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

  • Thread starter Thread starter KMG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Very well put, billy15. I’ve also wondered why Paul would have mentioned the problem of women exchanging the natural object of their sexual desires for other women (rather than for men) has never been interpreted by the revisionists, as far as I know, as women with girls or solely in the context of idolatrous temple worship. Paul talks about ‘natural’, ‘nature’, and ‘natural use’. Also, if Paul is only condemning idolatrous temple worship, why does he not condemn ‘heterosexual’ temple prostitution (which is certainly evil as well)?
 
billy15 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Don’t blame Fr. Martin for my interpretation of of Mark 7 - he had nothing to do with it. It was the Holy Spirit who lead me there and prompted it. The idea came into my head that Natural Law philosophy is an example of a tradition of men - and Jesus warned us against clinging to such traditions - especially if they violate the true meaning of the law. So I googled “tradition of men” to find the biblical reference and up popped Mark chapter 7. I had no idea that the story of the Syrophoenician Woman was also in the same chapter. So I read the entire chapter and reflected on why Mark would put these three stories in together. What was he getting at? Then my eyes opened and it all became clear to me as I explained above.

My interpretation wasn’t based on me reading a belief or opinion into the chapter in order to validate what I already believed (eisegesis), because I didn’t have any at first. I just read the chapter and let Mark speak to me (exegesis). The doctrines I derived from the text are perfectly orthodox. Nothing weird at all about the Hypostatic union - apart from it being a mystery. Orthodox isn’t just one thing. Different interpretations of the same text can be orthodox. If you are really concerned about eisegesis, then what should bother you is that anyone would read beliefs or opinions formed by Natural Law philosophy into scripture when the original author of the texts didn’t think in those categories.
 
Last edited:
Imdaman said:
40.png
Luke6_37:
40.png
KMG:
Sodomitical acts ARE gravely evil, and they cannot be changed.
Click to expand...
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.

Click to expand...
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!
Click to expand...
All it tells you is that I take a historical perspective. Anti-sodomy laws were once the norm and were backed by the Church. Do you have a different view?
 
billy15 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The homily by John Chrysostom was very interesting. It is based on the version of the story in Matthew, not Mark. The only real difference I see between his exegesis and mine is that he claims that Jesus is displaying omniscience by giving the woman a hard time. I’m not convinced. The text does not explicitly state this and I don’t see how Jesus displaying tacit divine powers at this point in the story adds anything to our appreciation of his divinity given that he is about to overtly perform many miracles.

The NABRE notes that the story in Matthew differs from Mark in two ways: 1) it echos the story of the centurion’s servant which does not appear in Mark, 2) Matthew makes a point of emphasizing that it was the woman’s faith that impressed Jesus. So Matthew’s emphasis is different from Mark’s. What is also different is the woman’s nationality

Matthew changes it from Syrophoenician to Canaanite, and about her being a Canaanite, Chrysostom writes:
“The evangelist speaks against the woman, that he may show forth her marvellous act, and celebrate her praise the more. For when you hear of a Canaanitish woman, you should call to mind those wicked nations, who overset from their foundations the very laws of nature. And being reminded of these, consider also the power of Christ’s advent. For they who were cast out, that they might not pervert any Jews, these appeared so much better disposed than the Jews, as even to come out of their coasts, and approach Christ; while those were driving Him away, even on His coming unto them.”
Click to expand...
A bit antisemitic, but if you replace Canaanite with Lesbian, it still works…
 
Last edited:
Yeah, the church still does not condone sodomy. Even though the state does. You have a strange view of the churches relationship with the state?
 
That is the more orthodox understanding of the verse. His line “Jesus opening to seeing things in a new way” is very close to heretical, because it flirts with the line of questioning his divinity. The only way Jesus’ opinions can change is if he is not a person of the eternal Godhead. If he can “learn the right thing” then he’s not God. Since He is God, He is all knowing, so saying that she challenged him and He changed his mind or something is pretty close to blasphemy I believe.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
That is the more orthodox understanding of the verse. His line “Jesus opening to seeing things in a new way” is very close to heretical, because it flirts with the line of questioning his divinity. The only way Jesus’ opinions can change is if he is not a person of the eternal Godhead. If he can “learn the right thing” then he’s not God. Since He is God, He is all knowing, so saying that she challenged him and He changed his mind or something is pretty close to blasphemy I believe.
Click to expand...
Affirming the humanity of Jesus does not in any way question his divinity. In fact, if anything, failing to appreciate that Jesus “advanced in wisdom” (Luke 2:52) throughout his life is not only unbiblical, it is a sign of the heresy known as Monophysitism, which is the belief that Christ’s divinity dominates and overwhelms his humanity. This heresy opposes the orthodox position taken at the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) which holds that Christ has two natures, one divine and one human.
 
Last edited:
Advancing in wisdom is very different from having his mind changed by completely human person. I understand (as well as I can anyway, it is of course a mystery) that Jesus is both completely human and completely divine. But to say that Jesus was actually saying that this woman was “a dog” and not worthy of his ministry is asinine.

ETA: The logical and orthodox position is that he was using it as a teaching moment for those around him.
 
Last edited:
JanSobieskiIII said:
Advancing in wisdom is very different from having his mind changed by completely human person. I understand (as well as I can anyway, it is of course a mystery) that Jesus is both completely human and completely divine. But to say that Jesus was actually saying that this woman was “a dog” and not worthy of his ministry is asinine.

ETA: The logical and orthodox position is that he was using it as a teaching moment for those around him.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you understand what the word “orthodox” means. To say something is orthodox simply means that it does not deviate from the Christian faith as defined by the creeds and councils of the Church. Unless the Church has defined what a particular passage of scripture means there is no reason why you cannot have several different orthodox interpretations of a particular passage of scripture. Nothing wrong with that.

On the other hand, the Church teaches that Jesus was human in every way except for sin. So there is no way you can honestly say Jesus was completely human without acknowledging that, like all completely human people, he “advanced in wisdom” during his lifetime the same way all humans do - through his interactions with other people. You cannot profess to believe that Jesus was truly human, while denying him essential human traits. That isn’t being true to the doctrine. That would mean that Christ’s divinity somehow dominated his humanity. That’s Monophysitism.
 
I’m perfectly familiar with the term. The fact of the matter is, your hero James Martin is wrong. Point blank.

Find me any shred of evidence supporting his interpretation of this and I’ll concede defeat.
 
I’m not blaming Fr. Martin for your interpretation. I’m simply mentioning that you share it. In any case, this was meant to be an aside, as it has now detracted from the main topic. I’ll only comment once more on the topic here. I would love to discuss it more in another forum if you start a thread there.

First, St. John Chrysostom is very convincing, and his comment on the Canaanites is not antisemetic in the least. Those people within those nations he spoke of were wicked; remember that God Himself told the Israelites not to intermingle with them because of their practices. Just look at Solomon. But then, if we’re going to accuse Jesus, or Lord and God Himself of being anti-Semitic, why stop with the Church Fathers, right?

Fr. Martin says this about St. Matthew’s account: “Jesus is challenged by the Canaanite woman to see that his ministry extends to all. He changes his mind, learning from a wise woman.”

Fr. Martin says this about St. Mark’s’s account: “She challenges him to see that his ministry extends beyond the Jews. Even Jesus is open to seeing things in a new way.”

As one priest said that I spoke to just yesterday, “This is wrong and this arrogant.” Think about what this interpretation shared by you and Fr. Martin is saying here. Do we really think that Jesus Christ, true God and true man, did not know that His ministry extended to the Canaanites? Really?

That the Wisdom of God needed to learn this and needed to be challenged? That He needed to change His mind? How can we ascribe a prejudicial attitude to our Lord, as Fr. Martin did tacitly and as the Maryknoll Missioners did explicitly? This is what this novel interpretation of these two passages leads us to. To be prejudice against someone because they are foreign is an imperfection in us as humans. Are we so arrogant to actually believe that up until that conversation with the Canaanite/Syro-Phonecian woman, Jesus did not know He had come to save this woman and her people? That only because she “challenged” Him, he was able to change His mind? Ridiculous. Absurd. “Bogus”, as my evangelical friend puts it.

But note this: since Jesus didn’t have only a human nature, but a divine nature as well, He did not possess this imperfection that we possess, as He was like us in all things but sin.
 
Last edited:
This is not monophysitism. This is not docetism as Fr. Martin suggested in response to his critics (which are many in this case, as he’s mistaken in his interpretation). No, this is an orthodox understanding of the mystery of the Incarnation. Jesus knew He came to save all humanity. To state this is not a denial of Luke 2:52.

I totally agree with you when you say He “advanced in wisdom” during his lifetime the same way all humans do - through his interactions with other people.” However, being prejudice against someone because of their race is sinful. God can not sin. He did not need to learn anything from this woman. Again, it is arrogance that says Jesus, the Wisdom of God, had to learn from her. I suggest reading this excellent article from author Dave Armstrong on how we can say Jesus “advanced in wisdom” in a way that does not contradict His perfection, as Fr. Martin’s interpretation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospel accounts does:
St. Thomas of Aquin, who laid down the lasting lines of Catholic theology, has a treatise on “The Perfection of the Child conceived” in which he states that “Christ, in the first instant of His conception, had the fulness of sanctifying grace, the fulness of known truth, free will and the beatific vision.” In his treatise on Christ’s knowledge St. Thomas says, that as man Christ had a threefold knowledge, the Beatific Vision, infused knowledge, and acquired knowledge; in the last alone He made progress. …

St. Paul states that in Christ are “all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,” Col. ii. 3, and (Col. ii. 9) in Him “dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporally.” And St. John declares the word made Flesh to be “full of grace and truth” (i. 14). Closely corresponding to these, is the statement of Luke that Jesus as a Child was “filled with wisdom and the Grace of God was in Him.” This is by no means an ordinary thing to say of a child. Whether we read “filled with wisdom” or “being filled with wisdom” in this verse, it is a most extraordinary thing, and cannot be explained naturally, for men have to spend years of hard study before they can hope to be filled with wisdom.

Advance in wisdom would ordinarily imply the acquiring of new wisdom. Does it here? What is the force of the word “advanced” here? . . . [Luke] does not use the word to “increase” or “develop” but employs a word which means to advance, to proceed, and which in itself does not imply intrinsic increase to the subject.

Even as a little child Christ was filled with (or was being filled with) wisdom. Does, then, the expression “advanced in wisdom,” in verse 52, signify that Christ continued to increase His amount of wisdom? Since Jesus already displayed wonderful understanding and knowledge, to hold that His wisdom increased daily would necessarily require one to hold that He became more wonderful every day — a view which is rejected by all. St. Luke does not write “Jesus increased in wisdom,” but “Jesus proceeded in wisdom.” He continued along the road of wisdom, in other words, He continued to do wise acts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
billy15 said:
Again, it is arrogance that says Jesus, the Wisdom of God, had to learn from her. I suggest reading this excellent article from author Dave Armstrong on how we can say Jesus “advanced in wisdom” in a way that does not contradict His perfection, as Fr. Martin’s interpretation of St. Matthew’s and St. Mark’s Gospel accounts does:
Click to expand...
Dave Armstrong doesn’t think very highly of LifeSiteNews.
 
Great. I don’t either. I never once quoted from their article. If you want to ignore that site, or National Catholic Reporter, or whatever, go to the original source. As I have the entire time.

I find it fascinating that people keep bringing up how much they despise this or that site, yet never interact with the material or the story in the original source.
 
It’s fine if you want to believe Jesus needed no prompting from a woman to change his mind, but a plain reading of the text gives a very different impression. Even in John’s gospel, you have Jesus telling his mother at the wedding of Cana that his hour had not yet come, only to have it show up a minute later. I’m sure you can find some convoluted interpretation that will allow you to read a different christology into that story, but the easiest explanation is that Mary simply new better than he did.

The placement of the stories within the context of the chapter needs an explanation too. Nothing in the gospels is random.

I believe you are wrong about Fr. Martin. He is a good and brave man who has placed himself in the line of fire from traditionalists in order to show the LGBTQ community Christ’s love for them. If it weren’t for brave souls like him, there would never have been a Nouvelle Théologie or any of the reforms of Vatican II.
 
Last edited:
I think Mr. Martin might be more comfortable in the Episcopal church, clearly he’s not happy with traditional Catholic teachings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top