Fr. James Martin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Polak
  • Start date Start date
billsherman said:
I was actually wrong in my previous post, and I will update it.

As a member of a religious order, his books don’t carry the Imprimatur but the imprimi potest. Under CDF requirements this certifies that the book: “does not contain anything which might be harmful to the doctrine of the faith or morals.”

It achieves the same goal.
Click to expand...
Imprimi potest and imprimatur mean exactly the same thing which is let it be printed.
 
sealabeag said:
Sort of. It was a long time ago, for starters, and I’ve read that article and it’s more of an “Here is the official Church teaching on homosexuality, and I’m not going to publicly disagree with it” than anything else. He presented Church teaching - he didn’t say he agreed with it. Subtle distinction.
Click to expand...
Yes, isn’t subtlety great! That’s one of the things I appreciate about great communicators like him is their subtlety.

Now I’ve known many priests and religious who had private crises of faith and moments of disbelief and outright dissent, and they just kept a lid on it. They did not stand up for a homily one day and say “this is all bunk!” …Because that is kind of a career-killer, is it not?

Everyone struggles with disbelief and rebellion, to whatever degree. Those of us who are sane, and prudent, we keep it in the proper channels - prayer, the confessional, confiding in friends. And we don’t scandalize others with it.

Besides, even if Fr. Martin is found not to be exactly in line with the living Magisterium, he is certainly in line with the sensus fidelium. And I think that’s the critical point for Pope Francis and the Jesuits and the LGBT community: this is how people feel, this is how people think, let’s pick them up and dust them off at the side of the road and get them as far as the innkeeper, and let him worry about the heavy lifting.
 
Last edited:
Montrose said:
Imprimi potest and imprimatur mean exactly the same thing which is let it be printed.
Click to expand...
According to the CDF, the imprimi potest means: “The religious superior, who in accordance with can. 832 is competent to grant his own religious members permission to publish writings dealing with questions of religion or morals, should not proceed to do so until he has the prior judgement of at least one censor he considers reliable and is satisfied that the work does not contain anything which might be harmful to the doctrine of the faith or morals.”

It goes beyond what you are claiming. Fr. Martin’s religious superior was convinced, after consultation with at least one theologian, that the books contain nothing “which might be harmful to the doctrine of the faith or morals.”

The full citation: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...n_cfaith_doc_19920330_istruzione-pccs_en.html
 
Understand that what am saying is not that I disagree with anything the Church is saying, I am just saying that I do not see conflict using literary precision. For example, the quote that is supposed to be from his Twitter stated that, “The issue is whether the biblical judgement is correct.” That statement uses “biblical” as an adjective. One meaning of this is that the judgement is derived from the Bible, as when the judgement that slavery was acceptable, and interracial marriage was not, were judgments derived from the Bible, and thus could be called “biblical judgement”
 
This leads to the church’s official teaching on chastity for “homosexual persons.” Since homosexual activity is not approved, the person may not engage in any sort of sexual activity: “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” Here the catechism means celibate chastity, since every person is called to the chaste expression of love—even married couples.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also states that gays and lesbians can and should approach “Christian perfection” through chastity, with such supports as “the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace.” In other words, gays and lesbians, the catechism states, can live holy lives.

Needless to say, all these considerations rule out same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...
This was in America Magazine, written by James Martin, S.J.

https://www.americamagazine.org/fai...jF8kdGfUqeWhAXgi-mOB6B4sATtFm4A65B-Lf752ncVdg
 
The way I see it, and again this is just my opinion alone, so take it for what it’s worth. But it appears to me that the Church’s teachings on homosexuality in general are not acceptable to some LGBTQ Catholics. And it seems to me that they’ll never accept them. The entire world appears to have given their blessing to this lifestyle…except the RCC.

The early gay movement asked only to be tolerated. And gradually this grew to acceptance. Nowadays, you had better give full fledged acceptance, or your career, business, and or livelihood is in some serious jeopardy! And they take full advantage of this new worldwide acceptance. Photographers, bakers and the like know full well what this entails. Many being forced out of business for simply following their consciences.

And this I believe is what’s happening to the Church as well. Full blown acceptance, including the lifestyle…or else. They won’t accept mere tolerance. And that’s the rub. Fr. Martin seems to be giving them this false hope of complete acceptance one day by the RCC, from his many controversial statements he’s made over the years. Bishops and priests alike have commented on his many statements. For example, Fr. Gerald Murray’s in my earlier post.

And Fr. Martin isn’t the only one doing this. Look at what’s happening in the German hierarchy. This is well documented. This accomplishes just one thing. It causes confusion. Mass confusion! And we all know who the father of this confusion is. It’s one thing when a priest appears to contradict the Church from some of the statements he makes. But bishops and cardinals??? And not a peep from Rome? Astounding! This should be of great concern for all Catholics. But unfortunately, I don’t sense this…at all.

My hope is, and admittedly it’s rather weak nowadays, is that the RCC never, ever capitulates. And I mean not even so much as an inch. And I especially don’t want to see a rewording of the CCC. For if she does capitulate, even by just giving the appearance of it, she will find herself in some very dangerous waters. And that’s putting it mildly!
 
Last edited:
Christ was very clear. He didn’t speak in vagueries the way many do today, out of fear of offending. And what is the complex problem at hand? Homosexuality? It isn’t actually that complex. The desire is not a sin, whilst disordered. The action is a sin. That isn’t so complex. It might sound harsh to some ears but the truth is the truth and there is no better way to speak it, for the good of souls and their eternal life, than clearly.
 
27lw said:
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.
Click to expand...
What you posted doesn’t give any evidence that they are doing something heterodox.
27lw said:
It calls itself a “Catholic gathering space”.
Click to expand...
That could juat be poor wording and it does call itself a Church.
sealabeag said:
It might sound harsh to some ears but the truth is the truth and there is no better way to speak it, for the good of souls and their eternal life, than clearly.
Click to expand...
There are ways to word things that mean the same thing, but are more agreeable.
 
Last edited:
sealabeag said:
Christ was very clear. He didn’t speak in vagueries the way many do today, out of fear of offending.
Click to expand...
What do you make of his parables? Or his responses to his inquisitors during his trial?

If Jesus’ speech was so clear, you wouldn’t have libraries filled with people interpreting it in radically different ways over 2,000 years. Even his own apostles - the people who knew his speech the best! - didn’t agree on what he meant at times.

I find that when people ask for Fr. Martin to speak with “clarity,” that they really mean “say it exactly the way I want to hear it.”
 
Last edited:
JacobF said:
Is this the case?
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously. It’s obvious, because if not his books would not get his order’s approval, and he would not be in good standing with his order and the Vatican.

He is a fully orthodox priest.
 
Mark121359 said:
Bishops and priests alike have commented on his many statements. For example, Fr. Gerald Murray’s in my earlier post.
Click to expand...
The following article, which was written by a priest, is a perfect example of the harm Fr. Martin’s writings, and other priests who refuse to conform with Church teachings on this subject, can cause those who struggle with SSA. The brother of the author of this article also shares in this struggle, and is part of the article. Please do read it. Because it’s very pertinent to the gist of this thread.

 
Last edited:
In my opinion, yes. If I am a man or woman struggling with homosexuality and I hear a voice, and a voice which appears to represent the Catholic Church, implying that homosexual activity is in some way, or totally, morally acceptable, that is extremely dangerous for my eternal soul. In this particular situation the vagueness is doing nobody any favours.
 
sealabeag said:
Christ was very clear. He didn’t speak in vagueries
Click to expand...
Actually He often spoke in parables, and they sometimes can be difficult to understand in a modern context.

Life is not always clear. The Church’s clergy are not always clear. And solutions are often complex, and yes, the LGBQT are full of complexities that make the statement “just don’t do it”, not so easy for them.
 
Thanks.

However, none of it says that is imprimi potest or imprimatur. In fact neither that document nor canon law 832 states specifically that.
I would contend that they refer to Nihil Obstat.

17. Permission of the religious superior

§1. The religious superior, who in accordance with can. 832 is competent to grant his own religious members permission to publish writings dealing with questions of religion or morals, should not proceed to do so until he has the prior judgement of at least one censor he considers reliable and is satisfied that the work does not contain anything which might be harmful to the doctrine of the faith or morals.

Can. 832 To publish writings on matters of religion or morals, members of religious institutes require also the permission of their major Superior, in accordance with the constitutions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top