The question Father Martin keeps dodging [Catholic Caucus]

Catholic Culture ^ | July 13, 2017 | Phil Lawler

[ebb tide]

In his book Building Bridges, the popular Jesuit author, Father James Martin, argues for acceptance of homosexuals in the Catholic Church. Remarkably, in a book dedicated to that topic, he manages to avoid the obvious question.

So in a trenchant First Things review of the Martin book, Father Paul Mankowski, SJ, asks it:

Is sodomy a sin? Perplexed readers of Fr. James Martin, SJ’s latest book will want to put the question to him, if only to understand why he felt it important to write at all.

The National Catholic Register posed roughly the same question, and drew this reply from Father Martin:

The reason I didn’t talk about chastity in my book is because Church teaching is clear on that matter, and it’s well-known in the “LGBT” community. I don’t think there’s any “LGBT” Catholic alive who doesn’t understand that teaching. 

Yes, yes. But what is that teaching—why won’t he even mention it— and more to the point—especially if everyone knows it already—why isn’t it to be found in the Martin book? Does Father Martin accept the teaching of the Church, or is he in league with the homosexual activists who want it changed? The slippery Jesuit addresses that question artfully, as well:

My advocacy of members of the LGBT community doesn’t mean I agree with everything they espouse, or everything they do,’ the author of Building Bridges tells the Register.

OK; Father Martin doesn’t support everything that is said and done by homosexual activists. Isn’t that reassuring! And when Catholics write critical reviews of his book he quickly takes to Twitter to thank them for continuing the “conversation”—even if he does not answer their questions, and even if he quickly follows up by mentioning how appalled he is by the “hatred” shown to homosexuals.

When questioned by the Register about his speaking appearances before groups that have been reprimanded by the Vatican and the US bishops’ conference, Father Martin explains that he had permission from his Jesuit superiors. “They assume, rightly, that I would never contradict Church teaching,” he says.

Right. He won’t actually come out and contradict Church teaching. He won’t cross that line. But he will dance along it, winking and nodding, earning the applause of those who crossed long ago.

Look: It’s not a tough question. Is sodomy a sin?

[ebb tide]

When questioned by the Register about his speaking appearances before groups that have been reprimanded by the Vatican and the US bishops’ conference, Father Martin explains that he had permission from his Jesuit superiors.

[iontheball]

Martin is espousing the weak kneed liberal doctrine of relativism. There are only shades of gray today.

[AustinBill]

It’s not just sodomy. The confusion in the Catholic church stems from its ambivalence about the concept of sin altogether. It’s become conspicuous-by-its absence that clergy of all ranks simply quietly ignore the question of whether there are any moral absolutes that imply that any behavior can be considered morally objectionable, i.e., sinful, and thus require repentance.

[GreyFriar]

I can’t imagine any of the C.PP.S. priests who taught me at St. Joseph’s College of Indiana in the late 1960s of being in agreement with the writings of “Father” Martin.

[Hostage]

Each person who engages in homosexual activity is a person with a birth name. Say it’s John Doe.

John Doe is allowed into a church, any church. His sin, whatever it is, is not allowed into a church. Sin is not to be accepted into churches, else they cannot be churches.

I wonder of Father Mattin misspoke or someone misspoke. Saying homosexuals should be accepted into the Church is not the same as saying John Doe, the known homosexual, is accepted into the Church as long as John Doe leaves his sin outside the Church.

Am I missing something?

[NKP_Vet]

Martin is a sodomite. With Francis in charge he’s in bathhouse heave,