Whatever brings a person to God is holy

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PeterT

New member
A new essay by Fr. James Martin, S.J about not criticizing what brings people to God in regards to the Church environment, liturgy, prayers, devotions, songs and church architecture.
Whenever I hear people who put down elements in the spiritual life, or worse, mock them, I find myself feeling sad. I imagine people hearing these critiques and discovering that something that they cherish—a hymn, a church, a work of art—is something that “experts” say they shouldn’t like. Or that “better educated” or “more discerning” or “more spiritual” people don’t approve of the very thing that brings them closer to God.

Whatever brings a person closer to God is holy—whether it’s a folk hymn like “All That I Am,” sung by a sister with a guitar, or “Tantum Ergo Sacramentum,” chanted by a monastery choir. Whether it’s a 1960s, blond-brick, A-frame church with abstract stained glass or Chartres Cathedral with soaring windows that you can find in an art history book. Whether it’s a faded print of the Sacred Heart that hung in your grandmother’s kitchen or a Caravaggio masterpiece that you once saw in a church in Rome. Whether it’s a book by Richard Rohr or Scott Hahn. All paths to God are to be reverenced.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Not true. Having a traumatic experience or realizing your deep sin, etc. can bring you to God…those things are not holy themselves. This is just another way for him to mislead people with his personal agenda.
 
Well, the title is thought provoking in a ‘God works in mysterious ways’ sort of fashion. Although the article itself doesn’t get into anything like traumatic events, the title certainly eludes to it. The title would also draw in outsiders, which is in keeping with Fr. Martin’s style. I appreciate Fr. Martin’s boldness. I know not everyone does. But the article itself is very basic and uncontroversial.
 
Last edited:
I don’t see how his article discussing different preferences for songs, liturgy, prayers, architecture, devotions is trying to mislead people with his “personal agenda”.
 
When some people are at their rock bottom they turn to God. I don’t think the rock bottom is holy. I get the notion of the article but its a strange one and doesn’t apply in every case.
 
Last edited:
Heroin addiction should be praised! Being threatened by the mafia for stealing from them should be praised! Homicide should be praised!

Oh, American Magazine once again.

Does anyone beside of the Savior-elect, the vice-queen of Cali and their fawning worshipers pay any attention to this?
 
The title is provocative and easily misunderstood. It is easy to envision bad events or circumstances bringing a person closer to God. How could that be holy? Yet God’s ways are not our ways. Whatever happens according to God’s holy and perfect will must be holy, right?

But that’s not what the article is about. It’s about differences of liturgy, music, church architecture, and “author, book, way of prayer, devotional practice, school of spirituality.” It all serves to draw different sorts of persons each toward God.
 
ColoradoCatholic said:
Having a traumatic experience or realizing your deep sin, etc. can bring you to God…those things are not holy themselves.
Click to expand...
I liked the article. It is interesting to think about. I like trees too 🌲. However, this (i.e. the quote above) is exactly what I thought when reading the article. Some experiences that brought me close to God I would never want to repeat. I cringe at landmarks associated with those experiences. Some people’s path to God is darker perhaps.
 
Im often surprised at how woolly his thinking is.

If he had said “God can use anything to bring people closer to him,” it would have been a strong argument. A famous example is St Augustine being motivated by overhearing a kids’ game in which they were calling out “tolle, lege!” But it is different from saying that the game itself was holy.
 
Last edited:
I’ve sat thru many Jesuit homilies in my life. Many were excellent. Finding God in all things is center to the Jesuit spirituality as I understand.

In a homily one priest I really liked basically said…I’m paraphrasing… “Finding God in all things is not for the faint of heart. It is painful and takes deep discernment.” I was irritated when I first heard that, but he’s basically right. Perhaps this is what the article is missing.
 
Last edited:
Yes I did. Did you? I ask because my post refers not to the title but to the following paragraph which perhaps you missed?

“Whatever brings a person closer to God is holy—whether it’s a folk hymn like “All That I Am,” sung by a sister with a guitar, or “Tantum Ergo Sacramentum,” chanted by a monastery choir. Whether it’s a 1960s, blond-brick, A-frame church with abstract stained glass or Chartres Cathedral with soaring windows that you can find in an art history book. “
 
It’s the source. Fr. Martin seems intent on pushing the envelope, on telling most of the story, but not quite all. Is there a method to his madness?

I chose instead to watch an episode of One Step Beyond on YouTube. As it turns out, it had a rather nice portrayal of a good and holy priest.

Irony?
 
Oh brother. “All paths to God are to be referenced.” And from his article I take it he really means “All paths to God are to be reverence’s equally.” (And I won’t even get into the sticky question of who decides if the paths are actually leading to God?) And since he mentions not judging a person’s emotional preferences I suppose really what he’s saying is “all emotions that lead to God are holy.” Wait, what? My emotions are holy? No, no they’re not. He’s confusing feeling uplifted or nostalgic or peaceful or filled with Awe… with holiness. Virtue. Willing the good. Persevering through times of darkness when holiness feels a million miles away. Martyrdom. How easy sanctity would be if it were simply made of anything that gave me a certain fuzzy feeling. How shallow it would be if it were made out of nothing more than artistic preferences!

Perhaps what Fr. Martin means is “after following sound doctrine and habituating oneself to heroic virtue, non-essential features like ones favorite hymn or favorite style of architecture matter very little. Let’s not jump down each other’s throats about them because they are so not-central to what holiness is. Let’s look deeper toward a life of virtue, obedience, Charity, and prayer.”

Except that… that’s the opposite of what he said. Whatever gives me The Feels IS holy. I guess I can stop fasting now, right? And using NFP because it doesn’t make me feel holy either. And maybe holding grandma’s old rosary feels holier than actually going to Confession. According to Martin that’s okay too, right? I mean, if participating in the Sacraments makes you feel holy that’s great - you do you! But if I feel holy hiking in the mountains on Sunday and whistling Peace Is Flowing Like A River it’s not very nice of you to judge!

Aristotle literally defines “education” as “feeling pleasure and pain at the appropriate things” - thus indicating that our feelings must be TAUGHT or TRAINED. And that there are both right and wrong things to feel pleasure about. We guide our feelings - we don’t let them guide us.

Also, we do not end up in a transforming union with God (a la St. Teresa of Avila) by following our feelings. Maybe Martin needs to brush up on “The Interior Castle” or cough the Spiritual Exercises of, uh, his spiritual father.
 
Last edited:
Seems as though some of these comments have less to do with what was said, than with who said it.
That’s sad, because he makes a good point.
 
puer.dei said:
he makes a good point.
Click to expand...
Actually no he doesn’t. He makes exactly the kind of point that misleads people if they haven’t had a good catechetical grounding.

It is absolutely essential for all Catholics to grasp that a thing and its effect are not identical. The fact that a holy consequence may result from an unholy act does not in any way justify the unholy act.
 
Not only is the presupposed statement simply wrong: “whatever brings a person to God is holy” (would take someone about 3 seconds to come up with a contradictory scenario, like I just did above). If you know anything about Father Martin, it is the implication of this statement that is so concerning. He may not come out and say it, but what he is implying is that pro LGBTQ lifestyle is holy if it leads you to God. Which is also not true.

It would be the same as me saying my heterosexual relationship (even if I’m having relations before marriage) is holy if I’m comfortable going to church and doing this at the same time. NOT TRUE. That would be sinful. you could apply this statement to nearly anything sinful, getting drunk, taking drugs, cheating on your wife, you get the point. Its not true, the God’s grace is holy, because God is holy. Your car is not holy if it takes you to church. That is ludicrous.
 
Also, for the record, people who point out the rather fuzzy and not-well-thought out conclusions and assumptions in the article would do so if it had been written by, oh to give a ‘name’, Archbishop Vigano or Cardinal Burke, not simply by “James Martin’.

Bad thinking is bad thinking, even if it comes from one of your ‘favorite people’.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top