Why bent out of shape to attack Fr. James Martin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Because he said immediately prior to that:

“For a teaching to be really authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something like say, the Assumption. So the Assumption is declared and people accept that. They go to the feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption, it’s received.”"

Strongly implying that he thinks the teaching on celibacy can be changed because the gay community have not accepted it.
 
TheLittleLady said:
When I have 3 hours, I will watch the video you posted. My time machine is on the fritz.
Click to expand...
Ha ha! I discovered a time machine. I don’t have time to watch this video, but I skimmed through another Fr. Martin video by setting the playback speed to double and turning on closed captions. I might have missed a word or two, but I certainly got the full meaning.
 
whyeyeman said:
Because he said immediately prior to that:

“For a teaching to be really authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something like say, the Assumption. So the Assumption is declared and people accept that. They go to the feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption, it’s received.”"

Strongly implying that he thinks the teaching on celibacy can be changed because the gay community have not accepted it.
Click to expand...
Okay. I thought you said that was the whole quote.

I don’t think he is “implying that he thinks the teaching on celibacy can be changed.” If you have read and heard a little Fr. Martin, you hear him say that LBGT feel alienated and lose hope when they hear that they are “objectively disordered.” That is the phrase in the Catechism. So he is searching for a way to bring LGBT people closer to the Church by not scaring them off in the first place.

A few weeks ago, I wondered about all the controversy surrounding Fr. Martin, so I checked out his book from the library and read it. I was surprised how uncontroversial the book is. The book says nothing about instituting gay marriage or changing Church doctrine. It simply examines how we can reach out to LGBT people and find a way for them to come home to the Church. Maybe you should read it. It is not long.
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
Why don’t you wish to support his website? He is a faithful Roman Catholic trying to defend the church in face of modern errors.
Click to expand...
Like when he gives a platform to Milo Y, who has married his gay partner.

Or when he defends Roy Moore because he likes his politics despite being accused of being a pedophile.

Or when he claims that Sean Spicer isn’t a liar when he lies because he likes his politics.

It’s a political website. If you want to follow a man like that who claims to know the modern errors of the Church, have at it.
 
What has Mr. Voris done that is the equivalent of marrying a homosexual, pray tell?
 
I just recently finished reading Fr Martin’s Book, Building A Bridge.

In the book he emphatically states his position on upholding Catholic Doctrine on marriage and sexuality.

His attempt in the book, is to try and remove hateful words exchanged between both Catholics and the LGBT groups.

In fact in the chapter called, “Respect,” he speaks to the LGBT community about their disrespect for the Magisterium, Bishops and Clergy of the Catholic Church and how they must stop the mudslinging.

At the same time, he provides the reader of how LGBT Catholics and their parents are feeling when it comes to Church teaching.

Some of the words, such as those in the Catechism,
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
Click to expand...
Fr Martin tries to explain how a gay person, or the parent of a gay child, would read the words, “that they’re desires are intrinsically disordered.” Looking at the words from their perspective puts up a mental barrier toward dialogue and respect of the person.

He then quotes the next part from the Catechism;
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.
Click to expand...
For LGBT Catholics, this contradicts how they’re actually treated and lack of respect and even cruelty has been the experience for them throughout most of Church history.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Fr Martin tries to explain how a gay person, or the parent of a gay child, would read the words, “that they’re desires are intrinsically disordered.” Looking at the words from their perspective puts up a mental barrier toward dialogue and respect of the person.
Click to expand...
I don’t disagree that people may react to those words that way. But I always find such reaction odd. There are plenty of sins I have a personal inclination towards but I don’t get offended that they are called sinful or disordered. For instance, I used to like to drink to excess. But I was never offended at drunkenness being condemned.
 
Of course the difference is that you can quit drinking, but you can’t stop being who you are.

People don’t choose to be gay, contrary to what many in this forum like to convince themselves of.

Jim
 
JimR-OCDS said:
Of course the difference is that you can quit drinking, but you can’t stop being who you are.

People don’t choose to be gay, contrary to what many in this forum like to convince themselves of.
Click to expand...
Yes, people do choose to be gay, in so far as leading a homosexual lifestyle. People do choose to be gay, in so far as having homosexual sex acts. I agree, people don’t choose to have attractions to members of the same sex or drink. So there really isn’t a difference.
 
Sexual orientation is most likely not a choice but what a person is born with.

However, the sexual act as in heterosexual acts, are a choice.

You’re not born an alcoholic, but have a propensity toward the addiction and will become one if you choose to drink in excess.

Jim
 
On the contrary, there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other that a homosexual orientation is innate or immutable, nor is their conclusive (or nearly conclusive) evidence that such people are born with it or “born that way”. If one has an inherent predisposition to be attracted to the same sex, we can rightfully assert that those who are alcoholics are also capable of possessing an inherent predisposition to alcoholism.

In Robert R. Reily’s book on the rationalization of homosexual behavior, he observes, my emphases:
[A] great deal has been invested in the argument over whether homosexuality is a genetic trait or a learned behavior…
There is actually an element of condescension toward homosexuals here, as if they do not actually choose their behavior: the poor fellows can’t act otherwise… The same kind of argument, however, as we have suggested, could be made about alcoholism. The City of Hope National Medical Center researchers discovered a gene in 77 percent of the alcoholic patients they studied. There may be a missing chromosome that predisposes certain people to alcoholism; others seem to acquire alcoholism through their behavior. In either case, drunkenness is no less evil because of an inherent predisposition to it. Likewise, sodomy. Of course, it is very hard to live with such predispositions, and profound sympathy and assistance is due to those who suffer from them.
Click to expand...
Shortly later, Reily notes:
Nevertheless, it is at least worth stating that the immutability theory cannot be sustained by the supposed existence of a “gay gene”. There is no scientific evidence for it, which is not to say there may not be genetic influences on sexual orientation. This is the conclusion of some homosexual scientists, such as Dr. Richard Pillard or neuroscientist Dr. Simon LeVay at the Salk Institute in San Diego…
Click to expand...
Dr. LeVay conducted a study of hypothalamic structures in men… but he warned against misinterpreting his findings in a 1994 interview: “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. It didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”
Dr. Marc Breedlove, professor of neuroscience at Michigan State University, said, “Have we found a gay gene…? No, we haven’t found such a gene”, though he stresses there are genetic influences on sexual orientation. Intriguingly, he stated in regard to his own research: “My findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case - that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes alter it. t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused by) differences in the brain.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Dr. LeVay also stated that “it is possible to construct a hypothesis whereby both ‘gay genes’ and a desire to be homosexual are necessary for a person actually to become homosexual.” From where might that desire to become homosexual come? Dr. Jeffret Satinover mused that “the incidence of homosexuality is clearly influenced by mores. Where people endorse and encourage homosexuality, the incidence increases; where they reject it, it decreases. These factors have nothing to do with genetics.”
Click to expand...
Also regarding the “born with it” or “born that way” claim, this essay brings up some good points. Please note that I am not (nor is the author) in any way equating those persons attracted to the same sex with psychopaths or any other group of people:
“Now, many experts view it as a sexual orientation as immutable as heterosexuality … a deep-rooted predisposition … that becomes clear during puberty and does not change.”
The above idea was expressed with respect to homosexuality decades ago and since has become left-wing dogma. The thinking is that if someone was “born that way,” if the behavior is “natural” for him and he didn’t choose his feelings, how could it be wrong? Yet the opening quoted line wasn’t penned decades ago — it’s only two years old. And homosexuality wasn’t the focus…
Click to expand...
…if the “inborn” argument is valid, then it’s silly to think it doesn’t apply to other “innate” urges and inclinations. If it’s not valid, however, then it’s equally silly to accept it with respect to any supposedly innate inclination, such as homosexuality. Let’s delve into it. The same social scientists telling us homosexuality is innate also claim that psychopaths are born and not made. Does this make psychopathy a legitimate state of being?
Click to expand...
I think at this point it’s too early to say a homosexual orientation is innate, and also too early to say that such an orientation is mostly due to social cues. It feels like the old “nature” vs. “nurture” debate. I think it’s more complicated than that, and as mentioned above, it might be a combination of the two. Whatever the case though, we can agree that choosing to act on any sexual urge outside the marital embrace is grave matter, and we can only hope that our pastors would speak out against the current culture’s creed that a myriad of sexual relationships outside of marriage are permissible or “OK”.
 
The conclusive evidence is from homosexuals themselves.

They have know from an early age that they were attracted to members of the same sex.

Various scientific theories can’t change this.

Most scientist believe that same sex attraction is the result of a biological cause,

This doesn’t make their action on the attraction moral, but provides understanding of the situation they in.

Jim
 
Last edited:
The early age argument isn’t a good one to me. Homosexuality is about sex. While young kids may have crushes I don’t think these are sexual attraction. Kids having sexual attraction at a young age is problematic.

But, even if an attraction occurs at an early age that doesn’t mean it is biological. It could still be environmental.
 
He led an extreme lifestyle before his conversion and he is living an extreme lifestyle afterwards. He traded one extremist hat for another.

You don’t “overcome” homosexuality. A chaste gay man remains a gay man.
 
Early age argument ?

It’s not an argument, but the reality which homosexual persons experience at their very young age.

I had no doubt about being attracted to girls, even at age 5 and in my 66 years, that has never changed.

Homosexuals say they knew they were attracted to the same sex at an early age. However, they kept it to themselves, especially in the years I was growing up, because homosexual boys were bullied and treated badly throughout their years.

It’s only recently that homosexuals have been able to come out of the closet so to speak and not worry as much about discrimination and hatred.

Jim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top