Fr. Martin: "interesting: Where the Bible mentions

[jack63]

Fr. Martin just quoted theologian Walter Wink, and said his article was “interesting.”

Fr. Longenecker’s response is also interesting!

 

[Mark121359]

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.

I see. So the various cardinals, bishops and priests who have criticized Fr. Martin haven’t a clue what he says because they just don’t fully understand him. Makes one wonder just how in the world they became canon lawyers, theologians and the like without the ability to comprehend things.

 

[I_trust]

Yes
By quoting other’s remarks that contradict church teachings and just saying “interesting” Fr Martin maintains plausible deniability.

If I quoted Margrethe Sanger (started planned parenthood) and her criticism of Catholic teaching on abortion and said “interesting”…
You couldn’t call me out for supporting abortion. At the same time I would be spreading her pro abortive philosophy.

It is a silly, transparent game.

 

[ATraveller]

I had never heard of Walter Wink until I looked him up and I’m a Protestant.
There are better Protestant theologians who treat Scripture with respect.

 

[AlbMagno]

Thanks.
123

 

[Titivillus]

Bishop J. Strickland (Bishopoftyler)​

Thank you for acknowledging that you question scripture.

I don’t quite understand? (But I am not a bishop, so perhaps I may be forgiven the fault?)

Do you mean we “stop at Tradition” by not questioning Tradition? The same Tradition from which draw the canon of scripture?

Or do you mean we “question Tradition, and then stop”? If which case: what have we left?

 

[Taras_Bulba]

The “Bible sanctions slavery” argument was a particularly Protestant line of argument in America. Fr. Martin echoes the sentiment of the old confederates and their atheist-abolitionist opponents. Let’s hope the homo-confederates don’t reach a Fort Sumter moment.

 

[OraLabora]

I see. So the various cardinals, bishops and priests who have criticized Fr. Martin haven’t a clue what he says because they just don’t fully understand him. Makes one wonder just how in the world they became canon lawyers, theologians and the like without the ability to comprehend things.

We are talking of a specific instance involving a specific quote. Feel free to start another thread about other issues you have with Fr. Martin.

I for one think it is a necessary discussion in the Church. Sometimes some elements in the Church try to restrict “access” to God (at least to the sacraments) to vulnerable minorities who are in most need of God and evangelization. Fortunately nobody in the Church has been able to prevent the LGBQT who are believers from praying to God. Some who are so rapid to condemn the LGBQT may be surprised by who they meet in Heaven.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Do you mean we “stop at Tradition” by not questioning Tradition? The same Tradition from which draw the canon of scripture?

Yes, the same Tradition which drew the canon of scripture.

I suppose I had a sloppy way of saying that there is nothing wrong with questioning scripture. It’s been that way since before there was scripture. My reasoning is that Tradition preceded scripture.

But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with questing the Church’s Traditions either. However, Tradition itself isn’t in question, it’s always been there. The same can’t be said for the Bible.

 

[melonhead]

Sometimes some elements in the Church try to restrict “access” to God (at least to the sacraments) to vulnerable minorities who are in most need of God and evangelization. Fortunately nobody in the Church has been able to prevent the LGBQT who are believers from praying to God.

I don’t think anyone’s saying LGBTQ people can’t pray to God or can’t be saved. In the same sense, no one’s saying violent people, adulterers, drug addicts, masturbators, alcoholics, etc can’t pray to God or be saved. The difference is that when someone says alcoholics, heterosexual adulterers, or drug addicts shouldn’t give in to their temptations, no one has a problem. When the same person says LGBTQ folks shouldn’t give in to their temptations, suddenly they’re a close minded bigot.

Some who are so rapid to condemn the LGBQT may be surprised by who they meet in Heaven.

True, but one can say the same about people with all kinds of sinful inclinations.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Why is Father Martin even publicly “wondering” about this? He already knows the answer.

 

[choose_to_love]

“so sad that this type of bullying of the clergy is allowed on a Catholic site” For my own edification, do you consider the top post to be “bullying”? If so, why?

 

[CilladeRoma]

First of all, your OP is factually incorrect. Fr. Rohr did not say any of the things that Fr. Martin responded to, Fr. Rohr was quoting a Protestant theologian named Walter Wink.

And yes, I do see it as a form of bullying. Misrepresenting the facts to make someone look bad, and then having a bunch of other pile on for good measure, if not bullying, what would you call it?

 

[OraLabora]

When the same person says LGBTQ folks shouldn’t give in to their temptations, suddenly they’re a close minded bigot.

Conversely, it seems that many Catholics do give other kinds of sinners a pass, or at least look the other way, but when it comes to the LGBQT, they are quick to condemn. You don’t have to look beyond this forum to see that.

Fortunately, my experience is that the Church “on the ground”, at least in my part of the world, does a far better job of welcoming the LGBQT than the hierarchy; one parish our schola sings at has a transgendered sacristan. The hierarchy are quick to condemn, but have attempted to keep their own sexual scandals from the public eye with coverups, clergy transfers, etc. IMHO they have lost a lot of credibility on sexual issues thanks to their own misconduct. Not only have coverups reached the highest levels of the Church, but so too the sins themselves (O’Brien, McCarrick). Card. O’Brien was one of the most vocal anti-LGBQT princes of the Church, until it came out he was abusing his own seminarians.

 

[MikeInVA]

the Church “on the ground”, at least in my part of the world, does a far better job of welcoming the LGBQT than the hierarchy;

Sorry, I have never seen clergy (or parishioners for that matter) disrespectful or unwelcoming towards anyone who comes to Mass. The idea that the clergy is unwelcoming is a myth being used to attack the Church and force it to change.

 

[choose_to_love]

OK, thanks for the response.
I do not think that I misrepresented any fact. I included the link to both Fr. Martin’s twitter account/tweet and Fr. Rohr’s website. I described Fr. Martin’s actual comment verbatim. I linked to Fr. Rohr’s posting of Mr. Wink’s thoughts on Scripture. Fr. Rohr posted Mr. Wink’s thoughts, with commentary, on his own site (he is a founder of the organization that runs the website and apparently active in the organization)and to me, it seems a fair interpretation to state that Fr. Rohr agrees with Mr. Wink, both because he posted it and based upon his comments within the post.

How exactly is that 'misrepresenting the facts to make someone look bad"? Fr. Rohr for all intents and purposes adopts Mr. Wink’s position; at worst it is a distinction without a difference, because it is the substance of the comment (Scripture can be wrong about this topic) which is what Fr. Martin identified as interesting, not whether it came from Mr. Wink or Fr. Rohr.

Again, how is any of that bullying?

I do not control anyone else’s posts (“having a bunch of others pile on as well”). Bp. Strickland and Cdl. Napier apparently felt a response was warranted; are they bullying too?

I did think this was related to the prior post I referenced, and I would have linked it to that thread, but it was more than 14 days old.

 

[Titivillus]

First of all, your OP is factually incorrect. Fr. Rohr did not say any of the things that Fr. Martin responded to, Fr. Rohr was quoting a Protestant theologian named Walter Wink.

I think the confusion is understandable – Despite what Fr Martin asserts, that he linked to an article by the Protestant Scripture scholar and theologian Walter Wink, that is not in fact what he did.

Fr Martin linked to an “article” with Fr Rohr’s byline, in which Fr Rohr appears to have bracketed an article by the late Mr Wink with three original sentences of his own.

Anyway, a setting ripe for misattribution.

 

[CilladeRoma]

Fr. Rohr’s statement regarding the Scriptural understanding of same-sex sexual activity:

It was not Fr. Rohr’s statement, it was something Fr. Rohr quoted.
Now, if you quoted Rohr’s statements, it would be different, but in your OP it makes it look that Fr. Rohr is being quoted. Not everyone follows links, so facts are important.

 

[melonhead]

Conversely, it seems that many Catholics do give other kinds of sinners a pass, or at least look the other way, but when it comes to the LGBQT, they are quick to condemn.

I disagree. I have yet to hear of someone saying they should be allowed to get loaded since they’re genetically predisposed to it (born that way, in layman’s terms).

 

[KMC]

IMHO, the root of this thread, and the root of other Fr. Martin threads is his lack of clarity on a number of theological topics. If he were more clear and precise, then perhaps there would not be so many others calling him out. Fr. Longenecker would have less to write about if Fr. Martin would present issues of the faith with more clarity. Bishop Strickland would not have tweeted what he did had Fr. Martin been more clear.
The vast majority of people who call themselves Catholic are poorly catechized. Simple look at the Pew poll that 70% of Catholics who think the Eucharist is merely symbolic, if you need evidence of my statement. Right now, Catholics need clarity from those charged with “teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” (Mt. 28:20)
I pray that Fr. Martin will speak and write with more clarity, and avoid statements that might cause a person to think the Church is wrong in its moral teachings (ex: his comment about gay partners possibly kissing during the sign of peace at mass).