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 does not do any good to be kind and compassionate if it is falsely motivated as affirmation of the gay lifestyle. Where is Fr. Martin’s admonition to repent? Where is the admonition to call out homosexual activity for what it is? Yes, absolutely interact compassionately, lovingly respect the dignity of the person as a human being created in the image of God. But compromising truth for the sake of whatever justification one may come up with is not pastorally honest nor is it truly loving. We are all train wrecks and have sinned grievously against a great and holy God, but God has provided a solution to the sin problem of mankind. If a person has cancer, you don’t deny telling him the prognosis simply because you don’t want to tell them that they are terminally ill and what treatment plan they need. You don’t do any favors to an alcoholic by compassionately loving on them without counseling them to see the peril of their condition and admonish them to avoid alcohol. The position of the crowds that follow Fr. Martin absolutely demonstrates what he is really teaching.
 
I completely disagree.

(1) Only God knows what is in our hearts. Is it too much to ask to give someone the benefit of the doubt when you do not know what is in his or her heart?

(2) Truth is not compromised. If some preists emphasize telling gay people how much God loves them, then this does not compromise the Truth that sodomy is a Crime that Cries Out to Heaven for Vengence. It doesn’t, anymore than the fact that some nuns focus on caring for the poor compromises other nuns who focus on abortion and other life issues.

(3) Fr. Martin does not have to dedicate his public lectures to preaching the Truth. He can do it on a case by case basis, at the opportune time when people are most receptive to hear the Truth.

For example, if I told someone who was still struggling to give up fornication that Pope Alexander decreed passionate kissing for the sake of the carnal and sensible delights that arise thereof was not merely a venial sin, but a mortal sin, would that be the Truth I should preach at that time? Or should some other Truth about being abstinent until marriage be better? As another example, if I told someone struggling to give up one night stands, that “every lustful thought with sufficient deliberation/ knowledge is a mortal sin,” would it be received? No, start with: “sex should be with someone you love.”

What is my point? We can tailor what Truths we say, to when they will be most likely to be received! Fr. Martin is doing a really good job at this.

(4) You do not have to shame or “admonish” alcoholics or people who smoke cigarettes. Rather, there is often some underlying mental health issue that can be focused on without “warning.” This approach of warning, often fails dismally!

If there was a burning building, and you warned people that it was on fire, and it caused people to run right back into the burning building, then you utterly failed!

In exactly the same way, talking to a gay person about chastity too soon (when he already might know the Church’s teachings and maybe disagree with them, is focusing on where you are farthest apart, not where you agree). It could drive him away from the Church, which would be a dismal failure. Why? Because the gay person would not just be sinning. He would be sinning, while also not practicing the Faith.

Be very careful about the impact of your words! Be very careful!

(5) I said before: “everyone should preach Truths to a sufficient degree,” but that we can all emphasize different Truths! There are different paths to Holiness that are equally valid. We don’t all have to be robots, emphasizing the same Truth. Go to the Catechism: why cannot some people emphasize 2357 and others 2358?

Go Fr. Martin! Go Fr. Martin! Go Fr. Martin. I’m a huge fan:)
 
Last edited:
I listened to a podcast Patrick Coffin did with Joseph Scambia (a man who was deep in the LGBT lifestyle for about 20yrs), and while second hand, Scambia said he knew individuals this was true for. He said the Pope’s “who am I to judge” was very damaging and also mentioned Fr. Martin.
 
What you say is all facially true. No, we don’t know what is literally passing through Fr. Martin’s mind at any given moment on any given topic. Yes, there are different approaches to preaching the gospel. No, one individual does not have to address everything to make statements on one topic. Yes, Fr. Martin can ask individuals to repent privately.

The problem is that Fr. Martin is very vocal, but only in the direction of affirming homosexuality. He spends a lot of time on Twitter yet no once has he even suggested that repentance is a thing that should be sought. But he goes out of his way to tell people not to quote the Bible on marriage. He goes out of his way to make lots of excuses. This approach is not similar to your example of nuns focusing on different problems. A nun working pro-life issues does not have to focus on, or necessarily have the time for, running a hospice. But what the nun doesn’t do is participate in pro-life work by telling women abortions are really just miscarriages, and that Jews in Jesus’s time didn’t punish a man for causing a miscarriage in the same way they would punish him for murdering a woman, so we can’t condemn abortions too harshly today.
 
I agree that Fr. Martin insinuates things, but I can still be a huge fan at the same time! Also, there is a very big difference between “insinuating” and “outright contradicting.”

The problem I have is that so many of our “conservative” apologists outright contradict the Magisterium. They say that lust is not grave matter and that we should not be constantly vigilant in the absence of knowing how God will judge, that direct contraception is not a sin when taken outside of marriage, that sexual intercourse with condoms is moral to prevent HIV, that married heterosexuals can do sodomy as “foreplay,” that lying is only lying when someone has the “right to know,” that lustful kisses are not mortal sins, and that a craniotomy abortion is permissible… when a baby’s head is stuck in the birth canal and both the baby and mother will die or you can crush the baby’s head to save the life of a mother… this delima existed in the past… and some “conservatives” say smashing the baby’s head is moral.

See! Conservatives more regularly, directly, and blatantly contradict the Magisterium, while Fr. Martin’s missteps are mostly ambiguities and insinuations (but he has outright errored… “differently ordered” being a massively wrong suggestion).

But the point remains. There is a huge double standard!
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
Also, why is there so much hostility towards Fr. Martin, given all the Truths he dishes out: treating homosexuals with love, compassion, and sensitivity, for example!
Click to expand...
Why so much hostility against the Catholic Church, which welcomes all who seek God? There is no Catholic campaign against people with SSA. What I see is a lot of bashing of the Church (and apologizing by the clergy) for acts it has not taken.
 
Two things can be True at the same time. There are indeed people who bash the Catholic Church. There are also people that needlessly apologize. But if you think there is at all something that the hierarchy messed up on, them by all means, apologize.

There are also organizations that I listen to, that insult people. I dislike those petty insults: “clerical clowns,” “Fr. Martin is chief Pom Pom girl,” and so on.

Let us love our enemies. Let us not judge. Let us flee from sins against charity. Let us give people the benefit of the doubt!
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
The problem I have is that so many of our “conservative” apologists outright contradict the Magisterium. They say that lust is not grave matter and that we should not be constantly vigilant in the absence of knowing how God will judge, that direct contraception is not a sin when taken outside of marriage, that sexual intercourse with condoms is moral to prevent HIV, that married heterosexuals can do sodomy as “foreplay,” that lying is only lying when someone has the “right to know,” that lustful kisses are not mortal sins, and that a craniotomy abortion is permissible… when a baby’s head is stuck in the birth canal and both the baby and mother will die or you can crush the baby’s head to save the life of a mother… this delima existed in the past… and some “conservatives” say smashing the baby’s head is moral.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who you are talking to but I have not once heard a “conservative” Catholic voice a single one of these positions. They are in fact all very liberal positions to hold.

The only position I have heard even remotely close to what you allege is that it is morally permissible to remove the fallopian tube with fertilized egg inside because otherwise it will rupture and kill child and mother 99.9% of the time. But not once have I ever heard any prolife person advocate for “crushing” baby skulls in the birth canal.

So I have no idea what you are on about, claiming that conservatives are more likely to be at odds with the magisterium than liberals.
 
You may disagree, but your position is misguided. Consider that the multitude of followers of Fr. Martin are loudly on record opposing Church teaching in regards to the gay lifestyle and insisting that the Church change its position. Consider also the many ministries or organizations that Fr. Martin supports are also on record clamoring for the Church to change and update her teaching – advocating that the Church positively teach that homosexual acts are morally licit, that the Church should endorse same-sex marriage, etc. Now consider that there is not one individual, out of the multitudes of individuals whom Fr. Martin touches and influences, who has come out claiming that he helped them to better understand the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and that he led them to see the depravity of their homosexual acts, repent of their sin, and leave the gay lifestyle… not one. You would think that at least one individual would say something publicly testifying to the effectiveness of Fr. Martin’s approach. However on the flip side, either through local church ministries or individuals who are faithful and orthodox or through larger ministries faithful to the Magisterium such as Courage, many individuals have come forward in gratitude regarding the Church’s teaching on homosexuality that helped to lead them to understand the truth and wisdom based on scripture and apostolic tradition, testifying to the truth of what many will admit is difficult yet liberating, and leaving behind the gay lifestyle. For all the love and compassion by Fr. Martin, his ministry has been extremely ineffective and an utter failure if the result is merely affirming all to remain in their sin and leading zero to repent and forsake the gay lifestyle.
 
Last edited:
1. Correlation does not equal causation

Even if Fr. Jim was not as effective at getting homosexuals to live chastity, this does not necessarily imply that his messaging is less effective. It could just be that more of the people attracted to seek him out in the first place are “further away” on their journey towards chasity, than people who seek out “courage.”

The same thing could be said about Ross Douthat, from the NYT. He could be wrong about why “conservative” Christian denominations are declining at slower rates than liberal ones. Douthat thinks it’s the conservative tone that is the cause. But perhaps it isn’t the messaging, it is just that the people who are attracted to liberal denominations to begin with are weaker in their Faith. So even if the liberal denominations changed their tone, they would still decline at the same rates.

In exactly the same way, perhaps if Fr. Jim changed his tone, he would be no more effective at helping people live chastity! This is because, given his audience is liberal, it could just be that his average listener is further from living chastity than “conservatives” at courage are!

I am saying it could be the characteristics of his audience more than the “tone.”

2. How do you know Fr. Jim’s record?
If all you’ve watched are his YouTube videos, his twitter feed, then you do not know his personal ministry to homosexuals. For this reason, I think it is very imprudent to make such rash generalizations. You really claim that not one person, not one, has been helped? How do you know all the facts/ how he acts in private?

3. Finally, we must not judge someone by the actions of others
Perhaps you are ministering to prison inmates, should you be judged by their bad actions? No, and so too, Fr. Jim should not be judged by the heresy of others, only his own missteps.

In exactly the same way, conservatives mess up on this over and over again: please study cooperation with evil.

While you can bake a cake for a gay couple, and even attent a gay “wedding” (this may be different case by case), you absolutely cannot officiate at a gay wedding like Joe Biden did. Be frustrated at that!

While you can sometimes vote for a law with abortion on it (Pope Saint JPII said so in Evangelium Vitae), you should likely never be present in the operating room during the abortion procedure.

While you can work at a store that sells condoms, a wife on pain of death cannot cooperate with condomistic intercourse, ever. Period! Because she would be a necessary agent to perform that intrinsically evil act.

See! Conservatives are often protesting entirely moral cooperation! But it should be Catholic morality that determines when we should be upset, not a “conservative subculture, outrage mob.”

For example, be upset about Notre Dame now offering direct contraception on its plan! This directly contradicts the Magisterium, it is formal cooperation with evil. Properly direct your frustrations! Not solely at James Martin, but just as much, or even more to conservatives, who outright contradict the Magisterium. Direct your frustrations to black and white cases like Notre Dame’s new contraception plan!
 
Last edited:
KMC said:
Fr. Longenecker’s position is correct. God doesn’t make people gay, no more than he makes some people serial adulterers.
Click to expand...
Committing adultery is a choice. Being attracted to the same gender is not.
 
See my post, #30 in the thread…Fr. Martin actually is arguing against Church teaching, intentionally or unintentionally.

Regarding your comment “Fr. Martin may honestly not just understand some of the deeper theology behind homosexuality.” He’s writing books and speaking publicly!!! He better know the deeper theology that subject, and given his public persona and standing, he has the moral obligation to do so.
 
angel12 said:
40.png
KMC:
Fr. Longenecker’s position is correct. God doesn’t make people gay, no more than he makes some people serial adulterers.
Click to expand...
Committing adultery is a choice. Being attracted to the same gender is not.
Click to expand...
The urge to commit adultery is not a choice, committing adultery is a choice. Same goes for homosexuality.

The original point still stands: God does not MAKE people gay. The fact that some people have disordered urges is a function of man’s fall.
 
I agree that Fr. Martin could learn moral theology better, but this applies to every single priest! I’ve been told by priests that I should “not worry about lustful thoughts” even though St. Alphonsus says the polar opposite (and I could rant for hours on why modern theologians are wrong about this).

I’ve been told by preists that lust is not grave matter (in contradiction to Jesus’s own words and Cardinal Muller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), that the moral object is dependent on the “circumstances” of the act (a blatant contradiction to Veritatis Splendor), that the Church’s teaching on direct contraception is not infallible (a contradiction to the Vademecum for Confessors).

You could say Fr. Martin has more of an obligation to know theology because he is a public figure, but I still disagree! Because like I said above, Fr. Jim can focus publically on what he is good at: compassion and sensitivity. And he can focus privately on stating Truths at opportune times (in which case his knowledge does not need to be any more than any other priest). His tone of “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” publicly in his books and lectures is something we should thank God for every day!

There is nothing wrong with having different paths to Holiness. We are not all robots.

Finally, I am not so concerned about Fr. Jim’s errors, because they are “insinuations” and “omissions,” since you have to fill in the blanks with things Fr. Jim may or may not have said or implied. I am personally more concerned about “outright contradictions.”

Finally, Fr. Jim’s humility should be an example to all. He says: “I’m not a Theologian.” I love it! Many theologians that contradict the Magisterium often talk like they are experts. They are uncorrectable. So Fr. Jim’s humility in recognizing that he is not an expert is something we could all learn from!

We should never be afraid of saying: “I don’t know.” Or “I’m not an expert.”

So I’ll go first. I’m not a Theologian or expert, so go to the St. Alphonsus and watch his sermons “Delusion of Sinners.”

Go Fr. Jim:)
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
There is nothing wrong with having different paths to Holiness.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the path Fr. Martin is tracing out does not lead to holiness. Coddling people where they are in their sin without admonishing a change of mind and heart accomplishes nothing in regards to leading one to holiness. In fact, if one is made sufficiently comfortable exactly where they are, why would anybody change?
 
Last edited:
True.
And I’ve often wondered why he is reportedly so coy about revealing his own orientation. Is he afraid it might adversely impact his credibility if he does?
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
I agree that Fr. Martin could learn moral theology better, but this applies to every single priest! I’ve been told by priests that I should “not worry about lustful thoughts” even though St. Alphonsus says the polar opposite …
Click to expand...
I’ve never heard any priest say we shouldn’t worry about lustful thoughts. They all say when they occur to not entertain them. Jesus was quite clear about lust (Mt.5:28), thus the teaching is “de Fide” and cannot be changed.
alphonsus1 said:
I’ve been told by preists that lust is not grave matter…
Click to expand...
There is a difference between a sin and the level of culpability associated with the sin
alphonsus1 said:
that the Church’s teaching on direct contraception is not infallible (a contradiction to the Vademecum for Confessors).
Click to expand...
Read Casti Connubii. Pope Pius XI was quite clear about the sinfulness of artificial birth control, and even warned priests "If any confessor or pastor of souls, which may God forbid, lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors or should at least confirm them by approval or by guilty silence, let him be mindful of the fact that he must render a strict account to God, the Supreme Judge, for the betrayal of his sacred trust, and let him take to himself the words of Christ: “They are blind and leaders of the blind: and if the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit.” (CC Para 57)
https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html

One could make the case that a Priests responsibilities as stated by Pius XI are not limited to just the teaching on contraception, but to all of the Church’s teachings.
alphonsus1 said:
You could say Fr. Martin has more of an obligation to know theology because he is a public figure, but I still disagree! Because like I said above, Fr. Jim can focus publically on what he is good at: compassion and sensitivity. And he can focus privately on stating Truths at opportune times (in which case his knowledge does not need to be any more than any other priest). His tone of “respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” publicly in his books and lectures is something we should thank God for every day!
Click to expand...
Fr. Martin has a moral obligation to state the truth. I would reference a quote from Archbishop Charles Chaput: " Truth without compassion wounds and repels; mercy without truth is a comfortable form of lying."


IMHO, the gist of your argument seems to be that we should overlook Fr. Martin’s errors, inconsistencies, positive arguments against Church teaching, etc., because you have encountered OTHER priests who may have made stated error, inconsistencies, positive arguments against Church teaching. Shouldn’t we call out all error, because teaching the truth is part of all of our Christ given mission?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top