Https://dwightlongenecker.com/correcting-james-martin-sj-yet-again/

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlmaRedemptorisMater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I gave it a quick skim and later will read it in full, but one thing I noticed so far is that Fr. Longenecker focused on the issues and said no more than necessary against Fr. Martin.

This is a refreshing alternative to certain Catholic-oriented websites and blogs which typically recite a litany of complaints against Fr. James Martin whenever his name comes up.
 
I wonder if Father Longenecker and Father Martin have ever sat down together and talked. I wouldn’t mind being a fly on the wall for that one! 😜
 
I will say that Father Martin does get some things wrong here. Father Longenecker is correct to criticize him. Specifically Martin says…
Just think. Women with PhDs in theology. Catholic sisters with decades of experience. Women spiritual directors. Authors. Mothers. Physicians. Attorneys. Teachers. Grandmothers. Women who work with the poor and marginalized. And on and on. The church needs their voices at Mass.
Click to expand...
I priest can briefly preach during a homily, and then allow a lay person to come up and give testimony that is related to mass during the homily period. I’ve certainly seen this.

There is a Vatican document from 1997 about this titled

“ON CERTAIN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE COLLABORATION OF THE NON-ORDAINED FAITHFUL IN THE SACRED MINISTRY OF PRIEST”

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...ocuments/rc_con_interdic_doc_15081997_en.html

Under article III related to “the Homily” it states…
  1. A form of instruction designed to promote a greater understanding of the liturgy, including personal testimonies, or the celebration of eucharistic liturgies on special occasions (e.g. day of the Seminary, day of the sick etc.) is lawful, of in harmony with liturgical norms, should such be considered objectively opportune as a means of explicating the regular homily preached by the celebrant priest. Nonetheless, these testimonies or explanations may not be such so as to assume a character which could be confused with the homily.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
In the Orthodox church, we have thrown Bishops into the nearest river for far less than what Fr. James Martin gets away with every day.

It’s beyond my wildest comprehension why he hasn’t been defrocked.
 
It seems like the hierarchy gives him a wide berth and simply refuse to acknowledge most of what he says. It’s rather disturbing the amount of free reign he’s given.
 
Last edited:
Fr Longenecker seems to make a speciality to “correct” Fr James Martin. It is not his first “correction”.

He may be right, but I have not the courage to read all his article… And I know the liberals stances of Fr James Martin who tend to use too much twitter…
 
ReaderT said:
In the Orthodox church, we have thrown Bishops into the nearest river for far less than what Fr. James Martin gets away with every day.

It’s beyond my wildest comprehension why he hasn’t been defrocked.
Click to expand...
The reason he will not be punished, at least under this Papacy, is that he only answers to his Jesuit superiors, rather than any bishop, since he is in their order. And whoever his superior(s) are likely support what he says; the Jesuits in these days are known for many things, but doctrinal orthodoxy is not one of them. And those who would have power over his superiors in the Vatican likely share his views as well. Ten years ago there would have been a good chance that the Vatican would have put a muzzle on him and America Magazine would be under investigation again after that pro-communism article they published (they were in fact already investigated once by the Vatican in the mid-2000s and their editor-in-chief was forced to resign). Today, priests like Fr. Martin pretty much have free reign to say whatever they want. Times have changed, and not necessarily for the better in this regard.
 
Seems like tacit approval. He’s a stalking horse.
The progression is “priestesses,” then same sex Church “marriage,” then openly actively homosexual “clergy.” I have no doubt that Martin is well aware of this as this is how it’s gone in mainstream Protestant denominations.
 
Last edited:
Weserthy said:
The reason he will not be punished, at least under this Papacy, is that he only answers to his Jesuit superiors, rather than any bishop, since he is in their order.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with “this papacy.”

The Jesuits are an “exempt order.” Unless performing a diocese function (e.g., a parish), they just plain don’t answer to the local bishop, but rather to their Father General, who answers directly to the pope.

There are one or two other such orders, but I forget which.

hawk
 
And seeing that the Superior of the Jesuits once supported Chavez, and has called the devil a ‘symbolic figure’ among other things I’m not holding my breath that Fr. Martin will see much discipline.
 
I liked the first part of the article. Fr. Martin presents in a sentence a misrepresentation of the position of the Church. The article explains the problem well.

I think his twist on clericism is odd, and the dead reverse of common sense. But he really lost me in the end, with the name-calling, mind reading, and unsubstantiated assumptions.
 
pnewton said:
I liked the first part of the article. Fr. Martin presents in a sentence a misrepresentation of the position of the Church. The article explains the problem well.
Click to expand...
Yes. And Fr Martin not only misrepresents the Church’s position he does so deliberately and disenguously. His tweet is intended to deceive and to play on society’s sympathy for any portrayal of women as “oppressed”. It’s hard to tell why he would do this, to which I will return.
pnewton said:
I think his twist on clericism is odd, and the dead reverse of common sense.
Click to expand...
He lost me there too! I’m glad someone else has called it out.
pnewton said:
But he really lost me in the end, with the name-calling, mind reading, and unsubstantiated assumptions.
Click to expand...
I don’t know much about Fr Martin, but as I said above this tweet is not only wrong, it is intended to deceive. There is most likely then an agenda, and someone more familiar with his published history would be entitled to guess at it.

In the context of Fr Martin’s history, the following may all be reasonable:
Fr Martin’s whiny tweets are no more than his usual crybaby bullying. He, and others like him, want women priests and they will continue to use every oily article, tweet, Facebook post and backroom pressure to get their way.
Click to expand...
Fr Longenecker is himself a former Anglican and has posted on how, through the 1970’s to 2000’s, the women’s ordination movement in the Anglican Church used similar tactics. I saw it myself. “Oily” and “slippery” are apt words.
 
Last edited:
It’s sad that nobody is his order has the backbone to correct or discipline him. He’s like a bratty kid in class always interrupting but just gets away with it because everyone is scared he’ll raise a big stink.
 
In every Protestant church that has gone down the broad path, some of the biggest supporters for openly gay men in ministry have been progressivist women.
 
Last edited:
Again, I can only conclude that there’s tacit approval.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with his major theme. Martin calls nonstop for “acceptance” and “inclusion” of homosexuals, but I can’t recall him ever calling for homosexuals to repent, to convert, and to live chaste and holy lives.
 
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top