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

[pnewton]

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:

I guess this is my own problem with this topic. We want to strike God out of this statement and insert ourselves as judge of the person. One of the benefits of subsidiarity is that the superiors or authority over priests have fuller knowledge of the facts, not just the more sensational stuff that pops up on the internet. No one here knows what Fr. Martin tells people as confessor, or as a pastor to the soul.

 

[irenaeus1]

I guess this is my own problem with this topic. We want to strike God out of this statement and insert ourselves as judge of the person. One of the benefits of subsidiarity is that the superiors or authority over priests have fuller knowledge of the facts, not just the more sensational stuff that pops up on the internet. No one here knows what Fr. Martin tells people as confessor, or as a pastor to the soul.

That’s a silly statement since none of us knows what any priest tells people as confessors. However, what is not true is that no one knows what he teaches as a pastor of souls. Looking forward to the day when a male can kiss his husband at the sign of peace during Mass is plain enough if that were the only thing he said, but of course, this is not the only thing. By the way, heresy is not limited to explicit contradiction of revealed truths. And it wouldn’t hurt to place “The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor” back into Canon Law.

I judge wholeheartedly the idea that Fr. Martin projects heretical thoughts and ideas through skillful manipulation of Bible verses and theology as well as his use of ambiguous language and tacit approval of those who explicitly hold to heretical positions.

 

[pnewton]

That’s a silly statement since none of us knows what any priest tells people as confessors.

Exactly. That is the limitation to the quote above.

"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,

In absence of not knowing a thing, the most favorable interpretation must be given. This is Charity 101. We must no presume to know how Fr. Martin counsels people either as confessor or as spiritual adviser.

By the way, the definition of heresy:

" Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

I do not follow Fr. Martin as much as many others here do, so I might be ignorant on this, but I can not remember reading one time that he ever denied a Catholic dogma.

 

[irenaeus1]

In absence of not knowing a thing, the most favorable interpretation must be given.

But there is no such absence of knowing… his lectures, seminars, etc. are well-known.

" Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

Exactly, and while heresy may be more difficult to prove canonically (but I believe that he projects heretical thoughts and ideas through skillful manipulation), he is at best, if not heretical, pastorally irresponsible. While I usually do not attribute to malice what is better explained by ignorance, I just don’t believe him to be ignorant.

I do not follow Fr. Martin as much as many others here do, so I might be ignorant on this, but I can not remember reading one time that he ever denied a Catholic dogma.

Well, unless you are looking for precise language, he’s not going to give it to you - he’s too smart for that. But one example has already been given in that he does not believe marriage is only between one man and one woman. One cannot believe that and at the same time hope that someday soon a man will be able to kiss his husband at the sign of peace during Mass.

When responding to accusations of heresy, his answer was “I’m not contradicting any revealed truths”… which is why he chooses his words carefully. Of course, the truth according to him can differ from that of the Church because he believes that if a teaching has not been received by the group to which the teaching is directed, then he believes that it is not ‘official’ teaching… thus, creating for himself another loophole.

Fr. Martin also avoids the Courage apostolate (which actually encourages and helps people experiencing same-sex attraction with living chastely). One would wonder why he would not champion them since he spends so much time in this space. However, he is greatly in favor of groups condemned by the Church that advocate for SSM and who demand the Church to accept it.

 

[pnewton]

But there is no such absence of knowing… his lectures, seminars, etc. are well-known.

The quote I was responding to did not pertain to lectures, seminars, etc., but to confession and pastor of souls. That was the context when I said their is an absence of what can be known.

 

[alphonsus1]

I think you can learn from pnewton: no one knows what “Fr. Jim the confessor” says because only God has witnessed it. Give him the benefit of the doubt! Therefore, I implore you to please take the Magisterium seriously (Catechism 2477):

“ of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;”

You are assuming Fr. Martin does not preach Truth. But he could just be doing it privately, and at the opportune time. Failing to give Fr. Martin the benefit of the doubt is the precise definition of rash judgement. Not only that, but you’re likely wrong. I read an article in America Magazine of Fr. Jim stating the Truth on homosexuality with precision. Why ignore the evidence? Go Fr. Martin!

First, I never said that we should not care about Fr. Martin’s omissions, but rather, that we are too hyper focused on each and every one of his tweets, and on his insinuations and omissions, over outright and direct contradictions by conservatives.

Second, no one is perfect. For example, I love Pope Benedict XVI so much, but frankly, his letter on the causes of sex abuse was in deep error (it pains me so much to say that). The liberals are often right about the circumstances of acts (climate change, sex abuse, and so on). But we shouldn’t be overly harsh and critical of every single word out of someone’s mouth: Fr. Jim or Pope Benedict XVI. That is what I mean, conservatives go out of their way to vilify Fr. Jim, ignoring how awesome he is at showing: “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” Please take notes on Fr. Jim’s “tone,” there is so much to learn!

In my words:
‘I am personally more concerned about “outright contradictions.”’

Your translation:
“we should overlook”

No, we should be more concerned about conservatives, who pose the largest risk to the Magisterium. But yes, still correct Fr. Jim when he gives some erroneous advice (gay people kissing are just ‘differently ordered.’). We do not need to “overlook” anything!

 

[alphonsus1]

Fr. Martin has a moral obligation to state the truth

I agree. I never said anything to the contrary. I am saying to state Truth at the opportune time. Also, take into account the place and person!

I said “grave matter” to avoid people replying with: what about “consent and knowledge.” But that is how you replied, so I obviously failed on that front.

I need to offer a reply. God is the only one who judges our consent. In Pope Francis’s words: “who am I to judge.” All a priest can say is “there are factors that can reduce culpability, not that they do reduce culpability.”

The fact remains, we are not entirely devoid of any consent, most of the time. So it is impossible for us to judge whether that consent that did exist was sufficient to be a mortal sin. God will be the judge! And in the absence of knowing how God will judge, no security can be too great when an eternity of torture is at stake. Be constantly vigilant and flee from sin at all times, don’t leave your salvation to a perhaps (this is the hard Truth that needs to be said at the opportune time).

 

[alphonsus1]

Okay, I completely disagree with this advice.

Respect, compassion, and sensitivity is what we are called to do, in the appropriate circumstances, it is not “coddling.” Just because you personally do not like that “tone,” does not imply that others also do not like that “tone.” (I prefer the tone of St. Alphonsus, but I respect that others like Pope Francis’s tone).

Finally, here is your error. You are making the wrong comparison. It is not, will Fr. Martin’s tone be effective (“why change”), but rather, will it be more effective than a “tone” of emphasizing hard Truths too early!

I like the hard Truths tone too, but we need “emotional intelligence!”

How could Fr. Martin’s “tone” work? By making the person feel “welcome,” in which case they may start coming to Church, in which case they may start praying more and experiencing God, in which case they may start appreciating the Truths of the Church more, and then they will be most likely to follow them at this opportune time. So preach the Truth more then. That is my point!

How could your approach fail? You talk too early about chastity when they already do not agree with the Church’s teachings. It then makes them feel like you are “judging” them, and they leave the Church. They stop praying. They do not pass on the Faith to their kids. But as an atheist, they still won’t be living chastity! So what did you accomplish? Only driving them away from the Church, and them still not living chastity!

Preach the Truth, yes, but take into account time, place, and person!

 

[irenaeus1]

The quote I was responding to did not pertain to lectures, seminars, etc., but to confession and pastor of souls. That was the context when I said their is an absence of what can be known.

I know… and being a pastor is not necessarily done in private. Much of his teaching and counsel is publicly known. And as mentioned prior, out of the multitudes of individuals that follow his teachings, one would think that at least one single individual somewhere would have come forth testifying to the effectiveness of Fr. Martin’s ministry in helping to rescue them from the perils of the gay lifestyle or their epiphany that same-sex marriage is a farce or something to the effect of them now being convinced to fully embrace the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

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:

I guess this is my own problem with this topic. We want to strike God out of this statement and insert ourselves as judge of the person. One of the benefits of subsidiarity is that the superiors or authority over priests have fuller knowledge of the facts, not just the more sensational stuff that pops up on the internet. No one here knows what Fr. Martin tells people as confessor, or as a pastor to the soul.

I have never judged Fr. Martin’s soul, his confessional or private statements, only his public statements, as did Fr. Longenecker.

 

[KMC]

irenaeus1:

That’s a silly statement since none of us knows what any priest tells people as confessors.

Exactly. That is the limitation to the quote above.

"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,

In absence of not knowing a thing, the most favorable interpretation must be given. This is Charity 101. We must no presume to know how Fr. Martin counsels people either as confessor or as spiritual adviser.

By the way, the definition of heresy:

" Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same;"

I do not follow Fr. Martin as much as many others here do, so I might be ignorant on this, but I can not remember reading one time that he ever denied a Catholic dogma.

My question to you is simple: Are Fr. Martin’s public statements allowed to be scrutinized or rebutted? If you read my prior post earlier in this thread, I addressed his public statements, as did Fr. Longenecker. Are you claiming that Charity 101 prevents me or Fr. Longenecker or anyone else from publicly commenting on Fr. Martin’s public comments?

Again, I have made no claim to know any of Fr Martin’s private statements, so please don’t assume me of doing so…nor did I use the term “heresy”, which implies “obstinance” (another term I didn’t use).

The context of my quote from Pius XI was simply to show the gravity for a priest to not accurately present the truth.

 

[alphonsus1]

I agree.

This is the entire problem with this whole discussion.

We often agree 95 percent of the time, and only disagree 5 percent of the time, but we overemphasize the disagreement.

It’s the same thing we’ve been doing. We “zero in” on that 5 percent where we disagree.

Yes, correct Fr. Jim, but not at the expense of defaming his reputation! (Because conservatives are not similarly villified). Make it also known all the places that you agree. Show that you’re really largely on the same page! (Like you and me are on morality, but it’s just a small disagreement in “tone.”)

 

[KMC]

Looking forward to the day when a male can kiss his husband at the sign of peace during Mass

So I agree with Fr. Martin that we absolutely need to reach out to our gay brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. I would be in lockstep with Fr. Martin against Christians who seemingly think the sins committed by gay people are somehow worse than sins committed by straight people.

However, Fr. Martin continues to make incorrect public statements. Read the link here:

Loading…

www.lifesitenews.com

While I am not necessarily endorsing the Lifesite commentary, the article does have quotes from Fr. Martin which are charitably very troubling.

If Fr. Martin makes an incorrect public statement, does he not also have the responsibility to correct it publicly?

 

[pnewton]

My question to you is simple: Are Fr. Martin’s public statements allowed to be scrutinized or rebutted?

Sure, but public statements, that is, those public statements circulated on the internet, or not even close to all one says. That is why an argument that “he never says x” cannot be made from absence of internet popularity. This sort of discernment should always be a part of reading the news. There is too much slant, gossip, and outright untruth in the media.

The quote from Pius XI had the explicit context of a pastoral setting, not theological dialogue. It also begs the question of what is accurate presentation of the truth. It is not presentation of the whole of truth, as that only resides in God. It is not humanly possible. It does entail not denying any established doctrine, which I have not heard any one accuse Fr. Martin of, nor seen any example. In the current dialogue within Church, there are sides that are presented that are different attempts at approach truth. Fr. Martin may well be a liberal in the discussions of the Church’s response to the growing phenomena of LGBT-ism (a.k.a. “gay agenda”), but liberal theologian is part of the process of Church development of doctrine.

I see one underlying contributor to how people like Fr. Martin affects others in the cult of personality. Just the fact that he has a large public following of devotees should be a sign something is amiss, but I would say that about numerous priests, bishops and cardinals. We lose out sense of the geographical parish, and diocese, and risk turning into a church split more along ideological lines.

 

[irenaeus1]

So I agree with Fr. Martin that we absolutely need to reach out to our gay brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. I would be in lockstep with Fr. Martin against Christians who seemingly think the sins committed by gay people are somehow worse than sins committed by straight people.

I would agree with this.

 

[irenaeus1]

Because conservatives are not similarly villified

That almost made me laugh…

 

[irenaeus1]

Just because you personally do not like that “tone,” does not imply that others also do not like that “tone.”

Preach the Truth, yes, but take into account time, place, and person!

It’s not about tone per se, but rather content. I can certainly appreciate the difference in tone. JPII was more of a philosopher; Benedict was more like a university professor; Francis is more like a street preacher. I get that tone and styles can be different. But don’t confuse that with content. All three of those popes, despite their differences in tone, when discussing Christian marriage, all taught that marriage is between one man and one woman. Considering that Fr. Martin spends much time in this space, one would think that he could simply utter those same words, but he cannot or will not.

As to Fr. Martin giving people time… that may be where it is apropos when counseling in private as one would treat a person who obstinately rejects the Church’s teaching differently than with someone who has newly encountered Christ and is confused as to why the Church teaches what she does. However, this waiting does not make much sense en masse since this does nothing to address the followers who have been listening to his teachings for a few years, or 5 years, or 10 years now, and are now hardened even more in their affirmed gay-lifestyle because they have never heard anything in regards to turning away from it and repenting.

 

[irenaeus1]

Giving Fr. Martin the benefit of the doubt?.. sure, but which way. His followers certainly give him the benefit of the doubt that he supports their pro-gay agenda. And why not? The preponderance of evidence is on their side that they are correct. And its this evidence that keeps it from being rash judgment.

Let’s try a thought experiment. Suppose that Fr. Martin was invited to churches, organizations, and advocacy groups that promoted polygamy or polyamorous relationships which pushed for the Church to update its teaching regarding marriage. And let us suppose that Fr. Martin always speaks of these groups in glowing terms, and in fact, accuses those who oppose their view point as bigoted, snotty, polyamorous-phobic, etc. After all, love is love, and this is between consenting adults, so who are we to say that this is morally wrong. In addition, when pressed, Fr. Martin refuses to positively state that marriage is only between one man and one woman, so no one can claim an outright contradiction. In fact, Fr. Martin longs for the day when a man or woman can bring their multiple spouses/partners to church for Mass and have their relationships be accepted as compatible with being a follower of Christ. Now… who would give the rational argument that Fr. Martin in reality opposes polygamy and polyamorous relationships and fully embraces the teachings of the Church regarding marriage?

Try the same exercise but substitute adult men that are sexually attracted to young adolescent blonde girls. Or substitute incestuous or bestial relationships in the example above. Hopefully, the optics become clearer to you.

 

[prayerrider]

"When an openly gay man said that he and his partner don’t kiss during the Sign of Peace during Mass, Fr. Martin said he hopes that “in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband.”

Yes, he did say this. This is more than mere dissent.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

His ambiguity is a red flag.