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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irenaeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
irenaeus1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
They’re certainly not going to hear such Catholic moral theological truth from him.
 
Here is my analysis of the claims.
  1. Church teaching on homosexuality isn’t ‘authoritative’
This is not a contradiction to the Magisterium, but definitely very troubling, because he seems to be insinuating that the Church’s teaching may not be authoritative (it is 100 percent infallible!) But being as charitable as possible, perhaps he is just ‘postulating’ and doesn’t understand. He should publically correct this statement.
  1. A Catholic attending a same-sex ‘wedding’ is just like a Catholic attending a Jewish wedding.
This is Fr. Martin’s opinion. I disagree. When we judge, should it be based on the “objective level” exluding culpability, or “actual level,” where we predict whether culpability is diminished (but recognize God will be the True judge after we die)? Both Jewish weddings and gay weddings are far from the ideal of a valid Catholic Sacramental wedding. My opinion? I think the fact that the Crime of Sodom is a Sin that Cries out to Heaven for Vengence likely implies, even after accounting for culpability, that gay weddings are worse. However, I do not know how God will judge culpability. Fr. Jim does not need to publically correct this statement.
  1. Same-sex couples should be able to kiss during Mass: ‘What’s the terrible thing?’
This is very bad advice. Not only because the calling of homosexuals, to complete abstinence, is higher than that of heterosexuals, but also because of sins of scandal. Actually, just because a man kisses another man, does not automatically imply sin, unless it is done passionately/lustfully or with scandal. A heterosexual man, for example, kissing a man in a movie scene, is not lustful. However, this is bad advice, because in the US culture, kisses are reserved for dating. And while Fr. Martin’s advice could apply in a culture where everyone kisses everyone as a greeting, does he really want that? A society where kisses replace handshakes? Since homosexuals cannot enter into disordered relationships, kissing is (a) not living chastity, (b) obvious scandal. Fr. Martin should publically correct this statement.
  1. It’s very hard to oppose redefining marriage and not be ‘homophobic’
I don’t know how to interpret this. If he means, “homophobic” as secular liberals say it, then it is 100 percent true. This is because liberals define homophobia to include dislike of sodomy. I agree that it is not prudent to insinuate people loyal to the Magisterium are a derogatory word used by liberals to defame Catholics (“homophobic.”)

What if Fr. Jim means homophobic as in “actually hating gay people.” Once again, I do not know the statistics/ evidence, so it is best to refrain from commenting. There do exist parents that abandon their kids just for being gay. And a surprising number of people oppose “gay marriage” not because they intellectually understand the ordered towards procreation argument, but because of “disgust.” That is not a Catholic principle. Period.

However, my intuition is there are more secular liberals who label faithful, loving Catholics as ‘homophobic,’ than the other way around. Fr. Martin should definitely be more prudent, but he does not need to publicly correct this.
 
Last edited:
I disagree. The preponderance of the evidence is not on the side of Fr. Jim disagreeing with the Church’s teachings “en masse,” because:

(1) I read an amazing America Magazine article where Fr. Jim stated the Church’s teaching with utter precision and clarity. This totally refutes and annihilates your argument. Here is the article that decimates the claim that Fr. Martin does not preach Truth (Go Fr. Jim!): What is the official church teaching on homosexuality? Responding to a commonly asked question | America Magazine

(2) I would need hundreds of hours of his private ministry to make an informed decision about whether he properly emphasizes the Truth privately.

Given we do not have this, why do you keep saying he never talks about the Church’s teaching en masse? Do you personally and extensively know his private ministry (besides a few YouTube clips)? If not, then this is a massively imprudent thing to say.

Like I said, if your argument is based on a sampling of imprudent LifeSite/ online articles, public lectures, and only a handful of YouTube snippets of his private ministry, then I think it is a massively rash judgement. A sampling of Pope Francis’s statements could be made that insinuate he disagrees with the Magisterium as well (he doesn’t). Therefore, we must be very careful we do not have a biased assessment of his ministry.

Finally, Fr. Jim does not have to talk about Church teaching Catechism 2357 in his public ministry, we have plenty of chastity speakers that do that already. It is 100 percent fine for Fr. Jim to emphasize the Truths of Catechism 2358 in his public ministry.

It is fine that Fr. Jim spends his public ministry talking about respect, compassion, and sensitivity! If he corrects some wrong insinuations, I would absolutely love his ministry:)
 
Last edited:
alphonsus1 said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Then perhaps he should refrain from speaking on subjects that he is ignorant on.

If someone asks you “can you tell me how to get from point A to point B?” or “can you help me repair my transmission?” You don’t offer directions to a place you don’t know how to get to and you don’t pretend to know how to repair something that you’ve never been taught to work on.

Like you said if you don’t know the way or don’t know how to do something, there is nothing wrong with admitting so. James Martin on the other hand gladly offers advice, opinion, views, beliefs or simply ambiguous statements and it is only after he gets criticized that he opens his “I’m no expert” umbrella and hides under it.

Then people want to defend him by saying that because he talks about love and mercy, the other statements aren’t that concerning because he means well. Which is like finding out that the person who gave you bad directions had no idea where that place was from the beginning, but it’s okay because at least they pointed to the west and that’s the direction it was to begin with.
 
Last edited:
It would be more precise for him to say, “I don’t understand (or obstinately deny) Catholic moral theology in regard to homosexual activity.”
 
Last edited:
Crusader13 said:
Then perhaps he should refrain from speaking on subjects that he is ignorant on.
Click to expand...
Is he ignorant, or just wrong? Taking the first point from above as an example, Fr. Martin did not say Church teaching on homosexuality was not authoritative. He said authoritative teaching is expected to be receive by the faithful. He says from what he can tell that this has not been received in the LGBT community. Rather than put words in Fr. Martin’s mouth why not simply point out the glaring logic error of equating “the faithful” with “the LGBT community Fr. Martin know.” Even if the Church at large drifts away from the acceptance of Church teaching, the democracy of the dead clearly show that the Church teaching on homosexuality has been receive by the faithful of the Church, which is much broader than those alive in 2019, and much broader than the world of Fr. Martin’s LGBT following.

So did Fr. Martin have some other point? This is why correction really is needed.
 
Last edited:
  1. Fr. Martin does not directly contradict the Magisterium, he insinuates some incorrect statements here and there. But everyone makes mistakes: I do, you do, everyone does. Fr. Martin brings such an essential contribution to pastoral ministry! To throw all that out because of a handful of mistakes in hundreds of hours of speaking is repugnant. Do not let a bad insinuation here and there defame his entire reputation, or his wonderful ministry:)
  2. Do you know how bad of a person you could make me out to look like, if you scoured hundreds of hours of me talking, and attempted to build a profile based on misstatements I made here and there? People do the same thing to defame Pope Francis, trying to make people believe he disagrees with the Magisterium. But in reality, he is very Orthodox! Plain and simple: no one can be perfect speaking off the cuff!
  3. Fr. Martin’s errors are often because he was led on by someone else. Fr. Martin didn’t just recommend to a gay person to kiss during mass out of nowhere. The gay person asked a leading question: “When will the day be that I get to kiss my partner during mass.” And Fr. Martin was too agreeable to say “never.” The jist of what Fr. Jim was trying to say after he said “why not” was: “heterosexuals have a lot of sins on their consciouses, so why should we not welcome homosexuals, even if they are living in sin or are sinners by kissing during mass.” I disagree with his reply, he should publicly correct it, but let us not vilify him.
  4. I disagree with your “direction” analogy. Like I said, whether we preach the hard Truths early, or wait to say them privately, is a prudential decision of the “outcomes.” If you told someone the correct path, and it caused them to be “hurt” (and remain in the wrong path/ far from Truth), and even leave the Church (deviate further from the correct path/ Truth), then saying the Truth would not have been prudent! Take into account time, place, and person.
Also, the Catechism 2358 is an essential part of Church teaching. Fr. Jim is absolutely phenomenal at showing gay people respect, compassion, and sensitivity:)
 
Last edited:
Maxirad said:
Click here to read what the blogger known as Catholic in Brooklyn has had to say about Fr. Paul Kalchik.
Click to expand...
One blogger commenting on another blogger? No thanks. I know enough about Voris and Church Militant to take anyone connected to them with a very large grain of salt.
 
His Facebook posts, like the one just above, make it abundantly clear where he’s leading his fans.
 
TMC said:
Be careful with Church Militant - not a reliable Catholic source.
Click to expand...
The web site published a letter written by a priest. Do you deny that Fr. Kalchik wrote the letter? If not, why does the venue where it is published matter?
 
MikeInVA said:
The web site published a letter written by a priest. Do you deny that Fr. Kalchik wrote the letter? If not, why does the venue where it is published matter?
Click to expand...
Because the venue is not reliable and has a long history of spreading false and misleading information about the Church and fomenting discord. There is a reason that the organization can no longer call itself “Catholic,” as you probably know. I have no problem with people reading their stuff - read whatever you want. Nor do I have a problem with people presenting, reading, or discussing material that agitates for changes in the Church, or that disagree with the Church’s leadership. But readers have a right to know what they are getting. For that reason, Church Militant should not be presented on a Catholic forum as if it contains reliably faithful Catholic material.
 
TMC said:
Because the venue is not reliable and has a long history of spreading false and misleading information about the Church and fomenting discord.
Click to expand...
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but your attempt to discredit CM as a means to refute the article in question is presumptuous. Just because you don’t like CM doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable. When compared to James Martin, they’ve done a far better job of defending the faith and the church as a whole.
 
Crusader13 said:
I don’t want to hijack this thread, but your attempt to discredit CM as a means to refute the article in question is presumptuous. Just because you don’t like CM doesn’t mean they aren’t reliable. When compared to James Martin, they’ve done a far better job of defending the faith and the church as a whole.
Click to expand...
Its not just that I don’t like them. Anyone that knows the history of that organization knows that. But I agree we should not deflect this thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top