Fr. Martin: "interesting: Where the Bible mentions

  • Thread starter Thread starter choose_to_love
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

choose_to_love

Guest
https://twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ (i’m not sure how to copy a particular tweet)

In which Fr. Martin describes as ‘interesting’ Fr. Rohr’s statement regarding the Scriptural understanding of same-sex sexual activity: Interesting: "Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct. The Bible sanctioned slavery as well and nowhere attacked it as unjust…

Link to Fr. Rohr: A Deeper Tenor — Center for Action and Contemplation

For all of you who participated in the thread vis-a-vis Fr. Martin and Abp. Chaput, this may be of interest.
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to this Tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1187090285332967424

Where to even start. Just another day I guess. The sun comes up; Fr. Martin makes more statements subtly promoting homosexuality. Put your bets on that. Fr. Rohr is another promoter of homosexuality (as well as other heresies), though not as well known.

This is another one of those situations, like the “I hope you men can kiss your husbands at mass” situation, where he will try to deny that he is questioning Church teaching, or scripture. He’ll say, “I didn’t say it! I was just musing on Fr. Rohr’s thoughts!” Yet his intent here is perfectly clear for all to see.

Here is Bishop Strickland’s reply:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1187189646066933760
 
How faithful Catholics can continue to defend this guy I’ll never know. He’s become bolder lately with his statements, it seems to me, since his meeting with the Pope.

Bishop Strickland’s statement is a start, but he needs support from other bishops too. The laity can only do so much; those in actual positions of power need to be moved to take concrete action. Fr. Martin and his teachings are a danger to all Catholics in the U.S. and the rest of the people that he reaches with his communications.
 
Weserthy said:
This is another one of those situations, like the “I hope you men can kiss your husbands at mass” situation, where he will try to deny that he is questioning Church teaching, or scripture. He’ll say, “I didn’t say it! I was just musing on Fr. Rohr’s thoughts!” Yet his intent here is perfectly clear for all to see.
Click to expand...
And the real shame of it is, like tseleehw says, far too many Catholics buy into these explanations ! It’s beyond puzzling to me.
 
Last edited:
1Lord1Faith said:

Bishop J. Strickland (Bishopoftyler)​

Thank you for acknowledging that you question scripture.
Click to expand...
Hmmm…you have an issue with the bishop’s comment, but then you make a snide remark to follow?

I think what is needed in the Church today is much less of Fr Martin’s brand of evangelizing, which most certainly invites the questioning of Church doctrine, causes confusion, and yes, makes people think that some sins aren’t sinful. What we need more of is Bishop Strickland’s brand of evangelizing which helps bring clarity.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
here is the other thing that I don’t get. I have taken (1) master’s level class on the Old Testament (in pursuit of my masters degree in theology), and that (1) class taught me about hermaneutic principles that address and explain these kinds of topics in the Old Testament. Didn’t Fr. Martin have to take at least one class on the Old Testament? Why is he acting like he’s never had a Catholic theology class on the Old Testament?
 
KMC said:
Hmmm…you have an issue with the bishop’s comment, but then you make a snide remark to follow?
Click to expand...
This ^ is called an appeal to hypocrisy. It’s a logical fallacy.

Anyway, I thought the bishop’s comment was derisive. But you didn’t address that in your post so I don’t see why you felt the need to quote my post. Your post only contained a fallacious critique of mine. Unless you had something of substance to say but just forgot to include it in the post.
 
1Lord1Faith said:
40.png
KMC:
Hmmm…you have an issue with the bishop’s comment, but then you make a snide remark to follow?
Click to expand...
This ^ is called an appeal to hypocrisy. It’s a logical fallacy.
Click to expand...
Actually, its not a logical fallacy because I wasn’t making an argument, but rather a statement of opinion.
1Lord1Faith said:
Your post only contained a fallacious critique of mine.
Click to expand...
I guess you didn’t see the second paragraph.
 
I know so little of this man but i’m not impressed with him by what i’ve read. I see many here, working along similar lines to change what the Church teaches to be in accordance with their views. They still view themselves as faithful Catholics but appear oh so ignorant of what the Church actually is and Who exactly has promised to lead and guide the Church.
It must be a burden being wiser than God Himself…since He has obviously gotten it wrong and it needs changing.
 
The words attributed to Fr. Rohr are actually from Protestent theologian Walter Wink. Rohr is quoting them.
Fr. Martin said he thought Wink’s interpretation was interesting.

Threads like this are what happens when people just jump on bandwagons without actually reading the truth. So sad that this type of bullying of the clergy is allowed on a Catholic site.
 
Last edited:
Fr. Martin responded to the criticism. I think he covers it pretty well. A lot of his critics like to attribute things to him that he’s never said. Read below:

"Dear friends: Yesterday I was called a “heretic” (and worse) for supposedly going against church teaching. In fact, I linked to an article by the Protestant Scripture scholar and theologian Walter Wink.

So if you would like to call anyone a “heretic,” that would be Mr. Wink, the author of many books on the Bible and a scholar who probably forgot more about the Bible than those who would condemn him for “heresy” have learned. But he’s dead, after years of service to the Lord, so the puerile name calling probably won’t bother him.

I said that Professor Wink’s brief article about biblical criticism was interesting (which it was) and was also lambasted by some Catholics who excoriated me for not accepting the “inerrancy” of Scripture. News flash: Catholics are not biblical fundamentalists. Cf: “Dei Verbum.” http://www.vatican.va/…/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en…

This points out, once again, that some on the Catholic far right who are so quick to condemn and use labels like “heretic” are not reading things all that carefully. (E.g., “Building a Bridge” and yesterday’s tweet.) And just as many either don’t know, or actively reject, actual Catholic teaching (e.g., Vatican II).

Oh well."
 
I am beginning to think it is a concerted, coordinated effort to get conservative Carholics to overreact.

If it is, and they want a schism from the traditional Catholics, I dont believe it will work. Faithful Catholixs desire to be obedient to the Church because they love Christ and his bride, the church.

I dont think responding to Fr Martin is a good idea. He can have his views, I really don’t care what he thinks.
 
Last edited:
Can someone actually explain why Fr. Martin’s tweet is wrong? (Which I know it is) instead of throwing ad hominem attacks at him?
 
Again, technically these are not Fr. Martin’s questions. This is his summary of what Walter Wink said.
Just more proof that many of Fr. Martin’s critics really have no clue because the refuse to actually read, in context, anything the man says.
 
So I really liked Fr. Longenecker’s response. I love a good debate! … It would be so great to see Fr. Longenecker and Fr. Martin engage in a cordial and kind debated on this stuff. Fr. Longenecker’s response is worth reading…

https://dwightlongenecker.com/correcting-fr-martin-yet-again-again-again/#comments

From Fr. Longenecker’s response…
While we read that St Paul expects slaves to obey their masters, his understanding of the matter is more complex. Rather than just giving slavery the nod and moving on, he tells masters that they should regard their slaves as brothers. In the Book of Philemon, he instructs Philemon to treat the slave Onesimus as a brother in Christ (Philemon 16). Paul tells masters to treat slaves with justice and fairness (Col. 4:1) and not to threaten them (Eph 6:9). All these are practical instructions for Christian living, but in his theology, Paul lays the seeds of the abolition of slavery. Through baptism, we are equal in the sight of God. In Galatians 3:28 he teaches, “For all of you who were baptized in Christ … there is neither Jew nor Gentile, slave or free … but all are one in Christ.”
Click to expand...
St. Paul’s treatment of slavery, then, can be summarized thus: “Slaves should obey their masters, but masters must treat them as brothers in the Lord, for in Christ there is no slave or free.” While the fact of slavery in Roman society is accepted, St. Paul sees that in Christ, the chains of slavery are broken. Underlying this is the story of the Hebrews being delivered from slavery to freedom in the promised land. The theme is therefore present from the beginning of the Biblical account that slavery is terrible and freedom is good. The eventual abolition of slavery is therefore present in seed form from Exodus through to the teaching of St. Paul. This is a clear example of the right kind of development of doctrine – in which a final understanding blossoms forth from a seed that was planted in the first place in the Old and New Testaments.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Fr. Martin just quoted theologian Walter Wink, and said his article was “interesting.”

Anything else, is added by the reader.

All of the criticism in this thread of Fr. Martin is misplaced projection.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top