Fr. James Martin: ‘People take the Bible…out of context’ on homosexuality

[phil19034]

Martin needs defrocked. At the very least he’s knowingly making statements that can be misinterpreted. At worst he’s intentionally using his position to further the LGBTQ agenda.

The problem is he’s a Jesuit, not a diocesan priest. So no bishop can easily shut him up. The best a bishop can do is prohibit him from speaking at parish and diocesan events.

It’s really a shame, because he’s leading people to sin and confusion.

On the other hand, Father Michael Schmitz handles SSA in the most beautiful and charitable way.

 

[Luke6_37]

I’m having difficulty understanding your position on this. Are you saying that the issue of homosexual unions, whether marriage or not, are taken out of context? Much like Fr. Martin is saying? Or are you saying that the Church (more specifically the Catholic Church) has taken an overzealous approach to combating this issue? Or even a third position would be to say that, certain members of the laity, are the ones taking an undeserved stance on the issue of homosexuality?

So from your point of view, do you believe that Christianity as whole, has taken the issue of homosexual unions out of context? More specifically, do you feel that the issue of homosexuality was never taught to be sinful and in fact should be allowed and recognized by the church?

I haven’t said anything about homosexual unions. This discussion has centered primarily on two things: homosexual acts and gay people.

If anything, I think the Church should take a balanced approach to sexual sin and not single out a particular type as especially egregious, because I do not think that is what Jesus would do.

 

[Luke6_37]

JanSobieskiIII:

Martin needs defrocked. At the very least he’s knowingly making statements that can be misinterpreted. At worst he’s intentionally using his position to further the LGBTQ agenda.

The problem is he’s a Jesuit, not a diocesan priest. So no bishop can easily shut him up. The best a bishop can do is prohibit him from speaking at parish and diocesan events.

It’s really a shame, because he’s leading people to sin and confusion.

On the other hand, Father Michael Schmitz handles SSA in the most beautiful and charitable way.

Father Martin answers to his superiors.

John Courtney Murray, SJ, was silenced for several years - prohibited to write and make speeches, for his efforts to reform Church doctrine on Religious Liberty - a doctrine that went back to the time of Constantine. Then Vatican II happened and he was called upon to write the first draft of Dignitatis Humanae - its basic argument is still his.

 

[JanSobieskiIII]

The Pope certainly can do something though right?

 

[Crusader13]

I haven’t said anything about homosexual unions. This discussion has centered primarily on two things: homosexual acts and gay people.

If anything, I think the Church should take a balanced approach to sexual sin and not single out a particular type as especially egregious, because I do not think that is what Jesus would do.

I believe I understand the point you’re trying to make. However, I feel the Church needed to deal with the issue as it was presented. By that I mean, the issue of homosexual acts and gay people has taken center stage in the area of acceptance and equality. What once started as a push for fair and equal treatment, has now morphed into pushing a particular belief onto another and there’s no bigger target than the Catholic Church.

I believe many non/anti Christians wrongly perceive Christianity as the biggest oppressor of those in the LGBT community. So much so in fact, that they try to use scripture against the church and fly it under the flag of “what would Jesus do?”

Sadly many homosexual priests have taken up this fight and whether they openly admit it or not, they are trying to portray the church as being in “error” about its stance against homosexuality.

I don’t believe it’s about a measured or balanced approach. I believe those who are pushing LGBT views and beliefs have used used marriage as a jumping off point to change society’s views on homosexuality. There are attacks on multiple fronts, even from within the Church. I believe the reason you see such a concerted effort to combat these beliefs is because those in the LGBT community have been so relentless in their effort to change Christian teaching on this matter.

Im sure if there were millions of “adulterers” who banded together to change society’s teachings on marriage and how adultery wasn’t really condemned by Jesus, you’d probably see the Church combating that just as fiercely.

 

[KMG]

It’s all about creeping incrementalism. There is beyond doubt a campaign on the part of some to legitimize sodomitical unions.

What I never hear from Father Martin is a clear, unqualified defense of what the Catechism very clearly states about homosexual acts. Instead there is always an emphasis on how “judgmental” some people are about the practice of homosexuality.

 

[DustThouArt]

We all will face death and judgement. 4 last things. There are going to be some unfortunate souls who will be greatly shocked to find that they were lied to and fed false theology by some who were ordained and carried the responsibility of saving souls and correcting errors. Pray that all of our Priests and Bishops will live up to their calling.

 

[Ender]

I think a large part of what is at issue for Father Martin and Bishop Barron is the language the Church has used in the past to characterize homosexual acts and by extension LGBTQ people. I think both men agreed that it gets in the way of the Gospel message.

Father Martin is suggesting a great deal more than opposition to the language used to describe homosexual behavior; he is suggesting the language is too harsh because (at best) the behavior is not that sinful, or (at worst) it is not a sin at all.

He is suggesting the church misunderstands Scripture, that he, unlike the 2000 years of clergy, Doctors, and Fathers before him, is the one who best understands its meaning, and that its meaning is other than what the church has always believed it to be.

There are worse things people can do that are not described in the CCC as “acts of grave depravity” or “intrinsically disordered” even though they are both.

The catechism says that this is Scripture’s description. Should the catechism change what Scripture has presented?

 

[Luke6_37]

Im sure if there were millions of “adulterers” who banded together to change society’s teachings on marriage and how adultery wasn’t really condemned by Jesus, you’d probably see the Church combating that just as fiercely.

I think the ship has sailed on the social acceptance of adulterers. If a serial adulterer can be elected president of the United States with the support of conservative Christians - especially Evangelicals, then social norms have truly changed. If the Church is ready to launch a crusade against that, you can count me in!

I don’t believe it’s about a measured or balanced approach. I believe those who are pushing LGBT views and beliefs have used used marriage as a jumping off point to change society’s views on homosexuality. There are attacks on multiple fronts, even from within the Church. I believe the reason you see such a concerted effort to combat these beliefs is because those in the LGBT community have been so relentless in their effort to change Christian teaching on this matter.

I think the legal recognition of same sex marriage is a symptom, not the cause, of changes in how society views LGBTQ people and their relationships. In any event, nothing LGBTQ people do or advocate should have any impact on what I meant by the CHURCH taking balanced approach with regard to sexual sins. Today, the Church is quite vocal on its condemnation of homosexuality and contraception, moderately vocal against pornography, not very vocal against fornication, and hardly makes a peep about masturbation.

I believe this discrepancy is indicative of a deep-seated bias that I do not think is right. The way I see it, every time the church is called to defend its teachings on a particular sexual sin, it should be taken as an opportunity to teach people about chastity. That means every time a priest or bishop or lay person is asked to defend church teaching on homosexual acts, it should be taken as a opportunity to explain how each of us is created for love and how fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, contraception, pornography all undermine God’s beautiful plan for us. That way, everybody learns and nobody feels singled out.

 

[Luke6_37]

Father Martin is suggesting a great deal more than opposition to the language used to describe homosexual behavior; he is suggesting the language is too harsh because (at best) the behavior is not that sinful, or (at worst) it is not a sin at all.

He is suggesting the church misunderstands Scripture, that he, unlike the 2000 years of clergy, Doctors, and Fathers before him, is the one who best understands its meaning, and that its meaning is other than what the church has always believed it to be.

The reason why the scriptural basis for the Church’s understanding of homosexual acts is being called into question is because current doctrine is based on Natural Law theory, which is essentially a philosophy adopted from the pagan world. It was first introduced by Augustine writing around 400 AD, and reached its zenith in the writings of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. Both men were great theologians who was well versed in many different philosophical and theological traditions, but neither read Greek or had much understanding of what it meant to be a first century Jew.

The fact that it has pagan roots does not make Natural Law theory bad or wrong, it just means that most modern Biblical scholars do not see it as a valid method for interpreting scripture written by ancient Jews (Old Testament) or Jewish followers of Christ in first century (New Testament). Today, scholars and theologians first study the ancient context and culture and then try to understand the meaning of the text from within that world view, rather than one that is alien to it. N.T. Wright used this method to produce his new perspective on Jesus and Paul, and Bishop Barron often cites his work.

I do know that our understanding of the ancient culture that produced these texts is better now than it was at any time in the past. However, I do not have the expertise to evaluate any new perspectives that may emerge from this method of examining the meaning of ancient Hebrew and Greek verses or words that are translated into English as referring to homosexual behavior. I have no idea whether modern scholars are on the right track or wrong track. That is for theologians to hash out and ultimately for the Magisterium to decide.

 

[KMG]

Augustine knew Greek extremely well, like every highly educated Roman of his day.

 

[Luke6_37]

Augustine knew Greek extremely well, like every highly educated Roman of his day.

Google Augustine read Greek and you will see that he always struggled with it and never mastered the language. I believe he admits this in the Confessions.

 

[KMG]

He never wrote in it (like other educated Romans occasionally did), and he never was fluent in speaking it…but he knew it extremely well, in terms of reading ability. Fact remains, he wasn’t ignorant about the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts because he couldn’t read the New Testament in Greek.

 

[Luke6_37]

Fact remains, [Augustine] wasn’t ignorant about the intrinsic evil of homosexual acts because he couldn’t read the New Testament in Greek.

This debate over Augustine’s mastery of Greek would matter if the issue was Predestination or Grace, but I don’t think it matters here, because it seems he didn’t have much to say about homosexual acts. The article from CAF has only one short quote from him (Confessions 3:8:15)

I brought him up because he was influential in introducing Natural Law philosophy into Christian moral theology. Since such a philosophy was alien to the writers of Leviticus, then it is not valid to apply it to that text. To understand the basis of the moral categories held by the ancient Israelities (e.g., “clean” and “unclean”) you need to apply their frame of reference.

Even Jesus takes issue with the way the Pharisees of his day failed to remain faithful to the original spirit of the law. Read all of Mark 7 - the entire chapter is about how easy it is to fall into the error of replacing the actual meaning of a moral distinction like “clean & unclean” with a meaning derived from tradition.

Note too, that immediately after this exchange with the Pharisees, Mark reports that Jesus catches himself nearly falling into that same error in his exchange with the Syrophoenician Woman. This is the human Jesus that I love. The person I can be like. The person who listens and reflects on everything through the lens of God’s great love for every single one of his children, whomever they may be. This is also the passage Fr. Martin refers to in his Tweet posted above.

In the third story in this chapter, Mark then reinforces once more that this same Jesus is also truly divine. One person - fully human, fully divine.

Lots of good quotes from tradition in the article from CAF, but overall this method of proof-texting is not considered good exegesis. Even so, as you read some of the examples provided - which I assume are the best they can find, you get a sense that some are deeply colored by misogyny (the shame comes from acting like a woman) or are really addressing a general ethos of hedonism that does not exist in long term, monogamous and stable same sex relationships.

What the Early Church Believed: Homosexuality

The Catholic Church has always condemned homosexual acts because they are contrary to the natural law. Here are the early Church Fathers in their own words.

www.catholic.com

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Once again, Lifesitenews tells us what Fr Martin said, but notice they don’t quote his words.

Even when they do quote people, it’s usually out of context from what the person is actually saying.

It’s not a good place for Catholics to obtain information about the Church. It’s just a little less worse than The Church Militant site.

Jim

 

[billy15]

You’re welcome. And yes, as I have family members who have bought into the lie that this particular sexual sin is a moral good (or at the very least, not sinful or wrong), this issue does concern me because I hope for the salvation of all my family and friends. I hope you will join me in praying for them. Because of people like Fr. Martin who are leading Catholics and non-Catholics alike astray with faulty exegesis (and not only on the homosexual front, as evidenced by his tweets over the last few years on the Syrophoenician woman) and erroneous theology, I feel it is necessary that I do everything I can (in my very limited reach) to show people the truth in love, as we are called to do: to “love one another”. Perhaps Fr. Martin’s heart is in the right place, in that he wants all people to respect and love those people who experience same-sex attraction, but I’d like to respond to your comments here, and a few of others, as these comments and feelings show how far the errors that Fr. Martin has voiced have spread.

First, look at the other thread in this forum, where even Catholic parents at a Catholic school apparently see nothing wrong with the state sanctioned same-sex marriage of a teacher. They feel she should do as she pleases, yet they are up in arms when the school fires said teacher as they try to uphold the faith and morals of the Catholic Church. The school has every right, even the duty, to do this action. The disconnect here is wide, and it is clear why it seems so many people in the Church are focused on this homosexual issue: because a lot of people are confused about it and it has continually been in the public’s eye for over a decade.

It’s like how people claim the Church always talks about sex and how this great gift is abused. That’s not the case at all. Our modern culture has placed sex on a pedestal. It is the culture that has made sex hyper-relevant in the last 50-60 years. The same is true with the state sanctioned same-sex marriage debate. The culture wants to keep talking about it. The Church has to push back and say, “this is not good for you”, just as it needs to push back against polygamy, polyamory, adultery, divorce, masturbation, etc. But these things are not dominating the cultural milieu right now. This push to recognize sexual acts between homosexual persons (in a monogamous relationship or otherwise) as a moral good IS dominating, and this is why the Church is seen as being “too vocal” right now by those both inside and outside the Church. This perception is just as wrongheaded and incorrect as claiming that the Catholic Church is “obsessed with sex”

Second, I’d like to briefly address Fr. Martin’s exegesis on the Samaritan woman, as it is a great case of eisegesis, just as his interpretation of the Levitical Law is nothing more than eisegesis.

We have to realize that in this passage, as all Christians have up until the 20th century, Jesus is teaching us through this woman. Jesus did not nearly fall into the same error that the Pharisees did. St. John Chrysostom gives an orthodox interpretationin his Homily 52 on St. Matthew’s Gospel.

 

[billy15]

Lots of good quotes from tradition in the article from CAF, but overall this method of proof-texting is not considered good exegesis. Even so, as you read some of the examples provided - which I assume are the best they can find, you get a sense that some are deeply colored by misogyny (the shame comes from acting like a woman) or are really addressing a general ethos of hedonism that does not exist in long term, monogamous and stable same sex relationships.

Third, I’m not entirely sure why you feel that some of the examples in the CA tract on homosexuality are “colored by misogyny”. Effeminacy is only mentioned in three of those examples, and perhaps with only a surface reading (and a 21st century lens) one might think the authors are being misogynistic. But that’s not actually the case. Dr. Mary Healy, professor of Scripture at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit, uncovers the actual meaning of the word that is often translated as “effeminate” beyond a surface level reading in her book “Scripture, Mercy, and Homosexuality”:

Two terms refer explicitly to homosexual conduct. Malakos is literally “soft, delicate”, but in ancient Greek was used for men or boys who played the passive role in homosexual acts. The translation “boy prostitutes” (for example, in the NAB) inordinately narrows the meaning… The translation “effeminate” is also inaccurate, since Paul [in 1 Corinthians] is not speaking of a personality characteristic but of sinful acts." (p. 65)

Clement, Novatian and Cyprian are not simply referring to men who display some feminine characteristics; they are specifically talking about men who take on the passive role in a sexual encounter between two males.

Fourth, the examples of Church Fathers provided do not actually and only “address a general ethos of hedonism that does not exist in long term, monogamous and stable same sex relationships.” They are clearly addressing all sexual activity between members of the same sex. Let’s look at St. Paul’s words in his various letters. When condemning sexual sins, specifically those between the same sex (cf. 1 Cor. 6:9-11; 1 Tim. 1:9-11; Rom. 1:18-32), he is addressing all sexual acts between persons of the same-sex. Nowhere does St. Paul ever even express a qualified approval of same-sex activity, such as the distinction you’re making between “hedonism” and a “long term, monogamous and stable same sex relationship”.

Dr. Healy continues:

The second term, arsenokoitai (literally, “men who lie with males”)… combines the two words used for homosexual acts in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13: arsen (“male”) and koite (“lying” or “bed”). Thus, malakoi and arsenokoitai together refer to the two partners in same-sex relations. …

It is important to underscore that in this passage (1 Cor. 6:9-11) Paul is not referring to people who have same-sex attraction, but rather those who engage in same-sex behavior. (p. 66)

 

[billy15]

As we can see, there are no qualifications between “hedonisim” and “monogamous and stable same sex relationships”. When people, theologians or otherwise, try to make this claim (that St. Paul or the early Church Fathers are condemning the former and not the latter) the evidence they use has never been very solid, in what I’ve seen and studied. If someone has something to share in this vein, I’d love to take a look at it. But Fr. Schmitz expands on the point Dr. Healy made:

[P]eople continue to say that we didn’t understand, back then, that there was such a thing as pervasive homosexual feelings or bisexual attractions. I would maintain that that is not very historical. I would maintain that there are a number of cases in those cultures—Mesopotamian cultures and Greek culture, Roman culture—where it was maybe not understood from a [psychological perspective] in the sense that we have psychology now, but they were very accustomed to and very familiar with homosexual actions that were mutually consenting. So to say, “Oh that was only between older men and young boys [pederasty]”—yes that happened, but to say that’s only that, it seems to, in some ways, be historically insincere and intellectually dishonest.

This way of re-reading both the Old and New Testaments condemnation of all sexual acts between members of the same-sex has become extremely popular, as seen by the success of books by authors such as Matthew Vines. These arguments to somehow justify these sinful actions have been rebutted not just in this century, but many centuries before. This is why i am deeply concerned with what Fr. Martin is doing. I’ve talked personally to other theologians who feel the same way, and have also voiced concern over Fr. Martin’s penchant to follow these new trends of interpreting Scripture and Tradition in a heterodox way. We can talk about the Magisterium eventually sorting things out, but here’s the thing: it already has on this issue.

Do we really think that the Church will one day (since the Church “is not there yet”, as said in the video in the OP) express to the faithful that sexual activity between members of the same sex is permissible, not sinful, or may even be good in certain situations? That would not be a development of doctrine. it would be a rupture of continuity with the Church’s Tradition.

 

[Imdaman]

LifeSiteNews does not report with either truth or charity. For these reasons I do not recognize them as a legitimate Christian news site.

Then why bother to post on this thread? I find it hypocritical to not recognize them as a cathoilc source and then post here on this thread. Please stay opn topic. Arguing about the source only serves to derail the thread!

 

[Imdaman]

KMG:

Sodomitical acts ARE gravely evil, and they cannot be changed.

Certainly, there is no will on the part of the Magisterium to seek to outlaw any of these behaviors, which seems to me a tacit indication that the Church feels they are best dealt with on a personal and pastoral level.

In his interview with Dave Rubin, I think Bishop Barron does a great job explaining how to understand these issues from a Catholic perspective.

What on earth do you mean by outlaw these behaviours. Your choice of words here tells me a great deal about how you imagine the church works. It is actually quite distubing!