Fr. James Martin’s Top Five Takeaways from ‘Gaudete et Exsultate’

  • Thread starter Thread starter 1Lord1Faith
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well we don’t know do we…could be…perhaps not.

If is one of those probabilistic words yes?

some are now offending by the word IF.
 
Last edited:
Probabilistic, meaning tending to show probability. In other words, you are saying he is probably a homosexual, even though you have no idea whether or not he is. That is what is offensive.
 
Keep tap dancing around what you said.

You accused Fr Martin of using weasel words which a derogatory statement toward him.

Jim
 
I said using the expression isn’t an attack, it’s a criticism of his pattern of writing.

Criticism isn’t an attack.

A grammarian can circle a set of words and write in the margin “weasel words” and that’s not an attack; it’s a rational observation, a criticism.

Enough of the drama and springloaded “taking offense”.

do some homework and look up the use of the expression “weasel words”.

Then look up pictures of Pearl Harbor, and do the hard “contemplative” work of comparison.
 
Last edited:
When you accuse a person of using “weasel words,” you in fact calling that person a weasel, which is offensive.

Perhaps you’re not an American, for in the USA, calling a person a weasel is offensive and in some circles, could get yourself decked.

Jim
 
I said he slid in “weasel words”.

That’s very different than calling him a weasel.

How wonderful it would be if some people calmed down and read and “contemplated” more deeply the actual words.

for supposed contemplative souls, there’s not a lot of contemplation, just vibrating off the table.

peace, calm, breathing, reflecting, putting the intellect at the service of the will, not the emotions.

What a good thing that would be for some contemplative souls.
 
Holiness means just being yourself?! Like subjective morality? Well it is Father James Martin…
 
Unfortunately, I see religious leaders from other faiths (mainly Episcopal) quote Fr. Martin frequently. They use his quotes to say that they Catholic Church should accept same sex unions and point out how “oppressive and backwards” we are. If he knows this, he should reconsider some of the things he says and follow Catholic doctrine.
 
I’m not sure why people are offended by the possibility of Father James Martin being homosexual.
 
Why on Earth would you think someone finding someone else to perhaps have homosexual interests offensive?
 
I have read Fr Martin’s book, “Building the Bridge,” and ne never states that the Church should accept homosexual unions.

His focus is that homosexuals and homosexual unions are real and not going anywhere. So, how we communicate with each other is important.

He dedicates an entire chapter on respect and criticizes the LGBT communities for showing disrespect toward the leaders of the Catholic Church.

Jim
 
Holiness most definitely doesn’t mean just being yourself.

The pope didn’t write this.

Holiness means being ipse Christus, alter Christus, Christ Himself, another Christ.

Loving with the very heart of Christ.

Loving the will of God so well, that we look like Christ to the Father.

An inclined plane, becoming ever more - each day and each hour - more like Christ.

That’s a far cry from Martin’s pop psych…“I’m Ok, you’re OK”.

I can see why Martin has a following of a certain type, lazy Christians with high but unwarranted self esteem.
 
Last edited:
From GAUDETE ET EXSULTATE
MORE ALIVE, MORE HUMAN
Click to expand...
  1. Do not be afraid of holiness. It will take away none of your energy, vitality or joy. On the
    contrary, you will become what the Father had in mind when he created you, and you will be
    faithful to your deepest self.
Click to expand...
As I stated earlier in this thread.

Detach from the ego-driven false self that we create and become the person God had in mind when he created you, which is being yourself as God intended.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Well the writing is fine such as it is, even with its vagueness and the pop psych phrases. I can see why it attracts some.

But take the point a bit deeper…how does one know what one’s “deepest self” is?

The Catholic approach would be comprehensive, and it would go FAR beyond one’s feelings.

The Catholic approach would use
  • Scripture
  • Natural Law
  • Biology
  • Genetics (x,y)
  • Prayer
  • Spiritual direction
  • frequent and good use of the Sacraments, clearing away sin that can cloud the intellect and dull the will
  • Intellect, rationality
  • the movable will
all converging on a consistent, best fit truth.

but the drive by readers, fueled by self-esteem parse that sentence far more superficially, leading to what feels comfortable!
 
Last edited:
JimR-OCDS said:
When you accuse a person of using “weasel words,” you in fact calling that person a weasel, which is offensive.

Perhaps you’re not an American, for in the USA, calling a person a weasel is offensive and in some circles, could get yourself decked.

Jim
Click to expand...
No.

You should research what weasel words actually are before making such a comment. It’s an indictment on the writing, not name-calling a person.
 
Accusing a person of using “Weasel Words,” implies that they are hiding the true meaning behind what was said. In this case, the accusation is made against Fr Marin in his words about Pope Francis Gaudete et Exultate.

It’s a false accusation and a insult toward a priest, Fr Martin.

Just because you don’t like a person, doesn’t mean you can make accusations about them that are insulting.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Accusing a person of using “Weasel Words,” implies that they are hiding the true meaning behind what was said. In this case, the accusation is made against Fr Marin in his words about Pope Francis Gaudete et Exultate.

It’s a false accusation and a insult toward a priest, Fr Martin.

Just because you don’t like a person, doesn’t mean you can make accusations about them that are insulting.

Jim
Click to expand...
You’re still not getting it. That is not what “weasel words” are. Weasel words are phrases that provide nonexistent or very weak support for a premise or conclusion, even if the premise or conclusion is completely correct.

Either a writer is using weasel words or isn’t. Whether or not Fr. Martin is using them is another question entirely. But what I’m attacking is your premise, such that: a writer using weasel words is calling the writer a weasel. That is wrong.

The use of “weasel words” is a particular fault in writing style; it is not an insult to the person writing. “Weasel words” is a technical writing term. That is the kind of thing an editor will call out a writer on. They will get someone into trouble with one’s editor or defense panel, especially when writing journalistic or academic articles. If someone says Fr. Martin or anyone is using weasel words, that just means his writing is shoddy, regardless of what he’s trying to say. It does not mean the writer is a monster. Especially in first drafts, weasel words are one of the easiest writing mistakes to make.

If Edward said Fr. Martin used weasel words, that is just a critique on the article’s writing itself. If it’s true, then Edward can demonstrate, but it’s no insult to Fr. Martin. If it’s false, then Edward would simply have to retract it. But either way, in neither case does it constitute an accusation on Fr. Martin himself, which is now what you’re trying to allege.

So again, research what “weasel words” really mean before spinning it into something that isn’t true.
 
From the Merriam Dictionary
Definition of weasel word
: a word used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position
Click to expand...
When accusing another person of using “weasel words,” the above definition says it’s an attack on the person’s credibility in what they wrote. They’re accused of evading truth.

No matter how you try to spin it, it’s an attack.

Jim
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top