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

  • Thread starter Thread starter irenaeus1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Half the bios on the Advisory Board reflect a connection with Boston College. What a shock! đŸ˜±
 
Last edited:
Weserthy said:
There really is already a de-facto schism in the Church
Click to expand...
I agree and we might not even have to wait for a “Francis II” for it to become official.

I’m so tired of narcissistic agents of secular hedonism like Martin. I wish the schism would just happen already so we could get on with rebuilding a smaller, purified Church.
 
Last edited:
The fact that other priests also treat people with respect, compassion, and sensitivity, does not undermine Fr. Martin’s amazing ministry. Also, most priests emphasize the Truths of the Church as well, but whether it be ‘courage,’ emphasizing chasity, or Fr. Martin, emphasizing respect and compassion, they are all doing amazing work!

From my arguments above, if Fr. Martin’s approach is most optimal for evangelization, then yes, he leads many, many souls to Heaven:)
 
Last edited:
Michael Voris, like Fr. Martin, both emphasize many Truths. However, Michael Voris, perhaps by ignorance, more regularly contradicts the Magisterium. Church Militant calls Fr. Martin derogatory names like “Pom pom girl” and “clerical clowns,” let us never stoop to that level.

Church Militant believes the conspiracy theory that homosexuals in the priesthood cause sexual abuse. They do not understand the causes of homosexual desires either.

Most serious, Church Militant called Pope Francis to resign, which could very well be schism, refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff. Cardinal Muller, perfect of the CDF, says we can never ask a sitting Pope to resign (advising an aging Pope with Parkinson’s disease to resign is another question).

However, reference Church Militant if you are able to sift through truths and falsehoods:) For example, I was on a Church Militant article, and they reprinted a sermon of St. Alphonsus. They also have intelligent articles about the Church Father’s beliefs on whether the number that will be saved is large or small.
 
Last edited:
You note the distinction between “Courage,” who emphasize chastity, and Martin, who never seems to mention it at all. I wonder why that is?
 
Last edited:
Articulating it and believing it with divine and apostolic faith are two different things. There are atheists and Protestants on these forums who can articulate it.
 
Last edited:
Read the Magisterium (Catechism 2478):

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way


However, without knowledge of Fr. Martin’s private ministry, and with (probably) only a sampling of YouTube clips and Lifesite articles which might not even be respesentative of his private ministry, you claim to know Fr. Martin’s heart and beliefs? Even with evidence to the contrary? Let us flee from rash judgment, since all sin is repugnant.
 
Last edited:
You’re obviously in the fan club. Are you a FB and Twitter follower, too? If so, are you really so unaware of what he is teaching?
 
puppson said:
Articulating it and believing it with divine and apostolic faith are two different things.
Click to expand...
You cannot judge his heart. If he articulates his faith and professes his faith, which he has, no one but God can say what he believes, but does not say.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that someone who wants to change Church teaching on homosexuality (“differently ordered”), doesn’t believe the teaching.
I guess I’m just logical that way. :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:
 
Last edited:
Actually that is not logical. The Church’s teaching has changed a lot over the decades. You used the phrase “divine and apostolic faith.” We only have to accept that which has been infallibly defined with that faith. Other teachings we may legitimately disagree with and want to see changed. There are some here that want to see the Church’s teaching on the death penalty today change, for example. That does not mean they lack faith. Only dogma must be believed. There is no evidence that which Fr. Martin wants to see changed would contradict dogma. On the contrary, the changes I have seen are only to the formulations used in homosexual behavior. There is nothing wrong with that. That is even less of a change - a change to how the Church teaches.
 
Ri-iight.
We all know what changing the teaching to “differently ordered” will lead to.
 
Not really. I do not adhere to divination. In any case, it is true, and not contrary to the doctrine or demonstrative of a issue of one’s faith. It takes an inappropriate stretch of judgement to condemn someone for saying something true, just because it is not the same formulation currently ordered. I do not follow, nor am I edified by, Fr. Martin, but this type of approach is rather Pauline.
 
What is true is that the attraction is objectively disordered and the act is intrinsically disordered. The teaching is a seamless whole and comes from God Himself, His prophets and Apostles. What part of it is unclear? The language is very clear.

" The Church’s document, The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons , notes that sexual attraction to persons of the same sex is “ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” The Catechism uses nearly identical language: “Exclusive or predominant sexual attraction towards persons of the same sex 
 is objectively disordered.”
(The Meaning of "Objectively Disordered")

No amount of dissident sophistry changes these truths.
 
Last edited:
puppson said:
What part of it is unclear?
Click to expand...
I never said it was unclear. I have not heard Fr. Martin say it was unclear, or anywhere deny what you said. Your use of the word “dissident” in this case thought is false. The proper relationship between husband and wife is properly ordered. Homosexual relationships are not. Therefore, they are differently ordered. This is also true. You said you were logical. Do you not understand that two things may both be true, supplementary to each other, as long as there is not a contradiction?

From your article:
Chaste men who struggle with same sex attraction have conveyed to me that this choice of words, particularly the technical and precise phrase “objective disorder,” is “offensive,” “hard on the ears” or “disrespectful.” It makes many feel like a diseased outcast. I am sincerely empathetic to this reaction, as I know they face challenges everyday and do so with persistent faith and prayer. I am also sincerely convinced that the negative reaction to the Church’s language is primarily a case of misunderstanding.
Click to expand...
Explaining the use of Church terminology is surely one path to minister to others. However, changing formulation is also legitimate, as the Church did in “outside the Church there is no salvation.” Doctrine is not necessarily changed by saying something a different way.

Again, I have never heard Fr. Martin deny the Church teaching on this. However, I have also never heard it defined dogmatically. But that would be a good question. Has there ever been an infallible declaration on the current formulation that any one here has heard?
 
Last edited:
Sophistry.
Objectively disordered is objectively disordered. The language is specific for a moral theological reason.
If someone doesn’t like the language, tough.
 
Last edited:
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, as long as we keep the part that homosexual acts (sodomy) are “grave depravity.” Then obviously those acts (and any temptation to do that depravity), is, in a loose sense, “differently ordered” and “intrinsically disordered” at the same time. This is since if an act is disordered, it is therefore not ordered the same as an act that is rightly ordered. So compared to married heterosexual sex acts, homosexual sex acts are indeed “differently ordered.”

I would rather have “not properly ordered.” It is written in a kinder and more sensitive way, but still conveys that the acts are disordered.
 
Last edited:
prayerrider said:
Apparently, being homosexual excuses supporting infanticide.
And Fr. Martin’s FB followers lap it all up eagerly.
Click to expand...
This. This is a huge problem right now in our society. We don’t “hear” one another, we’re tribal and petty, (metoo) and divide ourselves up in camps
and the bigger problem is that they’ve become two. R vs D
and low and behold, there are others outside that see the hypocrisy of being a Bible believing Christian and finding no one living the beatitudes today, and the other camp seemingly fighting for them with the wrongful assumption it will speak for every belief they possess, when in reality there are minorities very diverse within their very selves!~

Problematic to say the least when we no longer are listening to one another, we’ve chosen and we cannot be persuaded to even listen, we have a formulated opinion and if it’s opposite of what another has stated, ours is Gospel
and that’s the Truth.

There is a beautiful thread in one of these forums right now where persons of SSA are exposing themselves to one another by way of their hearts. While we’re all arguing, we’re missing it. metoo
 
I suppose that one might say that acts of pedophilia are differenly ordered, or that masturbation is differently ordered, or that fornication is differently ordered. But because they are not properly ordered, they are disordered.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top