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

[MikeInVA]

I remain confused why any Christian would cited the Old Testament over what is explicit in the New Testament.

I’m going through an Old Testament Bible study right now. The priest leading the study has constantly pointed out that when figures in the Old Testament choose to take multiple wives it ends badly for them.

 

[prayerrider]

“So I ask, when and where did Fr. Martin ever say homosexual intercourse was not sinful?”

Hardly the kind of question he’d give a straight answer to. He’s a master of obfuscation.

Does anyone seriously think he’ll be satisfied with only changing the Catechism language on SSA? After stating he hopes to see a man kiss his “husband” during the sign of peace someday? If so, I have some magic beans for sale…

 

[rightness]

Just point him to Matthew 19:13 where Jesus points to Genesis 1-2. Marriage between man and woman is the perfect reflection of God’s being. It’s written all over the Bible. I had encountered a homosexual Anglican online who would use this same method of ignoring everything that is true and selectively quoting, in her mind, certain texts and twists them for her own benefit.

We can only pray for them that God will provide the truth for them because there hearts are completely shut off from the truth that any human can teach through the Bible or otherwise.

As for Father Martin, once he acts upon his heretical belief, I believe he’ll be excommunicated. I can see two examples of excommunication in relation to same-sex unions: a Father Roberto from Brazil and Father Greg Reynolds from Australia.

 

[AlNg]

So I ask, when and where did Fr. Martin ever say homosexual intercourse was not sinful?

Do Roman Catholics generally think it is OK for two men, “husband” and (male) “wife” in a SS marriage, to openly and publicly kiss in a Catholic Church during Mass?

Does anyone seriously think he’ll be satisfied with only changing the Catechism language on SSA? After stating he hopes to see a man kiss his “husband” during the sign of peace someday?

 

[irenaeus1]

This specific issue aside, I’m growing really weary of both priests. I’m starting to wonder if the clergy should be involved with social media at all. Their participation seems to breed cults of personality, which can never be a good thing – in general and in the church.

I see your point, but I personally do not follow someone because of their personality, but rather follow a person based on their beliefs and positions (and how well they may convey and articulate them). The point being, if the names of both priests in this instance were removed or marked as anonymous, my comments of supporting one and rebutting the other would remain unchanged.

 

[pnewton]

So your third point is just made up, assumed, or basically, rash judgement? Or is it based on something more than your conjecture? If you can produce nothing to support it, then it was inappropriate.

One does not have to “think” anything about another person, nor or we obliged to follow any personality or develop opinion about that with which we have such little personal knowledge. The internet may well be the newest, greatest demon of modernity, tempting all of us with the sin of rash judgement, insisting we believe something about everything. This is harmful enough in politics. It is downright sinful when we sit in judgement over others in the Church.

While I cannot produce the video, I heard him say it was a sin to have sex outside of marriage.

Do Roman Catholics generally think it is OK for two men, “husband” and (male) “wife” in a SS marriage, to openly and publicly kiss in a Catholic Church during Mass?

No.

 

[prayerrider]

It is downright sinful when we sit in judgement over others in the Church

I judge the actions: leading a great many Catholics astray on social media.

 

[irenaeus1]

It is downright sinful when we sit in judgement over others in the Church.

I would agree with you to a point. We certainly are not supposed to pre-judge (or rash judgment as you mention) or hypocritically judge. And while we certainly can judge the actions of others while being careful to respect the dignity of the person, we definitely are supposed to judge those inside the Church. We are actually admonished to do so by Jesus and Paul.

 

[prayerrider]

Yep. It’s not “judging the person” to point out that someone is teaching a false gospel, or that said person’s fans have “itching ears.”

 

[KMC]

Fr. Martin’s post WAS troubling.

Breaking it down:

1. “Being gay isn’t a sin” - I agree with him here, and his correction of Rev Graham. Graham should be more precise in his language. Homosexual acts are sinful, homosexual inclination is not. Fr. Longenecker concurs, but does make a valid point that Fr. Martin’s audience probably does equate “being gay” with “living gay”. Here, Fr. Martin needs to be more precise so as to avoid leading people astray.
2. “Its the way God made people” - Nope…strong disagreement here. Fr. Longenecker’s position is correct. God doesn’t make people gay, no more than he makes some people serial adulterers.
3. “And be careful about biblical literalism…” If Fr. Martin was making this point to counter a falsely literal claim where the Church in her authority said God meant to be taken figuratively, then he might have had a good point. However, he says this as a response to “marriage is between a man and a woman.” The Church Fr. Martin represents believes and teaches this…therefore, it seems Fr. Martin is arguing against a teaching of his own Church!

In addition, he brings up stoning people on the Sabbath, which is in the juridical ordinances from Exodus. Why would he bring this up, when if he were to remember his class on Old Testament interpretation that the juridical laws were for a specific group of people (the Israelites) at a specific time in history? (Note: I don’t have my masters in Theology yet, but I am on my way, and just completed a class on OT interpretation). He knows this, but seems to say something anyway in support of countering a valid Church teaching, simply because Rev Graham said it. St. Thomas Aquinas teaches about the tripartite division of the old law and what is still in effect…perhaps Fr. Martin forgot?

Further, he also brings up, and implies, because there were OT figures who had multiple wives, that it must somehow undercut the idea that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman. My OT Interpretation professor provided us a number of hermeneutical principles, one in particular addresses this: “Principle of descriptive rather than prescriptive narratives.” Simply put, just because an OT figure did something, does not mean God endorsed it. Fr. Martin’s Church teaches this…he should have known it. AND, to use it to attack the truth that marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman is misleading to people who do not know better.

His twitter post is quite troubling.

 

[irenaeus1]

Excellent!!! Very well put, KMC.

 

[prayerrider]

This is the guy Fr. Martin has gushed about on his FB page; the guy Fr. Martin supports for president. Apparently, being homosexual excuses supporting infanticide.
And Fr. Martin’s FB followers lap it all up eagerly.

Pete Buttigieg Defends Abortions Up to Birth: It's "a Personal Decision" for Women to Make - LifeNews.com

Just before the release of the Mueller report Thursday, 2020 Democrat candidate Pete Buttigieg made a stop at MSNBC’s Morning Joe to answer some questions. At one point, co-host Willie Geist actually confronted him on his support for late-term abortions, a position that is so radical most...

www.lifenews.com

 

[pnewton]

I judge the actions: leading a great many Catholics astray on social media.

What action? I referred to specifically for judging him for saying homosexual sex is not a sin. This is what I asked. You stated:

1. Since homosexual intercourse is no longer sinful, the Church must formally validate the relationship within which said intercourse occurs.

You provided no answer as to where this was ever said. Of course we can judge actions as sinful, but we can’t just make stuff up and judge someone based on the stuff we make up.

Apparently, being homosexual excuses supporting infanticide.

I couldn’t agree with you more about Mayor Buttigeig, even if I am totally perplexed by your use of the word “gushes” or how you could know so much about the way other people feel.

 

[prayerrider]

I think you misunderstood my post, PNewton. As far as I know, the only change to Church teaching–i.e. the Catechism–that Fr. Martin has publicly advocated is changing the language about same sex attraction to read “differently” ordered, rather than disordered. I believe, however, that if such a change is made, it will logically necessitate changing the language about the act of homosexual intercourse as well. If the orientation is ‘different but equal,’ how can the sexual act still be condemned? It must be ‘different but equal,’ too. And once that teaching is changed, how can the Church refuse to sanction the same sex relationship, thereby “legitimizing” the sexual act, within the confines of that relationship?

I’m simply pointing out the logical sequelae. If I can reason it out surely Fr. Martin has, too.

As far as Fr. Martin’s gushing support for Buttigieg, I think that’s a fair assessment of the former’s recent Facebook post and the effusive praise for Buttigieg expressed therein. Call it a “glowing endorsement” if you prefer.

 

[pnewton]

I think you misunderstood my post, PNewton. As far as I know, the only change to Church teaching–i.e. the Catechism–that Fr. Martin has publicly advocated is changing the language about same sex attraction to read “differently” ordered, rather than disordered. I believe, however, that if such a change is made, it will logically necessitate changing the language about the act of homosexual intercourse as well. If the orientation is ‘different but equal,’ how can the sexual act still be condemned?

If you are to use logic, then there must be a reason that the “but equal” part is added. For example, if I say Buddhism is different than Catholicism, it is not logic to assume that I consider them equal. We have to be careful about adding stuff to what people have said, and then judging them based on our additions. It might be that what we see as logic is not that sound. I simply cannot see the logic of saying that homosexuality is differently ordered to saying that gay stuff is legitimate.

In any case, I think it best to only judge that which a person has actual said and done, apart from our embellishment.

, I think that’s a fair assessment of the former’s recent Facebook post and the effusive praise for Buttigieg expressed therein. Call it a “glowing endorsement” if you prefer.

It is possible you read something I didn’t. I looked back and didn’t see an endorsement. But then, I don’t follow Fr. Martin, nor did I go back too far. You probably know better than I do.

 

[alphonsus1]

I agree with you 100 percent. I couldn’t have said it better, no matter how hard I tried

 

[alphonsus1]

I really dislike all the hypocrisy as many in the Catholic blogosphere pretend to be “defends of the Truth,” while ignoring outright contradictions, but then getting up and arms about “insinuations” and “omissions.” (This does not negate the fact that omissions DO matter).

I personally dislike someone directly contradicting the Magisterium, more than making the wrong prudential decisions on what to say. I do not know what is in his heart, so I will follow the Catechism, and give him the benefit of the doubt. That is what we should all do in ambiguity like this!

Fr. Martin is awesome. We should thank God every day for Fr. Jim showing so much respect, compassion, and sensitivity. So much love!

And just because he is not perfect, why don’t we all take the logs out of our own eyes with all the “wrong” things we accidentally slip on. Let us stop accusing priests, and being harsher on them, in a way that we are not with other conservative apologists.

I’ll start. For all the mistakes I’ve made, I apologize.

 

[KMG]

Would be nice to hear from just one homosexual who said, “I abandoned the gay lifestyle because of the teaching and ministry of Father Martin.”

Father Martin is indeed a master of obfuscation. He knows exactly what he is doing with his near relentless campaign to have the Church normalize sodomitical relations.

 

[KMC]

The truth is important, and I think you agree with that. We all have a role in seeking and defending the truth. While I do wish Fr Longenecker would not have used any ad hominems, he absolutely makes valid points, which Fr. Martin needs to be challenged on.

Its about leading people to Christ and fulfilling the mission of “teaching all that he has commanded” (ct Mt:28:20). If someone, including priests, are not fulfilling that mission, then for their own sake they must be fraternally corrected.

 

[alphonsus1]

I agree. We must correct without “ad hominems.” And criticsm is valid. But the point remains, why are we up in arms about some wrong “insinuations” from liberals, and not about direct contradictions to the Magisterium by conservatives?

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!

Also, why can there not be different paths to Holiness, with different people emphasizing different tones? Everyone should emphasize all the Truths in Catholicism at least to a sufficient degree, but different people can have different tones and show love in different, but equally valid, ways.

While Fr. Martin should look for opportune times to tell homosexuals privately to live in chastity. It is perfectly fine that, that is not the subject of his lectures and books.

I agree we shouldn’t use “differently” ordered. But I think Fr. Martin may honestly just not understand some of the deeper theology behind homosexuality. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, in any case.

He brings a voice of kindness and sensitivity, which you do not see in all priests (and being insensitive is also equally valid in the appropriate circumstances!). That is why I am so thankful for Fr. Jim’s work