Saturday, September 16, 2017

I FEEL LIKE I AM BACK IN THE CORRUPT 1970'S SEMINARY!


Fr. James Martin, SJ is a throwback to the 1970's heterodox progressives who caused so much harm to the Church to this day trying to make Holy Mother Church something she simply isn't and foisting this anti-Catholic ideology on her by manipulating Catholics under the banner of 1960' love as promoted by the immature hippies of that day.

Fr. Martin would do well to promote love for all sinners and not love of the sin as the wonderful group Courage does. Courage is the template for the Church's and thus the Risen Lord's authentic love for homosexuals or those tormented by disordered affections. It is not enablement of loving one's sin but rather enabling loving God and neighbor and the splendor of Truth!

Thus I copy this from Fr. Z with his inserted red comments:


Fr. Martin issued a statement of his own on Facebook (where else?):

Dear friends: Theological College, the seminary at The Catholic University of America, in Washington, DC, today cancelled a talk I was to give on Alumni Day, on Oct. 4, thanks to a campaign by Church Militant, the priest known as “Father Z” and Lifesite News.  [I did NOT campaign for anything.  I didn’t ask anyone to call TC.  I asked some questions.  Period.]
That campaign caused a storm of phone calls, emails and messages to Theological College, which included, I was told, people screaming at the receptionists who answered the phone. In the end, they felt that the expected protests and negative publicity would distract from Alumni Day.  [I sincerely hope that none of you readers were rude to receptionists at TC.  That’s beneath your dignity and, frankly, not behavior that one should expect of Catholics shaped by tradition and “class”.]
This follows the cancellation of another lecture at the Annual Investiture Dinner of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre in New York City, scheduled on Oct. 21. The organizers told me that they had received angry emails and calls from several members of the Order, most of whom, they believed, were encouraged to protest thanks to another campaign initiated by Church Militant, which you can see here: https://www.churchmilitant.com/…/episode/vortex-unbelievable
As an aside, a few years ago I was invited to join the Order of the Holy Sepulchre, but couldn’t because of its steep entrance fee. Also, Catholic University hosted me for a talk, one of a few that I have given there, just last year.
That follows an earlier cancellation of a lecture in London for Cafod (Catholic International Development Charity in England) which was scheduled for the third week in October.
Each of these cancellations was a result of anger or fear over my book “Building a Bridge,” about LGBT Catholics. The book has the formal approval (the “Imprimi Potest”) of my Jesuit Provincial, the Very Rev. John Cecero, SJ; and has been endorsed by Cardinal Joseph Tobin, Cardinal Kevin Farrell, Archbishop John Wester, Bishop Robert McElroy and Bishop John Stowe.  [All of which is irrelevant.]
In the case of Theological College, the fears were of angry protesters disrupting their Alumni Day. In the case of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre Dinner, it was anger from some members over the topic of LGBT Catholics. In the case of Cafod lecture in London, it was not a response to any campaign but fear that my presence itself would garner negative attention, after the group had recently faced other similar problems. In none of these cases was the local ordinary–in each a cardinal–in any way advocating for the cancellation of the talk. The impetus was purely from those social media sites.
I have asked each organization to be honest about the reasons for these cancellations. That is, I told them I did not want to lie and say, “I withdrew” or “I declined” or “I was afraid to come.”
So I share with you as much as I can in the interests of transparency, which we need in our church. And to show you the outsize influence of social media sites motivated by fear, hatred and homophobia.  [Rubbish.  He is a public figure.  He defends even homosexual acts, not just homosexuals as human beings.  He is, right now, a lightning rod.]
For my part, I bear no ill will to Theological College, Catholic University, the Order of the Holy Sepulchre or Cafod. The organizers were all apologetic and in some cases more upset than I was. I know that they were under extreme pressure, and in some cases were overwhelmed by the rage that can be generated by social media: ill will based on misrepresentations, innuendos, homophobia and especially fear. Perfect love drives out fear, as St. Paul said. But perfect fear also drives out love.
Also, I want to say that none of these cancellations disturbs me.[And yet, here we are, reading this.] I’ve not lost any sleep over them. (The outsize influence of social media sites that traffic in homophobia, specialize in personal attacks, and whips up hatred another matter. This is disturbing and should be disturbing to all of us. It is not coming from God.)
And there will be many other venues. In fact, after the talk in DC was cancelled, Holy Trinity Church in DC invited me to deliver a lecture a few days before the planned Theological College event was to occur, on Sept. 30. So I look forward to seeing you all in Washington.
I’m also happy to say that a revised and expanded version of “Building a Bridge,”with a new introduction, more stories drawn from my encounters with LGBT people, more insights from church leaders, and more biblical meditations, will be published early next year.
Last night at the University of Scranton, after the talk to the incoming freshmen, a mother approached the book-signing table, and started to cry when she talked about her gay son and what the book had meant to her. And I told her that her tears put any opposition in perspective.  [Emotions are a huge factor in this issue.  Often they trump reason.]
Because what is opposition next to the love of Jesus? It is nothing.
I also have the support of my Jesuit Provincial, my Jesuit brothers, and two cardinals and several bishops who endorsed my book (as well as many other cardinals, archbishops and bishops who have contacted me privately). Most of all, I want to say that Jesus is close to me in prayer.
So I am at total peace.
A final note: all of the talks that were cancelled–at Theological College, at the Order of the Holy Sepulchre Investiture Dinner, and at Cafod, were not about LGBT Catholics. They were about Jesus.

27 comments:

Fr. Joseph Mack said...

As a graduate of TC (1989), one who was more than slightly horrified to see he was invited to give a lecture there, I am quite relieved to hear that his misguided teachings were blocked.
It is hoped that he and those who approve of his "teachings" will rediscover the truths of the Catholic faith in regard to these issues and do their job of transmitting them faithfully.

Anonymous said...

Bee here:

From the Facebook post by Fr. Martin: "Most of all, I want to say that Jesus is close to me in prayer."

? Good to know Jesus is close to him. Just wondering how close he is to Jesus...

As I read this article I thought, there is no such thing as a "gay Catholic" or a "homosexual Catholic," just as there is no such thing as an "ex-convict Catholic," an "adulterer Catholic" or a "drug-addict Catholic." There are just Catholics with sinfulness or past sins or tendency toward a particular sin.

So sorry when priests use their collar to politicize the Church and in doing so misrepresent the teachings of Christ. It's those who are the broken reeds or smoldering wicks who are most damaged by it.

God bless,
Bee

Fr Martin Fox said...

As I told Father Martin on his Facebook page (not that I presume he saw it; and we do not know each other personally), this is a sad but reasonable consequence of dissenting from Church teaching.

I don't wish him ill; I wish him to end his dissent.

George said...

The operative phrase in our day when it comes in how we should approach one who is in a state of persistent sinful behavior is to "accompany" the person. The contention that arises over this is what accompanying the person means and in what way we should do this. The problem is that too often, "accompanying " leads to accommodation.

As Theresa of Avila lamented about permissive confessors she encountered: "What was venial sin they said was not sin at all and what was mortal sin they said was venial. This did me much harm."

The person in such a sinful state should have the benefit of our prayers and sacrifices so as by the effect of these there will come about a remorsefulness and an amendment of life to overcome their sinful behavior. The person should likewise be encouraged to pray to God and the saints for help to overcome those actions which go against what God desires of us. How often we see today where persons will go to great pains and expense to improve their personal appearance, yet will not expend even a small effort to improve the state of their soul.

John Nolan said...

Cafod has tweeted that Martin would be welcome to address them at any time.

They should watch their step. Many orthodox Catholics have for some years been suspicious of the left-leaning charity and have withdrawn their support. It is these people whose donations and bequests they cannot afford to lose.

Leftists have plenty to say for themselves but rarely put their money where their mouth is. Why should they? They think the world owes them a living.

Mary R said...

I wonder how many of those who have called Father Martin names have actually read the book. After listening to all the dissension, I decided to read it. I did not find anything troubling in it - he did not say homosexual acts were moral; he only asked that we treat homosexuals with compassion. Surely something Jesus would have done.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

I think Courage does that in a very multifaceted compassionate way.

Mary R said...

But having a Courage group in a town does not mean that Catholics in the pew act with compassion; nor do all pastors encourage a compassionate respect. We used to have a priest who was very compassionate but he retired. His young replacement gave a long sermon about the "intrinsic disorder" of LGBTQ individuals. I am not gay, but have a relative who is. They quit going to Mass after this sermon.

John Nolan said...

Mary R

Let's get this right. A young priest spells out the Church's clear teaching which can be read in the Catechism and elsewhere. Someone decides he doesn't like this and so 'quits going to Mass'.

Since when did 'compassion' mean avoiding telling the truth? Was the 'quitter' unaware of the Church's teaching? Or did he feel uncomfortable when reminded of it? He sounds like someone who only goes to Mass to feel good about himself.

When I go to Mass I am confronted with what Our Lord says, or what St Paul says. It does not massage my ego; in fact it makes me feel very uncomfortable indeed. That is surely the point.

George said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
George said...

Mary you seem to be a good, loving compassionate person, which is good, but Fr Martin holds positions on sexual behavior which go against what the Holy Catholic Church teaches.

He denies Church teaching on human sexuality and natural law by telling homosexuals and so-called transgenders that God created them that way. He also disagrees with Church teaching which calls homosexual acts "objectively disordered." As Catholics it is incumbent on us to accept Church teaching when it comes to faith and morals. Evidence of being faithful to God and His Church is that you do not advocate, proclaim or teach anything which is contrary to magisterial teaching. If one is a faithful Catholic, one should not advocate for or proclaim that which is contrary to Church teaching.
God,who created all that exists, likewise created the laws by which all created things operate and obey and these laws come out of His Wisdom, Justice and Holiness. God also left to us His spiritual and moral laws and teachings by which we are obligated to abide by and, unlike the laws of man, they cannot be changed or amended..

Yes, as Christians we should treat all persons with compassion and respect.

What God requires of all persons who are not married according to Church law is the same, and that is that they abstain from sex.

rcg said...

Surely Fr. Martin sees that his version of compassion is easily dissembled into permission. I agree that we should not be threatening the lives or safety of homosexuals but it must be confusing as hell for them to hear that they are struggling with a disorder that is the equivalent of love between married man and woman. That might, however, be their actual path to salvation: they were acting on good faith based on the garbage they were fed by people like Fr. Martin. However, the old saw that if the information seems too good to be true that it probably isn't, seems to hold here.

Since we are dancing on the electrical rails of trains I would compare the illness of homosexuality with what we usually call racism. There are logical paths to the position of loving another person of the same sex, or of believing your race or culture is the best there is. Buy it is dehumanizing to believe that a person is inferior only for their race or that they are only a preferred method of stimulation. That there are perfectly rational paths to racist opinions and to sexual disfunction demonstrates the weakness of rational thought as a competitor with Natural Law.

Dialogue said...

Mary R.,

Your relative made a reasonable, though sad, decision. Christianity is only for those of us who wish to know the truth about our sinfulness and to change our lives accordingly. Unrepentant sinners, like your relative, understandably avoid us.

Mary R said...

I perhaps did not clarify. My cousin who is gay is also chaste; what she objected to is the terminology and tone of the sermon. She felt many eyes turn to her as she makes no secret. She finds the condemnation of all with same sex attraction difficult to accept. As she says, many who attend our Masses are in non-chaste relationships but that seems to be a lesser sin.

By the way, I find your robot verification almost impossible!!!

TJM said...

Mary R,

If your cousin is chaste, then why bring up sexual orientation at all? Is it really the world's business? Also, the Church does not condemn same sex attraction itself, just the acting out of same sex attraction just like it condemns sexual relations outside of marriage.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

And with all sexual sins the confidentiality of the seal of confession is best observed. Thie Sacrament of Confesdion is the focal point for God's Divine Mercy and the Church's compassion for disordered and illicit affections.

Mary R said...

It is not anyone's business but in a small community it is hard to be keep it a secret. In fact other Courage participants outed her. If the Church does not condemn same sex attraction, why does it define it as "intrinsically disordered." I had to explain that to many young teenagers when I taught in a Catholic school. There is no way to explain that as compassionate and loving.

Fr. Allan J. McDonald said...

Mary you and your children are not too stupid to know and understand the physical, mental. Spiritual and moral disorders that afflict who we are and our body and soul. You have drunk the koolaide of seclsrism's ideology and manipulation. Only when a proper diagnosis of any disorder is made can the medicine of healing occur. Sometimes healing includes amputation. To deny that put one's life in jeopardy! Same is true of the denial of spiritual disorders.

Dialogue said...

Mary R.,

How are you connecting "disordered" with "condemned"? These are distinct terms, one Aristotelian and the other judicial.

John Nolan said...

Paedophilia erotica is regarded as a sexual orientation rather than (as in the past) a mental illness. Few people would object to its being described as an objective disorder. Nor is there much evidence that paedophiles arouse feelings of compassion or sympathy.

Mary R said...

It is true that paedophilia does not arouse feelings of compassion or sympathy. Unfortunately neither does same sex attraction. Our pastor said that it is a choice someone makes that can be changed. He does not find the unmarried heterosexual partners as bad since they can go to confession and rectify their situation whereas few LGBTQ ever do.
Both our diocese and archdiocese are still settling multiple lawsuits against paedophile priest. Unfortunately many put homosexuals in the same category.

TJM said...

Mary R,

Your comments would find a more receptive audience at the National Anti-Catholic Reporter. You've shot your wad here. I suspect your diocese and archdiocese have settled claims involving homosexual (not pedophilia) sexual abuse. Since the national media ADORES homosexuals they will distort the facts to protect one of their favorite causes (ironic since the same media ADORES radical Muslims that tosses gays off of skyscrapers). God cannot resolve contradictions but the media can (see St. Thomas Aquinus re: Summa Theologica)

John Nolan said...

Most of the lawsuits concern homosexual priests who are attracted to adolescent boys and young men (a classic homosexual trait). Paedophilia (a sexual orientation towards pre-pubescent children) is thankfully rare.

Joe Potillor said...

There's a difficulty in finding a balancing act. Can such a language be used that expresses the dissatisfaction with the situation, and at the same time "validate" a certain feeling.

I really don't think that it's possible. It's impossible to control how a person will respond to language that is being used. Each person is different, and instead of being some kind of mass situation, I think those situations should be treated individually.

I can certainly get behind some things, I would not want to see homosexuals or those of other sins thrown off roofs, or given the equivalent of the death penalty. I can certainly get behind situations when they're actually being persecuted. Where their rights are being trampled upon, I'll defend them (neither marriage nor adoption are rights)

But what I can't do is say homosexual behaviour is okay or approve of it. People (in this case Fr Martin) tend to think that to support a person that automatically means that they must 100% agree with what they say and or do. I wouldn't dare cause damage to my eyes by reading that book of his, but I'll say this: if the presence of God himself isn't enough to make one welcome, what in the world will a mere human do?

To make an omelette one needs to break a few eggs, I think too often we get caught in the culture of sensitivity, and that makes us collectively afraid to stand up for Truth because we don't want to hurt peoples' feelings. (Once the battle is on emotion, he game is over). Disorder is when something isn't pointed properly, that's rather nice compared to the fire and brimstone style of some.

God have mercy on us all.

Dialogue said...

Mary R.,

Sodomites, child molesters, adulterers, fornicators, contraceptors, masturbators, etc. all commit mortal sin and so are all liable to condemnation if they know what they're doing and if they do it freely. The Church has always taught this and will never teach otherwise.

On the other hand, those persons merely tempted to any of these foul practices are offered many graces to courageously resit such temptations, and will receive an eternal reward for doing so.

rcg said...

I hope Mary's niece comes back. Depending on where she is emotionally it seems like a good opportunity for her to speak with the new priest about her struggle and the effect his homily had on her. I can't tell if he was too harsh or if she was too sensitive, but an effort needs to be made to keep her engaged. I do agree, however, with others who have said that a good priest makes you uncomfortable.

John Nolan said...

I can think of a lot of reasons for avoiding attendance at Mass; bad music, abusive liturgy, heresy preached from the pulpit. If it isn't practical to attend a Mass that has none of these, you will derive more spiritual benefit from staying at home and watching a Mass on the internet, or reading through the Mass of the day, or putting on a CD of Palestrina.

But not attending Mass because the priest was 'insensitive' in expounding the clear moral teaching of the Church (which not only homosexuals have to examine their consciences about) suggests narcissism on the one hand, and a somewhat tenuous link to Catholicism on the other.