Posted on 09/29/2017 6:14:09 AM PDT by ebb tide
Bishop Robert McElroy of San Diego wrote a column about James Martin SJ that said Martin’s critics are a cancer on the Church, that criticism of his work is driven by homophobia, a distortion of Catholic moral theology, and is an attack on Pope Francis.
This shameful column was applauded by a chorus including Elizabeth Scalia, the editor of one of the largest Catholic websites in the country, Austen Ivereigh, founder of Catholic Voices, Massimo Faggioli of Villanova University, among others.
James Martin himself has taken to calling his critics the “Catholic alt-right,” a phrase he likes very much and has repeated a number of times. Ivereigh, Faggioli and others on the left have gleefully repeated this, too. It should be noted that post-Charlottesville, “alt-right” is generally understood to be coterminous with White Supremacy and Nazism.
Let us consider what this name-calling really means. Cancers are supposed to be cut out and killed. And Nazis are supposed to be attacked.
Keep in mind that Martin became incensed when Catholic Vote said he had been “beaten” in a debate. He said it was a call for violence against him. Yet, now he is saying his critics are no better than Nazis, and his friend McElroy compares them to cancer. One wonders how far McElroy, Martin, Scalia, Faggioli, and Ivereigh want to go in getting rid of those they do not like.
Martin has been a master manipulator of the narrative. He—like McElroy—says criticism of him springs only from hatred because of his “outreach” to homosexuals, and his rather anodyne book.
It should be noted that the charge that his critics oppose outreach to homosexuals is laughable, particularly since all his critics fully support the apostolate Courage. His critics just do not support the Martin kind of outreach, which is clearly supportive of the gay way of life.
While there has been plenty of thoughtful criticisms of his book, including from Janet Smith, Eduardo Echeverria, Paul Mankowski SJ, and others, rather than engaging them, he has chosen to drive the utterly false narrative that various haters are after him simply for welcoming homosexuals.
In point of fact, recent sharp criticism of Martin focuses less on his book and more on what he has said in public, such things that are not in his book.
Writing at LifeSite, Claire Chretien has listed some of them. He has said that Church teaching on homosexuality is not “authoritative.” He says attending a same-sex wedding is the same as attending a Jewish wedding. Martin says he looks forward to the day that homosexuals will be able to kiss each other during Mass. He says those opposed to Church teaching on same-sex “marriage” are homophobic. He says critics of same-sex relationships are probably homosexual themselves. He implies he is against Church teaching on contraception for the same reason he opposes Church teaching on same-sex relationships, i.e., it has not been “received.” He says those who would not attend a gay wedding are similar to racists. He says Church teaching on human sexuality must change. As Caroline Farrow in the United Kingdom has pointed out, Martin supports the right of gender-confused men to shower with our daughters.
These are the reasons the heat has been raised on James Martin SJ and the reason he fights so furiously, unfairly and even viciously against his critics. Putting aside his own incivility and that of his allies, he wants everyone’s attention on a shiny thing, the supposed incivility of his critics and not on the outrageous and even heretical things he says in public.
This engagement with this priest has become profoundly ugly. I have engaged LGBT advocates in public for many years, but I have never experienced anything like what I have gone through since engaging Martin. A few nights ago, my wife picked up our home phone and was informed by a woman that there are sexually explicit pictures of me on the internet. This week my New York office received a phone call from a man informing them that I was having sex with boys. I will repeat: I never received phone calls like this until engaging with James Martin SJ. I do not charge that these are in anyway directed by Martin, but something ugly has been unleashed and I know what it is.
The great prize of the Evil One is the undermining of Church teaching on human sexuality. The whole world has capitulated but not Holy Mother Church. What a victory for him if those in the Church come to accept something as damnable as homosexual behavior. Whether he knows it or not, James Martin SJ abets this undermining of the faith and leads precious men and women to perdition.
Those who abet James Martin SJ should answer certain simple questions. Do you—Elizabeth Scalia, Austen Ivereigh, Massimo Faggioli, and Bishop Robert McElroy—agree with Martin that Church teaching on homosexuality should change? Do you believe that same-sex attraction is no more than “differently ordered?” Do you believe that men should shower with my daughters? Do you welcome gays kissing during Holy Mass? Of course, they will not answer and will continue to insist it is only hatred and homophobia that inspires his critics.
Some say James Martin SJ should simply be ignored. Certainly, he loves and thrives on the attention. Some say there are bigger fights in the Church and that he is no more than a sideshow. I say James Martin SJ is a clear and present danger.
The Catholics didn’t attack the Nazis during WWII, why should they now? They were neutral during that war. On the other hand, they promoted Mussolini, Franco and Peron and declared fascism most consistent with Catholic social teaching. Over time, the Catholics evolved (maybe out of embarrassment). By the time of John XXIII, the Catholics were o.k. with democracy. By the time of John Paul II, they were o.k. with liberal, democratic capitalism (provided there was a “preferential option” for the poor). With Benedict XVI it was, maybe, back to neutrality. I think a better way to put it, there was a re-emphasis of the primary teaching of the church on faith and morality, and a de-emphasis of social teaching. Now, under Francis, it’s progressive socialism and expressing disdain for capitalism and for the United States in particular. At some point, people are going to recognize that the head of the Catholic Church doesn’t speak for God but for himself and, possibly, whatever is the consensus of the moment of the elite of that church.
Liberal Catholic going around stating their critics are Nazis,terrorists etc....Wonder how many times Jesus called His critics Nazis????After all,the bible is filled with Jesus stating how you destroy your enemy,crush your critics
The apostles must have left those parts out of the Bible and Jesus came down,took liberal Catholics to lunch and told them “TAKE UP YOUR CROSS AND FOLLOW ME” ? Bunch of hooey..The apostles lied..We should follow liberal Catholics and hate our enemies..After all,they are soooooooo much better than the rest of us....
Wow, what have you been reading?
James whoever does not “think” anything.
He and his ilk are incapable of rational argument and are left with name calling in an attempt to silence people.
Oddly, she was more reserved—and more Catholic—when she was the anonymous “Anchoress.”
Elizabeth Scalia is of no relation to the late Supreme Court Justice, Antonin Scalia.
http://mahoundsparadise.blogspot.com/2015/06/elizabeth-scalia-for-every-judas-theres.html
let’s start with this one:
In paragraphs 119 and 120, Pope Pius XI describes socialism as an error. If you think the choices are socialism versus capitalism, and that fascism is simply one of several forms of socialism, you are mistaken. The error of socialism isn’t socialism per se, it’s that socialism is atheistic.
Skip to paragraphs 131 to 132, and we see what Pope Pius XI thinks of capitalism. It’s “unbridled greed.”
Now, if that was extent of the Pope’s teaching, I would be o.k. with it. You can be a Socialist but you can’t be an atheist Socialist. And, you can be a Capitalist, but you can’t be a dog-eat-dog capitalist. Or, implicitly, you can be something in between. What is important is that whatever political or economic system you have, it should be guided by the teaching of the Church in faith and morals.
But, no, Pope Pius XI didn’t say that. He advocated a nearly all powerful state (see in particular paragraph 80). Individuals would be allowed to own modest amounts of private private and run small business. But, all large business and all markets would be operated by the state through “tripartite councils.” See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadragesimo_anno#Tripartist_corporatism
So, mid 20th Century, and continuing a series of teachings that began in the 19th Century, the Catholics saw themselves as a third way between liberalism (or the democratic capitalist system associated with Protestant Europe) and atheistic communism. Only, with this encyclical by Pope Pius XI, this third way crystalized as fascism.
I actually had some respect for Elizabeth, no longer since she has gone over to the dark side.
Facts are your friends and they guard against ill-informed statements.
Who really cares what some renegade priest thinks?
Apparently, Pope Francis does.
Father James Martin appointed by Pope Francis to Vatican department for communications
And guess how Martin learned of his appointment:
"I learned of the news early this morning, when Josh McElwee of The National Catholic Reporter and Cindy Wooden of Catholic News Service contacted me via Twitter to congratulate me. And given the importance of social media in the church today, that's a good way to find out good news.”
When I read “The Catholics didn’t attack the Nazis during WWII, why should they now? They were neutral during that war.”
I immediately thought of Pius XII. Thank you for posting.
In general-— and for everyone -— sin makes you stupid.
From the link in Post #14:
The third plot again involved German Jesuits and also German military colonel Claus von Stauffenberg. Although the colonel successfully planted a bomb near the Nazi dictator, it failed to kill Hitler. The priests had to flee after the failed attempt. Those unable to escape were executed.
“Secret history” is an admission of official neutrality
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_Nazi_Germany_during_World_War_II
Despite efforts to protect its rights within Germany under a 1933 Reichskonkordat treaty, the Church in Germany had faced persecution in the years since Adolf Hitler had seized power, and Pope Pius XI accused the Nazi government of sowing ‘fundamental hostility to Christ and his Church’. Pius XII became Pope on the eve of war and lobbied world leaders to prevent the outbreak of conflict. His first encyclical, Summi Pontificatus, called the invasion of Poland an “hour of darkness”. He affirmed the policy of Vatican neutrality, but maintained links to the German Resistance.
To the credit of the Catholic Church, the Italians under Mussolini were not the racist murderers that the Germans were, under Hitler. And, the few who joined in the plot against Hitler were mostly Catholics. Let us never confuse fascism with Naziism. One is merely wrong and the other is evil.
While I appreciate the difference between being merely wrong and being evil, I do not at all appreciate being lectured by Pope Francis on matters of science and economics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.