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

[irenaeus1]

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.

But that is not why the change in terminology is being proposed. Differently ordered does not imply disorder. One could be ordered toward the gift of celibacy for a vocation to the single life, consecrated life, or priesthood, or one could be ordered toward married life. The difference is NOT disordered. To use this terminology to explain concupiscence towards a particular sin only furthers confusion.

 

[alphonsus1]

Like I specifically said, we can deduce “disordered” very easily if “[objectively] grave depravity” is retained. You don’t have to be a theologian to realize that if homosexual acts are called ‘grave depravity,’ then they must necessarily be disordered.

An act is disordered by definition if it is deprived of a good (it is depravity) in its object (objectively). Therefore, “objectively grave depravity” is sufficient to deduce homosexual acts are inherently disordered. We must stop claiming “contradictions” where none exist!

That being said, I agree with you that we should not make the change! Read my bold text above.

 

[pnewton]

Martin is a master of deliberate ambiguity. And his agenda is clear: legitimize sodomy.

Do you know that sodomy is already legal in the United States, and most of the world? As for the rest of your post, I will defer to Jesus as the judge of the intent of others, as it is his throne.

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.

There are two issues here. One is respect, and another defensed against disrespect. We need to respect all priests and bishops. I can only speak for myself, but I have pointed out when this line has been crossed, in my opinion, against Cardinal Burke. And to avoid all hypocrisy, it must also be a matter of amazement that personal attacks against Father Martin must not be made while defending the two you mentioned against personal attacks. It is the Golden Rule thing.

 

[pnewton]

Differently ordered does not imply disorder .

As a single sentence, this is true. However, when it follows that a man and woman in marriage is the only proper order, then it is beyond implication.

I do wish Father Martin would adapt more to the feedback he gets though. It is clear that he is being misquoted and misunderstood. It is in our nature to seize on that which confirms our compromise with sin.

 

[prayerrider]

The issue is the legitimization of sodomy in the Catholic Church. That it’s legal in secular society is irrelevant, secular society and its culture being largely a cesspool ruled by the devil.

 

[pnewton]

The issue is the legitimization of sodomy in the Catholic Church.

Then that is absolutely ridiculous. Actually, it would be slander, if one were to accuse Fr. Martin of such a motive. Furthermore, it would be a lie, as Fr. Martin has never said this.

There are a lot of reasons to question the wisdom of Fr. Martin’s approach. Putting forth evil conjecture does not aid in countering the wisdom of his approach.

 

[prayerrider]

I see little difference between advocating for legitimizing the relationship in which homosexual intercourse is the integral sexual activity, versus advocating for legitimizing homosexual intercourse plain and simple.
Guess I’m just logical that way.

 

[pnewton]

Logic implies there is no difference, when your two points are different. I do not agree with Fr. Martin on this, but neither do I agree with claiming as logic, that which is not. This is not a moral issue I have, but a true issue with what logic actually is.

 

[prayerrider]

Please explain how legitimizing a sexual relationship between homosexuals does not also entail legitimizing the homosexual act.

 

[pnewton]

The way you rephrased it is closer. In your first formulation, change the word “homosexual” to “heterosexual” and you will see that the two things are different. The answer in that case is simply that marriage makes it legitimate. Now marriage is not an option for homosexuals. But even then I using “legitimate” in a technical sense, a legal sense. If the word is used more general, that of some sort of good, then the difference between the two becomes clearer.

For example, a devout Muslim who loves God, respects his fellow man, and lives an upright life in service to God and his fellow man. Such a one’s relationship to God can be legitimate despite his totally ignorance of the divinity of Jesus.

Perhaps I should ask what you mean by legitimate.

 

[prayerrider]

By legitimize in the Church I mean change turn teaching to read that homosexual activity is not mortally sinful in every context, fake same sex “marriage” or otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

I see. I to not see that as a real likelihood, if you mean objectively a mortal sin. In that context, I see what you mean. The act itself maintains the same object state of mortal sin, whether in a relationship, short term, long term, or one night.

 

[OraLabora]

By legitimize in the Church I mean change turn teaching to read that homosexual activity is not mortally sinful in every context, fake same sex “marriage” or otherwise.

It is always grave matter. Whether or not it bears mortal culpability depends on the penitent having full knowledge that it is grave matter, and full cooperation of the will, e.g. is not under the grips of an addiction, or some other mental issue. This is established teaching for any grave sin, whether sexual in nature or not, for example alcoholism or addiction to illegal (or legal) drugs. So to say that a homosexual does not bear mortal culpability in every context, is firmly established Church teaching. It certainly is gravely sinful in every context, but not necessarily mortal

This is, of course, an issue to work out in the confessional (at least for Catholics), it is not for us to say whether someone holds mortal culpability for his or her sin. For non-Catholics, they aren’t held to the same standard. Instead, it’s an opportunity for us to evangelize, and I do not mean proselytize, much less criticize. We need to meet potential converts in the here and now. Conversion is a slow process. We have a duty to welcome, not reject on the basis of this or that sin, as we are all sinners in need of ongoing conversion.