Fr. James Martin touts blasphemous image of Jesus as a homosexual

  • Thread starter Thread starter mjm076
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’d rather focus on more beautiful passions like that of Bach or Salieri.
 
I flagged the OP for explicitly denouncing a priest in good standing as “evil.” That’s a clear violation of forum rules.
That said, I would appreciate a non-lifesite account of this matter.
 
I apologize for my harsh language but as a Same-Sex attracted individual I feel this Priest tis dangerous!
 
Wait, you go after the messager but nothing about about a priest who has a history of saying and doing blasphemous things?
 
Last edited:
I’m not seeing anything blasphemous about the moneychangers image. Some of the other images I don’t like, but Fr. Martin didn’t post those on his twitter, did he?
 
I think this article by this publication is way off the mark. It goes way out of it’s way to criticize this priest and scandalize him wrongly.
To begin with, Jesus is the incarnation of THE INVISIBLE GOD identified in Colossians 1. God chose the masculine physical form in the man Jesus, but that does not negate the truth that Jesus is Christ Jesus to a Catholic.
God is spirit. Neither man or woman in the Catechism. ( The invisible God).
In addition, God throughout the Bible exhibits masculine and feminine. The latter, Sophia, is identified throughout scripture. There is nothing homoerotic about this reality. The relationship with God we have, as well as the relation of Jesus and church are described in EROTIC metaphor for certain. SONG of SONGS, as well as prominent mystics and saints wrote using this metaphor.
This does not implicate human sexuality, other than in the sense of intimacy. )( And if you have discomfort with this, it is time to reevaluate your notion of DIVINE UNION, which is the foundational goal of our faith for ea ch of us. ).
This was an artists artistic idea. It does not seem to implicate homosexual sex, which is the only potential objection in the first place.
The article touts FUNDEMENTALISM. That should be a big red flag. As Pope Francis says," FUNDEMENTALISM is violence in Christ’s name
 
Last edited:
First, I would have to review your history before agreeing. And this is an attack with respect to one painting. That’s all that is at issue with this article
 
By my understanding, Father Martin posted the one image from a collection of works that tries to depict Christ as gay. So even if this image doesn’t explicity depict it, it is linked to a greater work that does. So his post will naturally take the viewer to the other images. Now if you say I am making an unfair statement about Father Martin’s past statement: He did make a twitter post that the Bible is flatout wrong about Homosexual relation. Also other priest and even bishop have pointed out his errors. This mentality that to be loyal and always agree with a priest has partially led the Church into the problems she currently is in.
 
Last edited:
This was my understanding also, that the painting is in a series of blasphemous, homosexual images of Christ. :cry:
 
Last edited:
Lysander said:
So his post will naturally take the viewer to the other images.
Click to expand...
Seems like LifeSite is actually the one pushing these images at everybody. When I see an image on Twitter, I don’t go looking for everything else the artist ever drew.

Just more Lifesite stirring the pot.
 
Last edited:
Just because you don’t doesnt mean others won’t. I explained the context of the greater work along with Father Martin’s past history on the issue.
 
Last edited:
Well, it’s a moot point now since like I said, Lifesite has posted all the images. If they’re really concerned about people looking at them, why did they repost them?
Just to get hits to their website, is my guess.

Lifesite is hypocritical when they do more to promulgate these images than the priest they are criticizing.
 
Last edited:
How is it “reporting the news” to post a bunch of blasphemous images that a priest did not post, and then blame the priest for them?

It’s fake news.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
It’s fake news.
Click to expand...
I didnt understand it at first but then realized that Father Martin was saying in his tweet who the artist was. He didnt just randomly choose a painting but an artist, with a series of blasphemous art.

How long will we continue to make excuses for this.
:cry:
 
Last edited:
Look to post above. A priest with a history of pushing the gay life style in the Church, shares a piece of artwork (that even through isn’t explicity gay) is a part of a greater work that is depicting that Christ is. It would be like talking about one movement of a song composed by mozart and not listerning to the other movements that makeup the whole and then calling people fake news for talking about those other movement. I have stated my view on the issue and now there is no point of rehashing it and won’t be talking about it anymore.
 
Last edited:
It’s pointless to continue this discussion because, like all discussions on Fr. Martin, many people posting have already decided he’s a bad actor who does bad things, and the responses reflect this.
Accordingly, I’ll be stepping off now.
 
Last edited:
MagdalenaRita said:
This was my understanding also, that the painting is in a series of blasphemous, homosexual images of Christ. :cry:
Click to expand...
If not for being told this, I would not be able to tell this.

I do object to the Holy Spirit being portrayed as female. But I see nothing overtly homosexual.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top