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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irenaeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is indeed precise. It perfectly reflects a Catholic moral theology that expresses God’s perfect will.
 
No, all of the expressions intrinsically evil, evil in itself, inherently immoral, and so on, mean the same thing: that the act is deprived of a good in its object.

Therefore, ‘not properly ordered’ could be a close synonym (and written more sensitively).

The problem is when people look at clear language that does not refer to the moral object, and then say that the act is intrinsically evil (the death penalty revision for example). They see ‘inadmissible,’ and say that the Holy See invented an entirely different language to refer to the moral object. Simply, inadmissible is not the language the Holy See uses to refer to the inherent nature of acts.
 
Last edited:

Catholic Dictionary​

Term​

Dictionary : INTRINSICALLY EVIL

INTRINSICALLY EVIL An act of intention that of its very nature, essentially or necessarily, is not in conformity with the divine law, e.g., blasphemy.
www.catholicculture.org www.catholicculture.org

INTRINSICALLY EVIL

Definition​

An act of intention that of its very nature, essentially or necessarily, is not in conformity with the divine law, e.g., blasphemy.
 
Because…
Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.
Click to expand...
There is always risk. There is risk in not changing. Maybe not to you or me, but to one who never gets past the way something is said that he might see the full meaning. The Church’s mission is to evangelize all, not just conservative heterosexuals.
 
puppson said:
It’s all about the little, incremental changes with the homosexualists and their agenda.
Click to expand...
Yes, this is key here. The plan today is to change the wording ever so slightly, to soften the teaching, in the name of “charity”. But then in five years, that will not be enough and they will seek another change that goes even further. And then another after that when that too is not enough. It is exactly how gay “marriage” was legalized in the United States. Small, incremental steps. First, laws criminalizing sodomy were attacked. Then DOMA was the next target. Then bans on gay “marriage” were targeted.
Now they’re moving on to new battles. There always has to be “progress”, no matter what. There will never be an end to it. They are simply using the same blueprint to try to force their agenda on the Church.

The best thing that can be said about this with regards to the Church, is that it is mostly older prelates who are pushing this agenda in the Church today. Almost exclusively priests, bishops, and Cardinals in their 60s or older. In 20-30 years, most of these men will be dead, and hopefully their ideas along with them. Younger Catholics with this agenda do not go into the priesthood nowadays. They stay in the secular workforce, and more than likely leave the Church entirely.
 
Would that those with this agenda repent and conform to Church teachings, or leave.
 
And would that anyone who would make a heretical statement like this would repent and conform to Church teachings, or leave:
“I have a hard time imagining how even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my [actively homosexual] friend and say, ‘That is a loving act, and that is a form of love that I don’t understand but I have to reverence.’”
 
Last edited:
I just did a search and found it about ten times repeated, all in protests against Fr. Martin and none of it sourced.
 
Same here. I keep seeing it, yet no one can point to its source or context.
 
Sept. 5th, 2017, Fordham University with Natalia Imperatori-Lee, Ph.D. and openly homosexual, “married” to another man Fordham professor Patrick Hornbeck.
Recorded. On. Video. Not that hard to find. Unless one doesn’t want to find it.
 
Last edited:
FYI - That video is an hour and a half long, with atrocious audio. Not that hard?

So, just to be clear, heresy involves, by definition, more than an inaccurate, wrong, or heterodox statement made in an interview an hour and a half long. So, “I have a hard time imagining…” is not a statement of doctrine. Second, saying something is heresy that does not, is equally contrary to the Catholic teaching of what heresy is. So if that word is going to be used sloppily, then that beam must first be removed.

There are a lot of ways that Fr. Martin could be criticized. It is because I think his more extreme thinking needs correction, as the LGBT community frequently takes what he says as license to sin, that I do not want truth compromised by those rushing to correct what is not technically wrong.
 
Last edited:
DENNYINMI said:
Fr. James Martin… He still speaks love to them.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting what we may require to be counted as speaking love to others. Speaking truth IS loving, and clarity in speech which can sound harsh is not necessarily unloving. Jesus, the epitome of love since he perfectly reflects the Father, was loving when stating that the hypocritical Pharisees had the devil as their father, calling them venomous snakes, or calling Herod a fox, or saying of Judas that it would be better if he had never been born, or overturning the money changers’ tables in righteous indignation… a lot of name-calling, accusing, and/or responses that appear unloving, but we know that they were actually said or done by Jesus himself. Homosexuality is objectively disordered and homosexual acts are gravely depraved… sounds harsh but is the truth. Now Fr. Martin is in a great position to articulate this clearly with loving compassion and respect for the dignity of the human person; however, he refuses to do so. And when reading the responses of Fr. Martin’s Twitter and FB followers, one can easily tell that many, many of them do not get the truth, which is why I fault Fr. Martin’s ministry approach.
 
Last edited:
BEFORE Christ rebuked the leaders of the Church, he always spoke love first. If there was no breakthrough by way of love because their hearts were hardened and their eyes blind, he let them know. If you cannot breakthrough first with which is one of the greatest commandments given us, you’ll never get your message to those who need it most, and that’s the Truth.

The approach is wise as a serpent and gentle as a dove.

Funny. Although Christ was God Himself in the Flesh, He still sent those He cured to the hypocritical Priests for their proclamation of “cure” so that they may re-enter community and life.
 
alphonsus1 said:
pnewton knows what she is talking about. Homosexual acts are indeed “differently ordered” compared to a married couple’s acts.

This change can be made and not change the teaching
Click to expand...
Not so fast! This would in fact be a change of teaching in the catechism. This is from Fr. Gerald Murray;

In a recent interview, he called for the use of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” That would be a change in the Church’s teaching. It would mean that God created two different orders of sexual behavior that are both good and right according to his will: Some people are homosexual by God’s express design and some are heterosexual by God’s express design.

If that were the case, then homosexual acts themselves could no longer be described, as they are in the Catechism in Paragraph 2357, as “intrinsically disordered.” If the inclination is simply different, and not disordered, then acting upon that inclination is simply different, and not disordered. Homosexual activity would simply be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people.

http://m.ncregister.com/daily-news/father-james-martin-proposes-an-alternate-catechism
 
I have to say. I’m utterly amazed at how this priest is consistently defended on these boards, and yet those such as the good Bishop Athanasius Schneider and Cardinal Raymond Burke are consistently disrespected. Go figure!
 
Last edited:
Personally I feel critical of all of them at various times. Equal opportunity complainer here.
 
No. Right now “differently ordered” does not have a theological meaning, so it depends on how this new term is to be defined.

If “different” means the dictionary definition:
  1. “not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.”
  2. “distinct; separate.”
Then all intrinsically evil acts (ex: sodomy) differ in some way compared to acts that are not intrinsically evil (ex: loving, married, conjugal acts). Namely, they differ in regard to whether or not they are deprived of a good in the moral object of the act. That is, they differ in what makes the acts moral or immoral in the first place.

Therefore, if this new term “different” is to mean the same thing as the dictionary definition, then homosexual acts could still be intrinsically evil and “differently ordered” compared to conjugal acts, but with no contradiction to present teaching.

Let us not assume contradictions prematurely! Obviously, something differently ordered is not necessarily immoral (compared to something properly ordered). That is why I was careful to say “[objectively] grave depravity” must be retained for us to be able to deduce the same meaning from the updated Catechism compared to the current one.

Whether it is prudent to make this change, or any change at all, is an entirely separate question. I don’t think it is prudent to make the change to “differently ordered,” but I haven’t thought enough about the prudential change to “not properly ordered” to form an opinion.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top