Fr. James Martin

[Polak]

And as I hinted at above, many of the sexual scandals in the Church are linked to a ‘gay problem’ within it. I’m not suggesting there would be no sexual scandals if there were no gay clergy, but data shows there would likely be far less.

 

[Montrose]

And as I hinted at above, many of the sexual scandals in the Church are linked to a ‘gay problem’ within it. I’m not suggesting there would be no sexual scandals if there were no gay clergy, but data shows there would likely be far less.

I’m not convinced that is correct. Can you direct me to documents which support your assertion.
I would be more inclined to believe it is more to do with some priests having a hard time with celibacy.

 

[Polak]

No it isn’t the case. This is the argument critics of the Church put forward. I will find a source later on. A bit busy to do it at the moment.

 

[pnewton]

Then I would respectfully suggest you stop public preaching in the name of the Church.
For the safety of your own soul

In that case I’m afraid there’s nothing I can say that would change your mind, probably… Perhaps speaking to a good priest would be helpful.

Okay, enough is enough. Discussion should not turn to a personal judgement of the spiritual condition of another’s soul. There is nothing immoral with agreeing with Fr. Martin in any area that is not contradicted by Church dogma. The best pastoral approach to sinners is not dogma. Like Fr. Martin or not, what is happened here is judgementalism. No one should have to defend their spiritual state over an opinion like this.

I put to you, to explain away some of Fr. Martin’s comments on LGBT issues.

In the past, I have done this a couple of time. Without a specific comment to discuss, why would you expect anyone to respond. That is the problem with this general “Fr. Martin is wrong” type of discussion. It is too broad to be anything but ad hominem. If the criticism is his approach in general, then there is nothing, in general with the approach of meeting sinners and tax collectors where they are, without the initiation of doctrinal condemnation as an “ice breaker.”

 

[OraLabora]

I think I know what you’re getting at, but in light of the severe sexual and interpersonal brokenness of our society, the Church needs to stand up and preach the Truth.

And it needs to get its own house in order.

I agree it needs to get its house in order. But if the sexual teaching is observed more in the breach than the observance… well as my monk dissenter friend says, it is a teaching designed more for angels than humans. And it needs to be revisited.

I should point out that my own dissent, and that of my monk friend, does not mean I don’t do my best to obey. Obedience is part of my oblate promise, and I didn’t jump through hoops with my Protestant wife to convince her we needed to get our marriage convalidated just for the heck of it. Similarly, my monk friend, who is also a trained psychologist, is faithful to his vows.

We are however, thinking human beings, I with a scientific education and career (retired now), he a psychologist. We have both seen the distress and anguish that some elements of this teaching has caused. That however is not the subject of this thread.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

Discussion should not turn to a personal judgement of the spiritual condition of another’s soul.

Excuse me.
Nowhere did I judge another person’s soul.
But I will not dial back my statement because is was responding to a poster, who presents himself as a clergyman, saying he questions the Church’s teachings.
People depend on the clergy to not lead them astray. To preach what the Church teaches.
To contradict the Church’s teachings puts his soul and the souls of his listeners in serious jeopardy.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I’m trying to be very delicate here because you and I have something in common — a close family member who transitioned.

My family member’s transition was a horrific case of malpractice where his “health care professionals” deliberately turned blind eyes and deaf ears to obvious abuse and dysfunction in his background before he came out in his teen years as transsexual (the word that was still in use at the time).
This kid got his own way, got his operation and then started with the suicide attempts (before, not after the transition).

Since then, I’ve seen too many teenage girls who feel funny in their own skins, who are socially awkward or just a late bloomer, who are being told that hormones=antidepressants.
Planned parenthood will give them anything they want without so much as a psyche eval.
Thanks be to God, I’ve seen some of these girls de-transition.

But rather than blaming the Big Bad Church for turning these kids away from religion, maybe the real cause is activists in real life and online who are whipping these kids into a rageful frenzy.

 

[27lw]

OraLabora:

27lw:

Assuming they want to.

That’s my whole point: many LGBQT don’t want to because of “Church teaching” as it is worded in the CCC.

In Montreal, BTW, St-Pierre-Apôtre parish in the Gay Village is open and inclusive, all LGBQT are welcome to the Lord’s Table regardless of their situation. It is run by by the Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate. So there are some places in the Church that are on the same wavelength as Fr. Martin.

http://www.saintpierreapotre.ca

(sorry website is in French only).

Oh I can see it in English too. There’s a tab at the bottom of the page to choose French or English.
Is this parish in union with the diocese? Or is it some kind of independent church?

I will answer my own question!

Much wow - - I see they are a “Catholic gathering place”.

Okay. I get it - - they’re one of these renegade “Catholic” places.

Wow. I totally get where you are coming from now, OraLabora.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Polak]

That is the problem with this general “Fr. Martin is wrong” type of discussion. It is too broad to be anything but ad hominem.

I gave four examples of things Fr. Martin has said that contrary to Catholic Church teaching. I haven’t seen @OraLabora give any reasonable explanation to why they are okay. In fact I haven’t had any response from him for a while to anything I have posted to him. As I said, I suspect he’s muted me.

 

[OraLabora]

If I could, I’d give your reply a huge thumbs-down.

Honestly, that parish is simply trying to make gays feel welcome in a Church where they are not made to feel welcomed. My own child, has made me see how unwelcome she feels in the Church because of the Church’s public pronouncements on the issue. In most other ecclesial communities it’s the same as well, and she has tried more than one.

I imagine if LGBQT show up in a Catholic Church in spite of being told they have a disorder, it is because there’s a huge hole in their lives and they are hungering for God and the sacraments (including reconciliation). At that parish, we have no idea who, among the parishioners, have sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist, but I bet a good chunk are there because their lives are a mess and they need to find some sort of peace to move on.

Jesus took on immeasurable pain, I am quite sure He can manage if someone shows up at His table in pain even if the cause of that pain hasn’t yet been completely resolved. Otherwise the Eucharist becomes some sort of prize and His redeeming work on the Cross loses its meaning.

But rather than blaming the Big Bad Church for turning these kids away from religion, maybe the real cause is activists in real life and online who are whipping these kids into a rageful frenzy.

Somewhat off-topic but I’m a huge fan of “gatekeeping” with the transgendered and I agree that is lacking. I have a psychologist friend who is a youth psychologist in a community health-care clinic; she has been deputized to deal with those who claim gender dysphoria. She said, basically, that while some really do have the identity of the gender opposite to that assigned at birth and require treatment, a large number also have personality disorders, or suffered childhood traumas, and their dysphoria, rather than being an identity problem, becomes the vehicle to express that pain. And she added, the huge difficulty is discerning between the two. When she was assigned these cases, she went to many training sessions, most of which she qualified as “politically correct”. I salute her ability, in spite of that training, to make the discernment between the two.

There is now also the fear of being seen as offering “conversion therapy”, now illegal in Canada.

I do believe in transition as appropriate treatment for the truly transgendered, which I believe my daughter to be. I do not, by any stretch, believe in the “informed consent” model. That will lead to tears and gnashing of teeth.

 

[27lw]

If I could, I’d give your reply a huge thumbs-down.

Honestly, that parish is simply trying to make gays feel welcome in a Church where they are not made to feel welcomed. My own child, has made me see how unwelcome she feels in the Church because of the Church’s public pronouncements on the issue. In most other ecclesial communities it’s the same as well, and she has tried more than one.

I imagine if LGBQT show up in a Catholic Church in spite of being told they have a disorder, it is because there’s a huge hole in their lives and they are hungering for God and the sacraments (including reconciliation). At that parish, we have no idea who, among the parishioners, have sought the Sacrament of Reconciliation before receiving the Eucharist, but I bet a good chunk are there because their lives are a mess and they need to find some sort of peace to move on.

Jesus took on immeasurable pain, I am quite sure He can manage if someone shows up at His table in pain even if the cause of that pain hasn’t yet been completely resolved. Otherwise the Eucharist becomes some sort of prize and His redeeming work on the Cross loses its meaning.

(I’m just not seeing how you identify as Catholic if you do not agree to this, which seems like a pretty fundamental tenet of the faith. )
EDIT - - I"m just not seeing how Catholics can identify as Catholics when they appear, to me, to not agree with CCC 1415.

I just don’t understand Catholics who openly seem to argue against a basic teaching of the faith.
From the Catechism:

1415 Anyone who desires to receive Christ in Eucharistic communion must be in the state of grace. Anyone aware of having sinned mortally must not receive communion without having received absolution in the sacrament of penance.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm

 

[Polak]

What is sad is that OraLabora doesn’t seem to understand (I am not going to directly address him anymore because he is obviously ignoring me) that neither the Catholic Church or most parishioners would make a gay or transgendered person feel unwelcome in a church, during a mass etc. Of course they are welcome.

What many of us have an issue with are people (and priests in the case of Fr. Martin) saying that something sinful isn’t sinful. As has been mentioned, this is effectively the shepherd leading the sheep down a false path.

 

[pnewton]

As I said, I suspect he’s muted me.

Unfortunately, that is not a function we have any longer. Whole threads can be muted, but not posters.

 

[Polak]

I didn’t know that. Is it possible to block a person so you can’t see any of their posts anymore? Perhaps he’s done that. If not, then as I said, he is simply ignoring my questions.

 

[sealabeag]

Okay, enough is enough. Discussion should not turn to a personal judgement of the spiritual condition of another’s soul.

Where in that comment did I judge the spiritual condition of another’s soul? :-1:t2:

 

[OraLabora]

I’m just not seeing how you identify as Catholic if you do not agree to this, which seems like a pretty fundamental tenet of the faith.

Please stop impugning my faith or I will flag you.

I was:

1. Baptized a Catholic and by virtue of that baptism, am Catholic for life;
2. Believe in the entirety of the Creed;
3. Believe in sacramental grace.

To respond to your quote about being in a state of grace if in a state of mortal sin, I will respond by what is written on the subject of masturbation, in the CCC:

2352 By masturbation …
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

In other words, grave matter does not automatically equal being in a state of mortal sin; those words above can apply to the LGBQT or any other sin as well. That is a basic tenet of the faith as well. Nor you, nor I, have any way of knowing if a person approaching the Lord’s Table is in a state of mortal sin or not. To point a finger at any sinner as not being in a state of grace at the Eucharist, is plain wrong.

I didn’t know that. Is it possible to block a person so you can’t see any of their posts anymore? Perhaps he’s done that. If not, then as I said, he is simply ignoring my questions.

I’m not blocking you, I am reading you, but there are too many conversations going on at the same time to respond to everyone. I will respond to this though:

What is sad is that OraLabora doesn’t seem to understand (I am not going to directly address him anymore because he is obviously ignoring me) that neither the Catholic Church or most parishioners would make a gay or transgendered person feel unwelcome in a church, during a mass etc. Of course they are welcome.

I agree that many (but not all) priests and parishioners don’t make the LBGQT feel unwelcome. My point is that the public pronouncements of the hierarchy as well as the wording in the CCC are such that they won’t even go past the door, let alone talk to a priest. Public pronouncements BTW, which were vociferously uttered by Cardinal O’Brien while he was, at the same time, enjoying homosexual relations with his own seminarians…

 

[27lw]

27lw:

I’m just not seeing how you identify as Catholic if you do not agree to this, which seems like a pretty fundamental tenet of the faith.

Please stop impugning my faith or I will flag you.

I was:

1. Baptized a Catholic and by virtue of that baptism, am Catholic for life;
2. Believe in the entirety of the Creed;
3. Believe in sacramental grace.

To respond to your quote about being in a state of grace if in a state of mortal sin, I will respond by what is written on the subject of masturbation, in the CCC:

2352 By masturbation …
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.

In other words, grave matter does not automatically equal being in a state of mortal sin; those words above can apply to the LGBQT or any other sin as well. That is a basic tenet of the faith as well. Nor you, nor I, have any way of knowing if a person approaching the Lord’s Table is in a state of mortal sin or not. To point a finger at any sinner as not being in a state of grace at the Eucharist, is plain wrong.

I apologize and I edited my post.
So, you are making the point that we cannot assume anything about other people, and whether or not they are in a state of mortal sin, although they may appear to be openly flaunting Catholic teaching in a public way, that they may not be culpable due to personal “issues” let’s say.
I guess that can apply to a lot of things.
“I’m not very mature, I cheat on my spouse publicly, but I’m in a state of grace because I’m not culpable due to personal issues”.
Hmmm.
There’s a whole new way of living a Catholic life here!
“Much wow!”
Are you sure that this stuff from CCC2352 applies to people who are PUBLICLY not living in accord with Catholic sexual morality?

But you still seem to say that whole “Jesus can defend His own table” - - which sounds a little “Protestant” to me? Maybe I’m wrong.

Also, you refer to that church in Montreal as a “parish”, I don’t think it is. It calls itself a “Catholic gathering space”.
You didn’t answer, is it in union with the diocese and bishop?

 

[Polak]

those words above can apply to the LGBQT or any other sin as well.

This is untrue. That caveat is specific to that sin. Some sins do not have the same caveat. Homosexual relations is one of those that doesn’t.

 

[Anesti33]

Ask my daughter why she will never set foot in any Catholic or most other Christian churches. You’ll probably get a much better answer than I can give. But perhaps being told she is disordered from the get-go turns her off. Perhaps simply saying the LGBQT are just sinners like the rest of us would have sufficed. Instead the Catechism sets them apart as a special class of sinner. The Church for instance doesn’t call the divorced and remarried “disordered”.

Well, for starters, no theologian or Catechism has ever called a person disordered - so that’s just histrionics.

Secondly, and here’s a very important point. The intended audience of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is bishops. The fact that it has been marketed as a one-size-fits-all Church instruction manual is perhaps reaching. A lot. The language in the Catechism is very precise and well-defined, and laymen constantly misunderstand and misinterpret it.

One time my mother’s doctor was using a microcassette recorder to take clinical notes. Unfortunately for him, this meant that the patient could overhear items that were not meant for public consumption. He called her “Obese” and I never heard the end of that. Mother was profoundly hurt and offended, especially because it came from a man and a professional. But that’s a well-defined clinical term. I can think of some other names to call myself these days, and they’re less complimentary than “obese” but that is what doctors call fat people because we eat too much.

If the language of the Catechism offends, then possibly it is cutting too deep. Possibly we need to distance the clinical, theological language from the hoi polloi who will take it the wrong way. But I don’t see how rewording it to be “nicer” will accurately convey the gravity of the problem to theologians who wrestle with such things.

But I can certainly understand when Fr. Martin is the buffer of communications between LGBT and Church, that he should suggest such things, because such are the unreasonable demands from the other side. I think the demand can be safely ignored, because giving into it will not win a single soul back for Christ, but could lose many.

 

[pnewton]

pnewton:

Okay, enough is enough. Discussion should not turn to a personal judgement of the spiritual condition of another’s soul.

Where in that comment did I judge the spiritual condition of another’s soul? :-1:t2:

Where is the comment I said you did? Implied? Well, implied about as much as suggesting someone who is clearly Catholic needs to go talk to a priest in the context of you not being able to “help” them.

There is a microcosm here of how not to help someone, whether they be a person struggling with homosexuality, or someone we do not agree with because in our opinion they dissent from the Church in one area.