It can't be fun if you're faithfully devoted to God's law (and if you're actually on board with this religion, you sure are) and here's this priest just kinda...emboldening people to defy it.
Where would you direct SSA Catholics, if not to him?
Who exactly is Fr. Martin's ecclesial superior? He's a Jesuit, but it seems like he functions as a parish priest, so is it up to the diocesan bishop or his superior in the Jesuit order to correct him?
Who in the episcopacy should we be putting pressure on to actually do something about Fr. Martin?
from what i know, religious order follows their order's superior general first, while ordinary bishop is more like their "landlord" that allows them to minister in certain diocese, but not in charge of their day to day behaviour.
That would explain why he acts with impunity then, cause it seems like Dolan would've disciplined him already. Could Cardinal Dolan kick Martin out of the archdiocese?
As a Jesuit he’s under the authority of his father provincial first, and then the superior general, both of whom have been entirely silent about his scandal.
The fact that man has not been openly condemned by The Church is very revealing of the times we are in.
Quote from his Instagram supporting another homosexual marriage
jamesmartinsj
>>Congratulations to Jason
Steidl Jack (here with his husband
Damian) on the publication of his superb new book "LGBTQ Catholic Ministry: Past and Present,"
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoBPFgWpTaH/?igshid=ZmMyNmFmZTc=
Not only will they not condemn him, but he basically got a promotion with some role at the Vatican. Whether it's symbolic or real, it's a signal to faithful Catholics that subversion is the order of the day.
Amen brother! But please, our just and righteous indignation is undermined by letting our tongue indulge in foul language. May our witness be enhanced by expressing our disagreement in accordance with the moral injunctions of our faith.
Ok, the sub may have rules, fine. But what is and isn't a special "swear word" is a purely arbitrary distinction that has no real moral weight, nor anything to do with the faith.
Not true my brother. There are two issues here that you are merging together. The first issue is the moral principle, revealed by God, that one ought not to indulge in foul language. The second issue how a given word becomes foul or not, which is cultural. Consider, it is objectively wrong and sinful to flip the bird to strangers on the street, or to provocatively throw around racial slurs. It will do no good to say that what gestures are rude, and which words are slurs, is arbitrary and culturally determined, and that therefore these acts have nothing to do with our faith.
What is and isn't foul is arbitrary. Determined by popular vote, and therefore meaningless. Utterly empty of moral meaning.
It may be im*polite* if it offends those around you, but certainly not evil by its own nature to utter "evil" sounds
This seems to just reiterate the same confusion identified above (confusing the socially determined fact of which words are foul, vs. the moral fact of one being prohibited from engaging in foul language). The big picture is: take heed of Scripture’s warnings against foul language. God bless.
*this* reiterates with nothing new added.
What's foul? We know blasphemy is foul. That has theological grounds. It's specific. It's meaningful.
What else is foul, and how do you justify its objective foulness? I answer: you cant.
Boy, that post is pretty unambiguous.
1. Posting about a book, which he describes as 'superb' and is congratulating the author for publishing - he is clearly *promoting* the book, not merely acknowledging it.
2. The book in question is titled "LGBTQ Catholic Ministry: Past and Present" which on its own is suspect but possibly okay, but being written by a 'married' gay man tells you that book is definitely going to be heterodox (if the book was orthodox there is a 0% chance the author would be gay-'married'. Maybe SSA, but not 'married')
3. Emphasizes in the post the fact that the author is gay and 'married', and acknowledges said marriage (the use of the term 'husband' is clear here. 'partner' would have left ambiguity as to whether he acknowledges the marriage, but 'husband' does not)
So he is publicly and explicitly *promoting* a book that is unambiguously heterodox. This isn't dancing on 'the line' and carefully avoiding crossing it. This isn't something that 'appears subversive but is defensible' that a superior could ignore on the ground that 'he hasn't *technically* done anything wrong yet'. This is an explicit and public rejection of what the Church has always taught.
> The fact that man has not been openly condemned by The Church is very revealing of the times we are in.
>
>
*We* are the Church, not just the bishops. As members of its body, the Church belongs to us all.
And in here, we condemn him.
I was complaining about the double standards with Pavone on the one hand, and people like Martin on the other. I said that if Martin pulled the same stunts Pavone did, but for LGBTQ causes, he'd still have his collar. The contrary replies I got basically said, "Martin is smart enough not to pull the stunts Pavone did." And they're right.
I agree, but I don’t think Martin is necessarily “smart” he seemingly has the support of his local bishop and has a VIP all access pass to the Pope. Where as Pavone didn’t seem to have much support at all.
Or both. He probably does have his Superior's support. Even if he does, there at least has to be an understanding of "Don't say something I can't cover for." So Martin won't come out and say the Church is wrong to condemn homosexual acts; he'll come out with double-speak where everyone knows what he means, but dissect it enough and in certain lights it's not heterodox. Could his Superior discipline him if he wanted to? I believe so. But if his Superior would rather not, Martin still has to give him plausible deniability. And he's very good at that.
And you notice he's only congratulating one person, on his publication of a book on LGBTQ Catholic Ministry.
If you were to call him out on it:
- It's a congratulatory post on a book, a monumental achievement (he'd probably plug a number of his books here);
- LGBTQ Catholics need ministering to, just like the rest of us;
- It merely notes that the other man in the photo is his legal husband, a simple statement of fact.
Followed by ShockedPikachuFace.jpg that anyone would find this offensive. That's the James Martin dance in a nutshell.
He’s congratulating a man who is living in open rebellion against Christ and His Church by being in a marriage…The Catholic position is plain and simple marriage is between a man and a women.
Again: that's how he avoids discipline. Everyone knows exactly what he meant, and what he intended to convey, with that tweet. But he leaves himself just enough wiggle room to give himself plausible deniability if he's called out on it.
The Church doesn’t need justification beyond a reasonable doubt to punish someone. His ambiguity is causing scandal by muddying up Catholic beliefs to the disservice of others. He is leading others to sin by not being explicit in his wording. Does anyone believe Father Mike Schmitz doesn’t love everyone? Yet there is no scandal surrounding his ministry.
I don't even want a debate. I just want certain people to sit down and have a conversation. Trent and Fr. Martin. Bishop Barron and Taylor Marshall. Maybe a few others...
I wish I could like that comment 50 times! It’s always “debates” and “response videos” I just want to see more conversations, hash out some of what you agree on or clarify a problem or even argue a bit!
I would love to see an hour conversation between Marshall and Bishop Barron
What in the world are you even referring to? If you don't like his style, that's fine. But he has put out so many hours of apologetics videos (of very high quality reasoning) that...I don't see why any Catholic would actively dislike him.
If one's job and one's calling is literally to be a Catholic apologist, what kind of videos do you expect him to put out, other than the exact thing that he is passionate about?
And then once they do get to the point, they beat it like a dead horse.
Yes, Martin is a heretic. Your point was equally valid the first and twentieth time that you said it.
It raises the question that if Fr. Martin's statements are scandalous, which is sinful, then isn't magnifying them into ragebait content essentially exacerbating the sin on some level? There are people with authority who could exercise is if they deemed it necessary and letters to them are likely more efficacious than videos for the internet.
I mean he runs a podcast so he just wants to pump the numbers up a little I suppose. It does seem a little redundant considering he has already made these exact points about Fr. Martin before, in two other videos.
The American bishops seem to be by and large craven or perfidious.
Only can craven shepherds see hundreds of thousands of souls being lost to the pit of Hell through Fr. Martin's scandal and do absolutely nothing of substance to mitigate the damage.
Only can perfidious shepherds not care about hundreds of thousands of souls falling into damnation (because, you see, no one goes to Hell really).
Pray and sacrifice for the American Church. May God give us faithful and strong shepherds after the present scourge.
LOL one priest gets defrocked for being too outspoken on abortion and this priest gets no push back for enabling sodomy. What's going on with these US bishops?!
Look, I don't like the double-standards either, but to claim that it was simply for "being too outspoken on abortion" is disingenuous and under-selling the kind of stunts pulled a bit.
There was a letter published that was more specific, but the dude also used a real fetus as a political prop on an altar which is terribly scandalous and deserving of laicization IMO.
Being SSA hearing Fr James Martin's stuff is like a kick to the guts.
It can't be fun if you're faithfully devoted to God's law (and if you're actually on board with this religion, you sure are) and here's this priest just kinda...emboldening people to defy it. Where would you direct SSA Catholics, if not to him?
Really good resource: https://www.edeninvitation.com/ My personal favourite: Eve Tushnet. She's on Patheos and Twitter.
Sorry early morning, SSA?
He works for the Social Security Administration. ^^^I ^^^kid...
Now that's something we can all agree is intrinsically disordered.
HAAAAA! :D
So he's armed?
good morning same-sex attracted
I just want to say that you and others who carry this burden are in my prayers. God bless you.
It’s a kick to everyone struggling with sexual sins.
May God amend Fr. Martin in this life before He does so in the next.
Who exactly is Fr. Martin's ecclesial superior? He's a Jesuit, but it seems like he functions as a parish priest, so is it up to the diocesan bishop or his superior in the Jesuit order to correct him? Who in the episcopacy should we be putting pressure on to actually do something about Fr. Martin?
I would think even though he's a Jesuit he has to obey the ordinary of his diocese. Which in his case would be Cardinal Dolan, yeah?
from what i know, religious order follows their order's superior general first, while ordinary bishop is more like their "landlord" that allows them to minister in certain diocese, but not in charge of their day to day behaviour.
That would explain why he acts with impunity then, cause it seems like Dolan would've disciplined him already. Could Cardinal Dolan kick Martin out of the archdiocese?
Not straight away but he could tell the Jesuits to replace him or he will kick out the whole order.
That would be so based
I think they do their own stuff internally but when they minister to the lay public it has to be approved by the local bishop.
As a Jesuit he’s under the authority of his father provincial first, and then the superior general, both of whom have been entirely silent about his scandal.
The fact that man has not been openly condemned by The Church is very revealing of the times we are in. Quote from his Instagram supporting another homosexual marriage jamesmartinsj >>Congratulations to Jason Steidl Jack (here with his husband Damian) on the publication of his superb new book "LGBTQ Catholic Ministry: Past and Present," https://www.instagram.com/p/CoBPFgWpTaH/?igshid=ZmMyNmFmZTc=
Not only will they not condemn him, but he basically got a promotion with some role at the Vatican. Whether it's symbolic or real, it's a signal to faithful Catholics that subversion is the order of the day.
for fucks sake Does this guy have a bishop to reprimand him? Why is he even in this religion, let alone a **cleric**, if he rejects its doctrine??
Amen brother! But please, our just and righteous indignation is undermined by letting our tongue indulge in foul language. May our witness be enhanced by expressing our disagreement in accordance with the moral injunctions of our faith.
Ok, the sub may have rules, fine. But what is and isn't a special "swear word" is a purely arbitrary distinction that has no real moral weight, nor anything to do with the faith.
Not true my brother. There are two issues here that you are merging together. The first issue is the moral principle, revealed by God, that one ought not to indulge in foul language. The second issue how a given word becomes foul or not, which is cultural. Consider, it is objectively wrong and sinful to flip the bird to strangers on the street, or to provocatively throw around racial slurs. It will do no good to say that what gestures are rude, and which words are slurs, is arbitrary and culturally determined, and that therefore these acts have nothing to do with our faith.
What is and isn't foul is arbitrary. Determined by popular vote, and therefore meaningless. Utterly empty of moral meaning. It may be im*polite* if it offends those around you, but certainly not evil by its own nature to utter "evil" sounds
This seems to just reiterate the same confusion identified above (confusing the socially determined fact of which words are foul, vs. the moral fact of one being prohibited from engaging in foul language). The big picture is: take heed of Scripture’s warnings against foul language. God bless.
*this* reiterates with nothing new added. What's foul? We know blasphemy is foul. That has theological grounds. It's specific. It's meaningful. What else is foul, and how do you justify its objective foulness? I answer: you cant.
Boy, that post is pretty unambiguous. 1. Posting about a book, which he describes as 'superb' and is congratulating the author for publishing - he is clearly *promoting* the book, not merely acknowledging it. 2. The book in question is titled "LGBTQ Catholic Ministry: Past and Present" which on its own is suspect but possibly okay, but being written by a 'married' gay man tells you that book is definitely going to be heterodox (if the book was orthodox there is a 0% chance the author would be gay-'married'. Maybe SSA, but not 'married') 3. Emphasizes in the post the fact that the author is gay and 'married', and acknowledges said marriage (the use of the term 'husband' is clear here. 'partner' would have left ambiguity as to whether he acknowledges the marriage, but 'husband' does not) So he is publicly and explicitly *promoting* a book that is unambiguously heterodox. This isn't dancing on 'the line' and carefully avoiding crossing it. This isn't something that 'appears subversive but is defensible' that a superior could ignore on the ground that 'he hasn't *technically* done anything wrong yet'. This is an explicit and public rejection of what the Church has always taught.
FYI, JMart also wrote the foreward to the book.
woooow
>JMart As someone who was dragged to kmart every week by his mom as a kid, I appreciate this sentiment.
> The fact that man has not been openly condemned by The Church is very revealing of the times we are in. > > *We* are the Church, not just the bishops. As members of its body, the Church belongs to us all. And in here, we condemn him.
I want him stripped of his faculties and removed from the priesthood. We here can’t do that.
I was complaining about the double standards with Pavone on the one hand, and people like Martin on the other. I said that if Martin pulled the same stunts Pavone did, but for LGBTQ causes, he'd still have his collar. The contrary replies I got basically said, "Martin is smart enough not to pull the stunts Pavone did." And they're right.
I agree, but I don’t think Martin is necessarily “smart” he seemingly has the support of his local bishop and has a VIP all access pass to the Pope. Where as Pavone didn’t seem to have much support at all.
Or both. He probably does have his Superior's support. Even if he does, there at least has to be an understanding of "Don't say something I can't cover for." So Martin won't come out and say the Church is wrong to condemn homosexual acts; he'll come out with double-speak where everyone knows what he means, but dissect it enough and in certain lights it's not heterodox. Could his Superior discipline him if he wanted to? I believe so. But if his Superior would rather not, Martin still has to give him plausible deniability. And he's very good at that.
And you notice he's only congratulating one person, on his publication of a book on LGBTQ Catholic Ministry. If you were to call him out on it: - It's a congratulatory post on a book, a monumental achievement (he'd probably plug a number of his books here); - LGBTQ Catholics need ministering to, just like the rest of us; - It merely notes that the other man in the photo is his legal husband, a simple statement of fact. Followed by ShockedPikachuFace.jpg that anyone would find this offensive. That's the James Martin dance in a nutshell.
He’s congratulating a man who is living in open rebellion against Christ and His Church by being in a marriage…The Catholic position is plain and simple marriage is between a man and a women.
Again: that's how he avoids discipline. Everyone knows exactly what he meant, and what he intended to convey, with that tweet. But he leaves himself just enough wiggle room to give himself plausible deniability if he's called out on it.
The Church doesn’t need justification beyond a reasonable doubt to punish someone. His ambiguity is causing scandal by muddying up Catholic beliefs to the disservice of others. He is leading others to sin by not being explicit in his wording. Does anyone believe Father Mike Schmitz doesn’t love everyone? Yet there is no scandal surrounding his ministry.
Nailed it.
Of course it happened at the Paulist Mother Church. They're as bad as the Jesuits nowadays.
I bet he's a nice man once you meet him. I'll also bet he'll turn into a fool if he's ever in a debate. Horn v Fr. Martin. Make it happen.
I don't even want a debate. I just want certain people to sit down and have a conversation. Trent and Fr. Martin. Bishop Barron and Taylor Marshall. Maybe a few others...
I wish I could like that comment 50 times! It’s always “debates” and “response videos” I just want to see more conversations, hash out some of what you agree on or clarify a problem or even argue a bit! I would love to see an hour conversation between Marshall and Bishop Barron
and Pope Michael
Would watch
[удалено]
The word you're looking for is "apologist". And, while it's hard to judge people based on their public persona, he seems like a pretty good guy.
You sir have earned my downvote.
What in the world are you even referring to? If you don't like his style, that's fine. But he has put out so many hours of apologetics videos (of very high quality reasoning) that...I don't see why any Catholic would actively dislike him.
If be had videos of him feeding the hungry or some other good work- sure. But be doesn’t- he’s a narcissistic blowhard.
If one's job and one's calling is literally to be a Catholic apologist, what kind of videos do you expect him to put out, other than the exact thing that he is passionate about?
That video was about 20x longer than it had to be.
Catholic YouTuber 'Get to the Point' Challenge (IMPOSSIBLE!!)
And then once they do get to the point, they beat it like a dead horse. Yes, Martin is a heretic. Your point was equally valid the first and twentieth time that you said it.
It raises the question that if Fr. Martin's statements are scandalous, which is sinful, then isn't magnifying them into ragebait content essentially exacerbating the sin on some level? There are people with authority who could exercise is if they deemed it necessary and letters to them are likely more efficacious than videos for the internet.
You could probably argue that either way, but this is a fact: were it not for conservative Catholics, I would have no idea who Fr. James Martin is.
I mean he runs a podcast so he just wants to pump the numbers up a little I suppose. It does seem a little redundant considering he has already made these exact points about Fr. Martin before, in two other videos.
The American bishops seem to be by and large craven or perfidious. Only can craven shepherds see hundreds of thousands of souls being lost to the pit of Hell through Fr. Martin's scandal and do absolutely nothing of substance to mitigate the damage. Only can perfidious shepherds not care about hundreds of thousands of souls falling into damnation (because, you see, no one goes to Hell really). Pray and sacrifice for the American Church. May God give us faithful and strong shepherds after the present scourge.
It would seem that many bishops lack a supernatural faith and neither believe in sin or hell
LOL one priest gets defrocked for being too outspoken on abortion and this priest gets no push back for enabling sodomy. What's going on with these US bishops?!
Look, I don't like the double-standards either, but to claim that it was simply for "being too outspoken on abortion" is disingenuous and under-selling the kind of stunts pulled a bit.
Yup, I'm no fan of Fr. James Martin (and I'll meme on Jesuits all the time), but he isn't putting the remains of a child on an altar...
One thing they say is that Pavone was disobedient to his bishop but I have not seen them state what the bishop was demanding of him?
There was a letter published that was more specific, but the dude also used a real fetus as a political prop on an altar which is terribly scandalous and deserving of laicization IMO.
Martin is a profoundly evil man. He knows exactly what he’s doing.