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.
vz71 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I did not at first either but he clearly gave the authors name in his tweet, so that we may know this. If he didn’t want us seeing the rest of the images in the series, don’t give the author credit in the tweet.
twf said:
Rome nor his superiors have censored him in any way,
Click to expand...
That is what is really bothersome.
 
Last edited:
It is always wrong to denounce a priest as “evil”. I shudder to think of the consequences of such hubris…Rome nor his superiors have censored him in any way, yet we have mere laity, in a public forum, proclaiming him not only to be in error but “evil”.
 
Be that as it may, it is a terrifying thought to assume the authority to judge a priest’s soul. I am being criticized on this thread for suggesting that it’s wrong to denounce priests as “evil” in a public forum. Do we also presume the authority to determine what his punishment should be? We have moved beyond “this post on his twitter troubles me” to “he is evil!” Next will it be “I pronounce his damnation will begin tomorrow!” ?
 
He didn’t say the Bible is flat out wrong. He quoted someone else who suggested that it may be… I don’t agree with what he did by any means, but there is a difference. There are certain lines that he does not cross and obviously his superiors (including Rome) recognize that.
 
I will respond one more time i never used the word evil. On the tweet look to what it says and read Bishop Strickland. Others want to do mental gymnastics to defend this that is there choice.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
Be that as it may, it is a terrifying thought to assume the authority to judge a priest’s soul. I am being criticized on this thread for suggesting that it’s wrong to denounce priests as “evil” in a public forum. Do we also presume the authority to determine what his punishment should be? We have moved beyond “this post on his twitter troubles me” to “he is evil!” Next will it be “I pronounce his damnation will begin tomorrow!” ?
Click to expand...
I agree that we can not call someone or judge someone as “evil”, because we can not judge another person’s heart or motives. That is for God alone.

We can though judge an action as being “evil”, so perhaps it would have been better to say he put up an evil image or I think it is fine that he called it a blasphemous image, which it is.

The OP did edit his title, which is good. I did not see the original title, so I can’t comment on that but what is titled now is correct.
 
Last edited:
vz71 said:
Does the author automatically label the work?
Click to expand...
Label his work? The images are horrible. He doesn’t need a label. They speak for themselves. I didn’t even look at all of them because I do not want any image of our Lord in my mind in such ways as he is depicting.
 
Usually if lifesite is upset about something then I know I’m on the side of whatever they are upset about. Fr Martin is a priest who takes the Pope’s urging of being pastoral to heart. He is a pastoral man who is ministering to people we deem untouchable. He is loving the unloved. He is a model Catholic clergyman.
 
Lets find some common ground. Can we at least say its wrong to describe a priest as “evil”, but acceptable to say he showed poor judgment by promoting a painting of an artist who paints blasphemous works of art? Even if the selected painting is neutral, promoting the art this particular artist shows bad judgment. Why give that artist a platform?
 
Jesus is God. He is also a human MALE. He is not a spirit who just put on a mortal body for 33 years.
 
From what I can tell, he has brought the faith to gay people. Who often feel left out or unwanted. Not unlike the tax collectors.
 
Maximus1 said:
Like what, having sex?
Click to expand...
No, of course not. The paintings, as described by the artist:

"A contemporary Jesus arrives as a young gay man in a modern city with “The Passion of Christ: A Gay Vision” by Douglas Blanchard. The 24 paintings present a liberating new vision of Jesus’ final days, including Palm Sunday, the Last Supper, and the arrest, trial, crucifixion and resurrection.

“Christ is one of us in my pictures,” says Blanchard. “In His sufferings, I want to show Him as someone who experiences and understands fully what it is like to be an unwelcome outsider.” Blanchard, an art professor and self-proclaimed “very agnostic believer,” used the series to grapple with his own faith struggles as a New Yorker who witnessed the 9/11 terrorist attacks."

Like all art, you can take it or leave it. You can like it or not, but it’s not really worth getting worked up over if you ask me. Get upset over our treatment of immigrants, of LGBT people, of those outsiders that Jesus commanded us to love.
 
I agree. Gay people confront enough challenges,they don’t need Catholics contributing to the list.
 
So get upset about everything except how the image of God is degraded. Now if you cant see why this statement your wrote from the author is wrong on so many levels, i dont know what to say. If this is the deepness of the faith, in modern man/woman no wonder people are not going to Mass and instead doing other things. Pass generations would rather be killed then show this level of disrespect to God. But now, where it isn’t too bad because modern culture wants it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top