Father Martin’s ‘LGBT’ Approach Sparks Concerns Critics say it fails to communicate Catholic truths

[I_trust]

ncregister.com/daily-news/father-martins-lgbt-approach-sparks-concerns

Father Martin’s ‘LGBT’ Approach Sparks Concerns
Critics say it fails to communicate Catholic truths.

Jesuit Father James Martin views himself as a “bridge-builder” between the Church hierarchy and “LGBT” Catholics. But his campaign to bring the two together is drawing sharp criticism from those who see his approach as instead undermining fundamental Church teachings regarding human sexuality…

In a Washington Post review, Eve Tushnet, author of Gay and Catholic, said Father Martin never even hints in his book at the existence of people like herself who are homosexual and “accept celibacy out of obedience” to the Church. Building a Bridge, Tushnet said, ignores the root cause of why “LGBT” people and the Church often are polarized. “The Catholic sexual ethic is this book’s embarrassing secret. It’s never mentioned, and so the difficulties the teaching itself poses for gay Catholics in our future are never addressed.”…

Robert George, McCormick professor of jurisprudence and director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University, said in a June 9 Facebook post that it is clear to him from the RNS interview that Father Martin rejects the Church’s teaching on sexuality and sexual morality, though he attempts to avoid saying so explicitly. “… It seems to me quite dishonest of him to seek to undermine and cast doubt on the Church’s moral teachings while pretending that he is not dissenting from them.”…

And in a June 25 tweet, Father Martin appeared to endorse nationwide “Pride” parades, which advocate for a range of policies the Church opposes and frequently include flagrantly sexual displays. His tweet stated, “To all my LGBT friends: Have a fun #Pride2017 weekend. Have pride (and feel joy) because you’re beloved children of God, made in God’s image.”…

Critics of Building a Bridge, meanwhile, remain concerned that its message will weaken Church teaching. Some also object to Father Martin’s insistence that Catholics with same-sex attraction be called “LGBT,” which he says is the name they prefer. “Part of respect is allowing a group to name itself,” he said.

Two key documents on ministry to homosexual persons from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the USCCB state that because sexual inclinations do not constitute someone’s fundamental identity, those who experience same-sex attraction should not be encouraged to define themselves primarily in such terms. Rather, the documents say, the Church sees everyone as having the same identity as children of God

Fr Z’s take…
wdtprs.com/blog/2017/07/review-fr-gerald-murray-v-jesuit-homosexualist-activist-fr-james-martin/

Father Gerald E. Murray…
Father James Martin Proposes an Alternate Catechism
BOOK REVIEW: The popular Jesuit priest puts forth the notion that the Church has misunderstood God’s plan for human sexuality for her entire history.
ncregister.com/daily-news/father-james-martin-proposes-an-alternate-catechism

 

[EIF5A]

“… It seems to me quite dishonest of him to seek to undermine and cast doubt on the Church’s moral teachings while pretending that he is not dissenting from them.”…

At best, this causes confusion, perhaps to scandal.

 

[Teelynn]

These prelates are very clever in their ‘ambiguity’, and able to twist words and meanings to mean two different things. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’d even go so far as to say in the Church today, there exists a sort of ‘schism’ involving this very subject, (LGBT) and even involving who can and who cannot receive Communion, living in sin no matter what the circumstance. (‘irregular’ marital situations etc) For instance: If you live in Poland and are outside of the Church’s teaching on marriage and sexual morality, you CANNOT receive. All you have to do is cross over to Germany, and wella! You can indeed receive Communion as long as you feel at ‘peace with God’. If this isn’t a schism, I don’t know what is!

 

[millstreet]

We should be receiving LGBT individuals warmly, they are broken. However, if they want to be participating, they need to understand that homosexual sex is a sin, and they need to repent and attempt to amend their lives. And they should expect to hear that message, not have their behavior affirmed. However, we need to recognize that we are all sinners and we struggle, and we typically sin again. So we should not expect LGBT persons to be perfect.

 

[Clevus]

Building bridges presumes the buttresses on either side are deemed sufficient to build on.
If not then we shore them up and make them strong first. St. John of the Cross states that even the temptation needs to be worked on, which implies effective barriers can be built to resist them. We therefore have not established the correct point that the work needs to start at. We work from the sand in the person’s commitment, which we convey is a sufficient starting point, when we need to wait until he by our encouragement digs further to bedrock.

I know of some that have not the slightest inclination or thought of these temptations since they have taken on a life of prayer. Their past life is repugnant to them. These have gone on to marry, have biological children and have normal relations and drives. We need to be cautious not to plant doubt in the promises of the Blessed Mother and the power of the Rosary, and not impede her advancements. If we accept the resignation in these unfortunate brothers and sisters, we cannot expect them to build a long and resistant foundation in their lives.

 

[EIF5A]

As a layperson, I really, really don’t know how to respond when the clergy does these sorts of things.

Aren’t spiritual superiors supposed to correct errors…?

 

[randomuser]

“Some also object to Father Martin’s insistence that Catholics with same-sex attraction be called “LGBT.”

What I object to is the insistence that “SSA” be interjected into any discussion of LGBT, as though the very word used in the Catechism - homosexuality - is somehow so uncomfortable to use, and we can’t use the word “gay” because that inexplicably means we’re celebrating the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means.) What about celibate/chaste gay and lesbians? What sin are celibate/chaste gays and lesbians committing if they’re not actually engaged in any sinful behavior?

 

[randomuser]

[ “those who experience same-sex attraction” ]( “those who experience same-sex attraction” )

^^ this

“Those who experience same-sex attraction” – wordy and confusing term when we already have two clear, easy-to-understand words for “those who experience same-sex attraction” – namely, gay and homosexual. If “homosexuality” is good enough for the Catechism, why isn’t that good enough to use for everyone? I’m glad Fr. Martin isn’t kowtowing to the “SSA” bandwagon that would re-define already-defined words.

 

[millstreet]

What sin are celibate/chaste gays and lesbians committing if they’re not actually engaged in any sinful behavior?

Good question, although perhaps they are not avoiding near occasions of sin. Which in itself isn’t a mortal sin, but it isn’t good. However, we should embrace homosexual people who are living a chaste lifestyle and do all we can to support them.

 

[millstreet]

^^ this

“Those who experience same-sex attraction” – wordy and confusing term when we already have two clear, easy-to-understand words for “those who experience same-sex attraction” – namely, gay and homosexual. If “homosexuality” is good enough for the Catechism, why isn’t that good enough to use for everyone? I’m glad Fr. Martin isn’t kowtowing to the “SSA” bandwagon that would re-define already-defined words.

The point of using the term SSA in lieu of “homosexual” is that the former refers to a feeling and/or behavior, while the latter suggests an inherent identity. SSA, while possibly a little b it cumbersome, is the more accurate term IMO.

 

[EIF5A]

^^ this

“Those who experience same-sex attraction” – wordy and confusing term when we already have two clear, easy-to-understand words for “those who experience same-sex attraction” – namely, gay and homosexual. If “homosexuality” is good enough for the Catechism, why isn’t that good enough to use for everyone? I’m glad Fr. Martin isn’t kowtowing to the “SSA” bandwagon that would re-define already-defined words.

Is it any worse than presenting a faith that’s wishy-washy and incoherent?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What I object to is the insistence that “SSA” be interjected into any discussion of LGBT, as though the very word used in the Catechism - homosexuality - is somehow so uncomfortable to use, and we can’t use the word “gay” because that inexplicably means we’re celebrating the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means.) What about celibate/chaste gay and lesbians? What sin are celibate/chaste gays and lesbians committing if they’re not actually engaged in any sinful behavior?

I agree. The last thing the world needs is another term.

Also, the “gay lifestyle” for a lot of gay people is one partner, a kid and a dog. Basically the same as the “straight lifestyle” except with a same sex partner. That’s another term that needs to go IMHO.

 

[Wesrock]

I feel like I hear a lot of wishy-washy langiage, but SSA seems like a perfectly clear and precisely defined term.

 

[exnihilo]

SSA is a good term. ‘Near occasion of sin’ may be wordy too but it also is a good term.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

At best, this causes confusion, perhaps to scandal.

Causing confusion.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What I find most intriguing is how Eve Tushnet has also raised concerns about Father Martin, even though she would certainly disagree with the idea Father Murray puts forth that “Everyone is heterosexual by nature. Some heterosexuals have a problem with homosexual attraction.”

He also states “Father Martin writes about Catholic homosexuals who embrace the “gay identity.” He ignores completely those Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and do not positively embrace this as their identity.”

Here he seems to fall into the same trap Father Martin himself does; assuming anyone who has a “gay identity” finds it acceptable to express that identity through sex acts, and hence is at odds with Church teaching.

Tushnet certainly DOES embrace a lesbian identity, yet she does not stray from Church teaching regarding the sinfulness of same-sex genital activity. Many of her colleagues on Spiritual Friendship have the same approach. Yet the idea that someone can identify as gay yet accept Church teaching on not having gay sex, seems to be incomprensible for, apparently, at least 90% of the people who debate it.

Not that Tushnet’s quote is free from nit-picking, either. She uses the word “celibate” to mean “abstinent from sinful sex”, not “unmarried”. And some of her past comments on SF make me think “the only reason she doesn’t have sex with women is because she assents to Church teaching out of a spirit of obedience, not because she fully understands and embraces it personally”.

However, to be fair, I don’t get that vibe from most of the others on the Spiritual Friendship blog, though many are not Catholic and so the idea of “obedience to Church teaching” doesn’t even factor into their assessments.

 

[JimG]

What I object to is the insistence that “SSA” be interjected into any discussion of LGBT, as though the very word used in the Catechism - homosexuality - is somehow so uncomfortable to use, and we can’t use the word “gay” because that inexplicably means we’re celebrating the “gay lifestyle” (whatever that means.) What about celibate/chaste gay and lesbians? What sin are celibate/chaste gays and lesbians committing if they’re not actually engaged in any sinful behavior?

It is this that Eve Tushnet objects to with respect to Fr. Martin’s book:

“In a Washington Post review, Eve Tushnet, author of Gay and Catholic, said Father Martin never even hints in his book at the existence of people like herself who are homosexual and “accept celibacy out of obedience” to the Church.”

He simply avoids the issue of actual Catholic teaching. How can you build a bridge without knowing what you are building a bridge to?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

What I find most intriguing is how Eve Tushnet has also raised concerns about Father Martin, even though she would certainly disagree with the idea Father Murray puts forth that “Everyone is heterosexual by nature. Some heterosexuals have a problem with homosexual attraction.”

He also states “Father Martin writes about Catholic homosexuals who embrace the “gay identity.” He ignores completely those Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and do not positively embrace this as their identity.”

Here he seems to fall into the same trap Father Martin himself does; assuming anyone who has a “gay identity” finds it acceptable to express that identity through sex acts. Of course, he sees that at odds with Church teaching, while Father Martin apparently doesn’t.

Tushnet certainly DOES embrace a lesbian identity, yet she does not stray from Church teaching regarding the sinfulness of same-sex genital activity. Many of her colleagues on Spiritual Friendship have the same approach. Yet the idea that someone can identify as gay yet accept Church teaching on not having gay sex, seems to be incomprehensible for, apparently, at least 90% of the people who debate it.

Not that Tushnet’s quote is free from nit-picking, either. She uses the word “celibate” to mean “abstinent from sinful sex”, not “unmarried”. And some of her past comments on SF make me think “the only reason she doesn’t have sex with women is because she assents to Church teaching out of a spirit of obedience, not because she fully understands and embraces it personally”.

However, to be fair, I don’t get that vibe from most of the others on the Spiritual Friendship blog, though many are not Catholic and so the idea of “obedience to Church teaching” doesn’t even factor into their assessments.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

He simply avoids the issue of actual Catholic teaching. How can you build a bridge without knowing what you are building a bridge to?

Well, to be fair “actual Church teaching” can be confusing. Although, the sinfulness of actually having sex outside of marriage including with the same sex, and the idea that same sex marriage is an oxymoron, is fairly clear.

But is it a sin to identify as a homosexual, or not? The US literature from the “traditional” or “conservative” Catholic angle, strongly implies that it is at least a near occasion of sin to do so, and that there is no such thing as a homosexual or even a bisexual, merely heterosexuals with SSA, as Father Murray states. If so, then to even identify as “LGBT” is to diverge from Church teaching, and that at best such an identity is imprudent.

Yet the words used by the Pope himself and even the Catechism seem to suggest it is perfectly fine to identify as “homosexual” or “gay”.

 

[Joe_5859]

As a layperson, I really, really don’t know how to respond when the clergy does these sorts of things.

Aren’t spiritual superiors supposed to correct errors…?

The issue is that, with books like this, the problems are more often what is not said rather than what is said. So one might not find errors per se. But what is left out is what leads to error.

It has always struck me as more than a little disingenuous when theologians do this. They avoid explicitly stating certain opinions because they know they are at odds with Church teaching. But then they lay out a case of unobjectionable assertions than only paint part of the picture in order to undermine the teachings they don’t accept. They leave it to others to draw those conclusions, and they tend not to correct them when they inevitably conclude something that is opposed to Catholic teaching.