This is a kind of a bombshell, as it concerns todas, todas, todas and blessing of persons, places and things. Does this go against the premise of Fiducia Supplians???? And this is an Augustinian priest to boot!:
Filipino priest suspended for blessing Masonic marker
And then there is a good commentary on the scandal of Fr. James Martin, SJ gushing over his 30 minute meeting with Pope Leo in the most self serving and self referential way. This commentary puts that 30 minute meeting into context:
Pope Leo Meets with James Martin
Can I be honest with you? I thought it was wrong for cardinals and bishops who publicly fought with Pope Francis, no matter how meritorious their fight might have been. It was particularly untoward to hear cardinals speaking out against Pope Francis.
Others, too, instrumentalized Pope Francis in their favor in terms of heterodox development of doctrine.
This brings us to Jesuitical Father James Martin, SJ. I know of no other priest in the Catholic Church who has gloried in and bragged about his personal meetings with Pope Francis and Pope Leo to shore up his own low self-esteem. . You’d think, listening to Fr. James, that he had hours of private meetings with these two popes and they were/are best buddies, besties!
I don’t know for sure, but I think he might have had two half hour meetings with Pope Francis.
The meeting Fr. James had with Pope Leo this week was 30 minutes.
He summarized that meeting with Pope Leo in about two sentences.
Most pastoral Catholics, and I am one of them, don’t hate people with same sex attractions nor do we wish harm on them. I don’t want to scandalize anyone, but Christ’s moral law doesn’t strive to control people, but by God’s grace enables people who struggle with any kind of sin or temptation, to be tempered and with God’s help live according to his law.
There is a delicate balance in avoiding public scandal by one’s lifestyle as it concerns Catholic morality. For example, being a thief should not define a child of God even if that child of God is a thief and has a hard time resisting the temptation to steal. They may well experience the disorder of Kleptomania which lessens not the evil of stealing, but the culpability of the seriousness of the sin. What is typically considered serious matter, stealing, and thus considered a mortal sin, becomes a venial sin due to disordered passions that the sinner often cannot curtail or control.
But let’s get back to the papacy.
The papal magisterium cannot be summed up or be built upon private audiences he has with sinners and saints, heterodox and orthodox and then what these people say about those meetings whereas the pope, and thanks be to God, says nothing nor reacts to his visitors’ post-meeting statements which may not include all that was said.
Papal magisteriums are based upon formal written statements be they homilies, letters, Apostolic letters, bulls, Motu Proprios, and encyclicals. Dogmatizing a doctrine requires a teaching from the “Chair” to be classified as infallible. Only two pope alone infallible bulls have been issued by any pope in 2,000 years, that dogmatizing the Doctrine of the Immaculate Coneption and the other of the Doctrine of the Assumption.
Pope Leo, far more than Pope Francis, makes sure that when he speaks at important events that he sticks to his written text and it is that text that will comprise his papal magisterium. He has few off-the-cuff statements that can be twisted to mean something else other than what he has said.
Thus far there hasn’t been any major interviews that others can use what Pope Leo says to promote heterodoxy.
When it comes to morality, His Holiness has written in a text to moral theologians to use the methods of the pre-Vatican II moralist, Saint Alphonsus Liguori.
His Holiness’ written text to French Catholic politicians asks them to embrace all of Catholicism in their lives and not divide their Catholic beliefs from their political advocacy. He emphasizes Natural Law, which has implications for all aspects of Catholic morality.
Is anything that Pope Leo said to Fr. Martin, and we only know what Fr. Martin thinks he said to him, since there is no transcribed witness to that meeting, contradictory to Catholic sexual teachings and the sacramental nature of the Church and that God has created only two genders, male and female, He created them? Is there?????
33 comments:
I’m sure Martin agreed with Leo what message would be disseminated in the press. Leo clearly wants to convey a positive message to LGBT Catholics and the world.
Yes, I agree with you but I believe that Pope Leo’s positive message too LGBTQ Catholics and others is tempered by Natural Law too, which Fr. Martin never, ever teaches:
The Church distinguishes between homosexual acts and a homosexual inclination, which is not considered a sin in itself. The Church calls for homosexual persons to be treated with "respect, compassion, and sensitivity" and for unjust discrimination against them to be avoided.
Homosexual individuals are called to live a life of chastity, like all unmarried people.
The purpose of these teachings:
The Catholic Church frames these teachings not as arbitrary rules but as a guide for human flourishing. From this perspective, living in accordance with the natural law, as revealed through both reason and scripture, leads to authentic human happiness. Violating natural law, including in the area of sexuality, is seen as destructive to the human person and to society.
BTW, I saw this morning on Fox News Channel that an English entertainer in the UK was arrested for posting a tweet on X that your authorities in the UK thought was illegal and he was arrested! The tweet was somewhat innocuous and by no means worse than anything anyone writes on this blog and its comments. Would you be arrested for reading this blog over there and if I go there will I be arrested. Has the UK become worse than the former Soviet Union when it comes to freedom of speech?????
Is there anything more "self serving" than a blog screed filled with complaints about a priest meeting with the pope? Is there anything more "self referential" than that same blog blather making wild assumptions, to wit: "I don’t know for sure, but I think he might have had two half hour meetings with Pope Francis."
Be that as it may be, you can never accuse me of bragging about my meetings with Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis I. I did not bitterly complain at my meetings with Popes John Paul II and Francis I that someone else slapped my hand out of the way as I was about to shake the popes’ hand, so they could shake the popes’ hand. I did not complain when I saw Benedict XVI in His Holiness’ Popemobile, that he did not stop to shake my hand. I am very circumspect about those kinds of things.
Fr. MJK,
What about your comments? Stick, log, etc. In fact, any time anyone says anything, it's self serving and self-referential! Catch-22 on all of you!!
Nick
I do not think that Father Martin, S.J., had "gushed" any more than, for example, the ICK had "gushed" following their audience last year with Pope Francis (requiescat in pace).
The ICK had been keen to promote photographs of their cordial meeting with Pope Francis.
The ICK informed the world that Pope Francis "insisted that we continue to serve the Church according to our own, proper charism...The Holy Father also expressed his gratitude for the prayers and for the apostolic and missionary work of the Sister Adorers."
"At the end of the meeting, the Holy Father invited our Prior General to visit him again with all the members of the Institute, as well as the Sister Adorers, whom he would be very happy to receive in audience."
=======
The FSSP "gushed" in regard to their private audiences with Pope Francis. The FSSP informed us that Pope Francis supported the FSSP'S mission.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
And me too, for that comment! Oy vey!!!
Nick
"What is typically considered serious matter, stealing, and thus considered a mortal sin, becomes a venial sin due to disordered passions that the sinner often cannot curtail or control."
This line of reasoning is demonic. It is the passions that we as Christians are striving to overcome with God's help. I think that our priest explains this well: all passions are sins, but not all sins are passions. What this means is that a person might commit a sinful act, but the passion hasn't taken root. So the solitary sinful action is not inherently a stumbling block to communion with God. On the other hand, passions are always an obstacle blocking our connection with God, and it is those passions that we seek to uproot.
From: The One Peter 5 article thar Father McDonald had linked:
-- "Based on the conduct of Fr. James Martin, it is safe to say we cannot trust anything that he says."
That is preposterous.
=======
The article downplays/dismisses Father Martin's audience with Pope Leo XIV.
"If we assume that James Martin is accurately reporting what was said in their meeting (which is a big assumption), it amounts to nothing in particular.
"Like many things that Pope Leo has said and done, it’s simply unclear which way he is approaching these things.
"What is clear is that Pope Leo is not going to condemn Pope Francis, nor James Martin."
The article declared also that Father Martin "is into lies and heresy..."
Wait a minute. Father Martin is a heretic...but his audience with Pope Leo XIV has been downplayed?
If...if...Father James Martin S.J., "is into lies and heresy," then his audience with Pope Leo XIV is a big deal...it is a massive deal. Via his audience in question with Father Martin, Pope Leo XIV has legitimized a supposed vile priest/heretic.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Do you think it is about time Fr. Martin SJ did some pastoral work to save souls; rather than queueing at airports and telling the world about his meeting with the Holy Father. It must be strange that whenever Pope Leo wants to kick his shoes off, he finds Fr. Martin SJ whining about something, sat in his study. Your Holiness, change the locks and don't let him in!
Lord have mercy MT! I know you are having a hard time with Pope Francis no longer the pope, but I had no idea about your animus toward poor Pope Leo! I can’t believe you believe he in any way whatsoever legitimized Fr. Martin’s tendency towards promoting moral heresy. You must think that poor Pope Leo legitimizes schism when he meets with Eastern Orthodox Bishops or legitimizes atheism when he meets with atheistic world leaders. Come on MT!
Now now, Father, pastoral work can and should involve setting up photo shoots for getting yourself in the New York Times! You're just being "self-serving" and "self-reverential"!
Nick
It is a bit hyperbolic to say that the Church's line of reasoning is demonic. Of course, kleptomaniacs aren't the only ones who steal. Some who aren't steal regularly because that's what they do. It's a mortal sin because they have the ability to control their stealing and eliminate it as they aren't kleptomaniacs. I do not know the Orthodox or Eastern Rite teachings on sin and if these are classified as serious, more serious, less serious, i.e. venial or mortal. A venial sin could include serious matter but the person doesn't know that it is sinful and thus it is venial rather than what normally would be mortal. A mortal sin is venial not only if the person doesn't know it is serious or even a sin, but if the person's "full consent of the will" is compromised by psychological compulsions or passions that at present they can't control. Maybe spiritual counseling and psychological treatment and drugs might curtail the compulsion or passion to steal, but until then, if full consent of the will is compromised, the serious matter, normally considered mortal sin, is a venial sin for that person. Ordinarily, a person in a state of mortal sin, even if there is only one mortal sin, breaks communion with God and His Church. They must go to Confession first. Until they repent and go to confession, they are not free to receive Holy Communion. Not so with a venial sin. Confession is not necessary, only an Act of Contrition and the person then may receive Holy Communion. The Mass itself forgives venial sins when there is general sorrow.
Father, I have had a difficult time without Pope Francis (requiescat in pace)? I miss him. But I miss each Pope who had served God during my lifetime.
I take great comfort in Pope Leo XIV having insisted that Pope Francis is in Heaven.
Anyway, I am on board with His Holiness, Pope Leo XIV. He has my unconditional respect and obedience.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
I would suspect that the majority of LGBTQ+++ Catholics and other Catholics believe that what Fr. Martin is saying and in fact what Feducia Supplicans is all about is blessing the sexual union and regularizing it in the eyes of Catholics so that they are told they are living in sin. God forbid that in our society of enablement of sin and evil, we call anyone to convert or seek psychiatric care. It might hurt their feelings. Tough love is a relic of the early 1980's! Fr. Martin knows that FS and blessing individuals as couples in a disordered sexual lifestyle is a development of doctrine that will lead to blessing these as a normal "marriage" in the Church-that's the goal and that goal is demonic.
There's no firm mortal/venial distinction in the Orthodox understanding of sin. So, there's no legalistic application of these various elements you mentioned when a person examines his conscience to prepare for confession. One simply confesses one's sins. More importantly, one confesses his dominant passions and attempts to work through those passions with the assistance of the spiritual father. The attempt is made to attack the passion at its root with the assistance and counsel of the priest and the grace of the confession to Christ.
I am glad you take comfort in Pope Leo insisting that Pope Francis is in heaven, he simply stated a pious opinion that Pope Francis is in heaven. Until he or a future pope state it definitively through canonization, which is a process, not an opinion, then we can take greater comfort that Pope Francis is in heaven, until then we pray for His Holiness immortal soul. RIP!
If an Orthodox member of your church believes they are in a state of sin as you describe it, must they go to confession first prior to receiving Holy Communion again? At one point, if there is one in Orthodox theology of sin, does a person inccur "excommunication" on the personal level which needs repentance and the Sacrament of Forgiveness (not sure what the Orthodox call the Sacrament of Penance or if the orthodox believe in penance for forgiven sin?
A person's frequency of confession is determined by the instruction of their spiritual father. Sometimes priests require confession before each communion, sometimes the expectation is once a month, and sometimes it is once a year. In any event, Orthodox people must do other things to receive communion, including maintaining their given prayer rule, adhering to the Wednesday & Friday fast (and other fasting periods), adhering to the pre-communion fast, and saying the pre-communion prayers prescribed by their priest. Of course, if one's heart is particularly troubled, he could go to confession anytime.
If a person has not confessed in accordance with the priest's direction and yet still approaches for communion, the priest will deny them communion. Priests are personally accountable for those they commune, so when we travel, for example, we contact the church we're going to ahead of time to make sure the priest knows that our priest has blessed us to commune at the church we visit.
During confession, a priest might tell the person that they are forbidden from receiving communion for some period of time as a sort of penance. Generally, we aren't given a "penance" like in Roman Catholicism, though. We are given advice, modifications to the prayer rule or specific prayers to say, or specific actions to do to combat the prevalent passions confessed.
The actual rite of Confession in Orthodoxy is always in person with the person making their confession toward an icon of Christ with the priest standing to the side listening. The priest offers advice or instruction after listening to the confession. Then, the priest places his stole over the person's head and reads the prayer of absolution.
It seems to me that your Orthodox Church gives waaay to much authority to your spiritual father in terms of frequency of confession. And that the priest has an authority to require something that other priests don't--that's a bit shocking to my orthodox ears! The canonization of inconsistency from one priest to another. I do like the other things Orthodox must do as they are legalistic, consistent and applicable to all Orthodox. Needing permission from your priest to be able to "commune" at an Orthodox Church you are visiting seems to me to be a bit of an over-reach in one priests' rule over a layman and extending that to another parish. And penance, just spiritual advice that one must do, not for justice for one's forgiven sin but as combat passions considered sin (although the Catholic Church would classify passion as the redeemed version of the sinful/evil lust. To me what you say about this isn't wrong but it should include justice for forgiven sin, a penalty for sin, even sin that is forgiven. But of course, that would logically lead to the need for purgatory, indulgences and justice. The form of confession is quite sacramental and appropriate, although let me sit!
Sin is not conceptualized as involving the element of justice in Orthodoxy as it is in the West. Rather, sin is primarily understood to be a spiritually malady that harms the individual sinner rather than some idea of wounding Divine Justice -- nothing we do affects God or wounds him. We wound ourselves, and He wants to heal us.
The ethos is very different in Orthodoxy with regard to the role of the spiritual father. That is why he has a different sort of responsibility for the people than what happens in Catholicism.
Since he knows the souls of his people, he knows how frequently they need to confess and when they should commune. For some people, it is harmful to confess every week -- some people are scrupulous. So, these things change depending on the individual needs of the people, which is something the spiritual father is best equipped to respond to.
As for communion at other churches, as I mentioned, priests are responsible for everyone they commune. So, by letting the other priest know to expect new people and that we are Orthodox and have the blessing of our spiritual father, he has some assurance that we are presenting as properly as possible for communion. Using one's own flawed judgment for these things can be harmful in other ways too.
Our priest hurt his knee last year, so he sometimes uses a stool to sit on now. So some sitting is allowed!
I should also add, on the topic of obedience to the spiritual father, that this happens in lots of different ways. We read books that we have been blessed to read; we fast (or not) in the way that we have been blessed to fast; we pray in the way that we have been blessed to pray; we attend the services that we have been blessed to attend.
All of this is a way of having accountability through obedience and of maintaining the right balance in the spiritual life so that we not crushed by our zeal or given over to despair by our despondency.
nothing we do affects God or wounds him. We wound ourselves, ??? The Orthodox don’t believe Jesus willing took on His body every sin and evil, past, present and to come and in doing so suffered in a way no other human has ever suffered and because of our sins????
We don't view things in that way; although, we might use the same words and phrases, they have a different meaning. Christ took on the prelapsarian human nature at the Incarnation; yet, he voluntarily chose to suffer the fate of postlapsarian humanity with his death on the Cross. He voluntarily descended into Hades, broke the gates of death, and ransomed those who followed Him from that eternal death. That is why we proclaim that Christ destroyed death by death.
Of course, Christ suffered in obedience in a way no one else has -- since he was free from sin and not under the curse. His doing so freed us from death and enslavement to the passions that seek to keep us in death rather than being free in Christ.
We don't view this transactionally, as in a payment for sins, as this came to be understood in the West with the rise of Anselm's ideas in the 11th Century.
Orthodox soteriology is summarized pretty well in the Anaphora of St. Basil's Liturgy:
And when the fullness of time had come, You spoke to us through Your Son Himself, through whom You created the ages. He, being the splendor of Your glory and the image of Your being, upholding all things by the word of His power, thought it not robbery to be equal with You, God and Father. But, being God before all ages, He appeared on earth and lived with humankind. Becoming incarnate from a holy Virgin, He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, conforming to the body of our lowliness, that He might change us in the likeness of the image of His glory. For, since through man sin came into the world and through sin death, it pleased Your only begotten Son, who is in Your bosom, God and Father, born of a woman, the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary; born under the law, to condemn sin in His flesh, so that those who died in Adam may be brought to life in Him, Your Christ. He lived in this world, and gave us precepts of salvation. Releasing us from the delusions of idolatry, He guided us to the sure knowledge of You, the true God and Father. He acquired us for Himself, as His chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. Having cleansed us by water and sanctified us with the Holy Spirit, He gave Himself as ransom to death in which we were held captive, sold under sin. Descending into Hades through the cross, that He might fill all things with Himself, He loosed the bonds of death. He rose on the third day, having opened a path for all flesh to the resurrection from the dead, since it was not possible that the Author of life would be dominated by corruption.
Martin does lots of pastoral work from publishing books to ministering to different communities like the LGBT outreach work. There’s more to pastoral work than being in a parish.
FS isn’t about blessing the sexual union but recognising what is good in a loving caring relationship. Indeed many gay unions are or become non-sexual in time.
I also miss Francis a lot but don’t think he was a saint. However, I think Leo’s doing a great job!
Father McDonald said..."I can’t believe you believe he in any way whatsoever legitimized Fr. Martin’s tendency towards promoting moral heresy. You must think that poor Pope Leo legitimizes schism when he meets with Eastern Orthodox Bishops or legitimizes atheism when he meets with atheistic world leaders."
Father, when the non-Catholics that you mentioned depart from Pope Leo XIV, do they do so in full-communion with His Holiness?
Father James Martin, S.J., departed yesterday in full-communion with Pope Leo XIV. Father Martin is in good standing with Holy Mother Church.
However, as I had noted earlier, if...if...if Father James Martin S.J., spouts heresy, then Pope Leo XIV has confirmed Father Martin's supposed heresy.
Pope Leo XIV allows "heretical" Father Martin to function in full communion with the Church.
The Church, of course, has not proclaimed Father Martin a "heretic."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
You mean the Outreach whose documents noticeably contradict Vatican guidance on their core "competency"?
Nick
Bishop Raul Vera Lopez is also in "full-communion" with Pope Leo. That doesn't do much to commend him as orthodox.
Nick
“Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected… When two persons love, they experience in a limited manner in this world what will be their unending delight when one with God in the next… To love another, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to have entered the area of the richest human experience…” (Cardinal Basil Hume, Note on the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concerning Homosexual People, 1995).
See my comment responding to this identical comment on a more recent post.
Nick
Post a Comment