on Fr. Martin privately instead of slandering him in public.
irenaeus1 said:
If not, then what was the point of this statement.
Click to expand...
Fr. Longenecker doesn’t know what the point of the statement was either, but that didn’t stop him from attacking Fr. Martin.

People need to have the courage to say that they don’t know exactly what a particular ambiguous Tweet means instead going on the attack with name calling and opinions about what they think the Tweet is intended to mean.

If you expect better from Fr. Martin. Why wouldn’t you expect better from Fr. Longenecker?
 
Last edited:
irenaeus1 said:
Fr. James Martin responds to Franklin Graham
Click to expand...
What exactly did Franklin Graham say in his tweet that Father Martin was responding to. Was Father Martin supporting SS marriage in his response?
According to what I read, a lot of Roman Catholics do not object to SS marriage, even though officially it is wrong. I often hear that nothing essential has changed in the Catholic Church after VII, but some people question that.
 
Last edited:
That’s not what this is. This is another priest accusing Fr. Martin of things he didn’t say, and calling him names. Are saying that calling someone names is “taking them to task”.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
On the contrary, Fr. Longnecker backs up what Fr. Martin is ‘ambiguously’ saying by pointing to other public statements and support Fr. Martin gives to heterodox organizations - thus supporting his assertion. As to calling someone names, this is not necessarily out of line. After all, John the Baptist, Jesus, Paul, James, and Jude provided some pretty good examples of name-calling in the NT.
I don’t know and I don’t care. If Fr. Longenecker wants clarification then he can call on Fr. Martin privately instead of slandering him in public.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
If you really don’t care whether Fr. Martin advocates for polygamy and polyamorous marriage or unions, then your problem lies much deeper than with Fr. Longnecker. Jesus clearly and unambiguously teaches God’s design and intent for marriage.
Fr. Longenecker doesn’t know what the point of the statement was either, but that didn’t stop him from attacking Fr. Martin.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Did you read the article? Fr. Longenecker knows exactly the point of Fr. Martin’s statement. As to his attacks, they were directed more towards Fr. Martin’s sloppy exegesis and poor biblical theology than being personal. You see, either Fr. Martin is ignorant of biblical scholarship in this area or he is being intentionally deceptive. Neither one is a good position for a priest. If he’s neither of these, what is the third option?
People need to have the courage to say that they don’t know exactly what a particular ambiguous Tweet means instead going on the attack with name calling and opinions about what they think the Tweet is intended to mean.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What’s more interesting is that both those in favor of and those opposed to Fr. Martin would know what he meant by this tweet. Unsure why this escapes you.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
What exactly did Franklin Graham say in his tweet that Father Martin was responding to. Was Father Martin supporting SS marriage in his response?
Click to expand...
For one, Fr. Martin was taking issue with Franklin Graham’s statement that marriage is between one man and one woman, to which Fr. Martin responded that we have to be careful about biblical literalism and then references example of polygamy in the Bible.
 
irenaeus1 said:
Fr. Martin was taking issue with Franklin Graham’s statement that marriage is between one man and one woman
Click to expand...
Why does the Vatican support Father Martin?
I saw this quote, but I have not checked it:
“On April 12, Pope Francis appointed James Martin, S.J., America’s editor at large, as a consultor to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.” America Magazine, April 12, 2017.
 
The agenda is clear.
  1. Change the Catechism wording on SSA to read"differently ordered."
    Which will necessitate
  2. Changing the Catechism and Church teaching on homosexual activity to state that it is an equal but simply “different” and loving form of sexual expression.
    Which leads to
  3. Since homosexual intercourse is no longer sinful, the Church must formally validate the relationship within which said intercourse occurs.
Has Fr. Martin ever said he believes Church teachings on homosexual activity? Understanding these teachings and believing them, as he is bound to do with Catholic and Divine faith, are two very different things.
 
Last edited:
AlNg said:
“On April 12, Pope Francis appointed James Martin, S.J., America’s editor at large, as a consultor to the Vatican’s Secretariat for Communications.” America Magazine, April 12, 2017.
Click to expand...
Well, even if some of his statements are theologically ambiguous, he is editor of one of the leading English language Catholic periodicals, so I can see why he might be chosen to assist with communications.
 
Last edited:
This specific issue aside, I’m growing really weary of both priests. I’m starting to wonder if the clergy should be involved with social media at all. Their participation seems to breed cults of personality, which can never be a good thing – in general and in the church.
 
gracepoole said:
This specific issue aside, I’m growing really weary of both priests. I’m starting to wonder if the clergy should be involved with social media at all. Their participation seems to breed cults of personality, which can never be a good thing – in general and in the church.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Social media doesn’t always bring out the best in people.
 
prayerrider said:
The agenda is clear.
  1. Since homosexual intercourse is no longer sinful, the Church must formally validate the relationship within which said intercourse occurs.
Has Fr. Martin ever said he believes Church teachings on homosexual activity?
Click to expand...
Besides my dislike of sloppy language, like the use of the word “clear” here, it should be incumbent on anyone accusing a priest of such a heresy, that he be able to show positive evidence, not merely give some argument from absence. After all, do follow Fr. Martin and know pretty much all he has said?

So I ask, when and where did Fr. Martin ever say homosexual intercourse was not sinful?

I am no Fr. Martin apologist, but I recognize what he did in that tweet. He provided some evidence that all truth must account for. He didn’t follow through with it, of course, as there are good responses, but it is evidence we must consider in determining what specifically is objectively grave and why. It is like we are trying to overhear a phone conversation and then judging those who are talking while we eavesdrop. The internet has a lot of temptation to rash judgement.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top