Fr. James Martin promotes Protestant pastor who falsely claims Bible doesn’t condemn sodomy

LifeSite News ^ | February 5, 2024 | Andreas Wailzer

[ebb tide]

Fr. James Martin promotes Protestant pastor who falsely claims Bible doesn’t condemn sodomy

Contrary to Brendan Robertson’s view, which Martin called ‘superb,’ the Catholic Church teaches that sodomy is intrinsically evil and always sinful and that Scripture condemns it.

Fr. James Martin’s pro-LGBT activist group “Outreach” has posted an interview with a Protestant pastor who wrongly claimed the Bible does not condemn homosexual acts. 

In the interview, Martin, the editor of Outreach, asked Protestant pro-LGBT pastor Brandan Robertson what his response is “when an LGBT person [sic] or a family member or anybody says ‘doesn’t the Bible condemn homosexuality?’” 

READ: Cdl. Müller: Father James Martin’s LGBT propaganda is ‘heresy’

Ironically, Robertson said that the downside of the Protestant schism was that “it gave the Bible to a lot of folks that don’t have the complex training to understand the culture, the context, and language from which the Bible emerges.”  

“The Bible is not just a book that anybody can pick up and readily understand; it’s a book that comes from a different world with different perspectives and different cultural norms,” he claimed. 

Due to the possibility of people misinterpreting the Bible according to their own wishes and biases, the Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium is the competent and infallible authority to interpret Sacred Scripture and resolve controversies regarding questions of faith and morals because it was instituted by Jesus Christ Himself. 

The Protestant pastor claimed that “the concept of sexual orientation didn’t exist in the ancient world, so it’s impossible for the word homosexuality to actually be a translation of any Greek or Hebrew word.” 

Furthermore, he falsely asserted that “when you simply look at the sexual practices of the Greco-Roman world of the first century, for instance, they’re vastly different.” 

“It was permitted for any Roman man to sexually engage with anybody of a lower status than themselves, and often that would be exploitative relationships between a man and his slave or a man and somebody from a conquered nation, and my best research over the past decade has led me to believe that what Paul is talking about in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians and even what Leviticus is talking about are all referring to common pagan practices that revolve around sexual exploitations and abuse, between men usually, and that is nothing like modern, loving [sic] same-sex relationships.” 

READ: Domestic violence in LGBT relationships 8 times higher than that of heterosexuals: DOJ report

“I’d say the Bible doesn’t say anything about LGBT relationships as we know them today, but it does rightly condemn sexual abuse and exploitation, which is something that all of us should be willing to condemn,” Robertson concluded. 

Father James Martin called Robertson’s response “a superb two-minute explanation of one of the most commonly asked questions of Christian leaders” and said, “I think we should use that as a two-minute clip from now until the end of time.” 

Robertson, who is a well-known “progressive” LGBT-identifying pastor in the social media sphere, states that “his pronouns” are “he/him,” and he has “Queering Christianity” accompanied by an LGBT rainbow flag written in his bio on X, formerly Twitter. 

Shortly after the publication of the controversial Vatican declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the “blessings” of same-sex and other irregular “couples,” Fr. Martin performed a highly publicized “blessing” of homosexual, civilly “married” men in his continued push to normalize homosexual acts. 

READ: Father James Martin blesses homosexual ‘couple’ at Jesuit residence in New York City 

Refutation of heretical pro-LGBT interpretations of Sacred Scripture 

Contrary to Robertson’s view, which Fr. Martin called “superb,” the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil and always sinful and that Sacred Scripture condemns them. 

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) explains that “Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex.” 

The CCC further states: 

Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Since homosexual acts are contrary to the natural law, it follows that they are always sinful, and the judgment of their morality is not bound to the sentiment of any particular age, as is often inferred by pro-LGBT Bible “apologists.”

READ: No room for ‘inclusion’: Homosexuality and transgenderism are sins against nature itself 

n a recent video, well-known Catholic theologian and apologist Trent Horn addressed the claim made by Robertson and other heterodox activists that the concept of consensual same-sex relationships was utterly unknown in ancient times and that the Bible, therefore, only condemns men raping other men. 

“That’s not true because ancient Mesopotamian texts like the Almanac of Incantations do describe consensual same-sex in the ancient Bronze Age when Leviticus was written,” Horn said. 

Furthermore, he explained that the ancient Greek philosopher Plato wrote in his Symposium about women who “do not care for men but have female attachments and of men who exclusively hang about men and embrace them.” 

Plato also called homosexual acts “contrary to nature” and said that those who engage in them are “impelled by their slavery to pleasure,” debunking the myth that homosexual acts were universally accepted in Ancient Greek society. 

The Roman satirist Juvenal (born in 55 AD) recorded “his contempt for men who ‘married’ other men in Roman wedding ceremonies,” according to Horn, further proving that consensual homosexual relationships were known in ancient times. 

In another video addressing the heretical pro-LGBT interpretation of the Bible, Horn refutes some of the common misinterpretations of the verses cited by Robertson.  

In Romans 1:26-27, St. Paul writes:  

That is why God abandoned them to their shameful passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural practices. Likewise, men gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameful acts with men and received in their own persons the fitting penalty for their perversion. 

Pro-LGBT “apologists” like to claim that St. Paul is mainly condemning the sin of adultery in this passage, i.e., husbands and wives leaving their spouses to have intercourse with another person. Horn refuted this interpretation, saying, “If St. Paul was condemning adultery, then he would talk about the most common kind of adultery for straight married people, that is, engaging in sexual acts with people of the opposite sex whether they are married or unmarried themselves.” 

“The point of Romans chapter 1 is that Paul is saying that Gentiles know they have sinned and need redemption in Christ.” 

“Even though they never had the Old Testament to teach them, the Gentiles had their consciences, and the natural law to guide them, so Paul picks two obvious examples of immorality that a person should know based on what nature intends and conscience commands. It’s wrong to give worship meant for God to a mere idol [cf. Romans 1:22-23] and it’s wrong to give sexual acts meant for a person of the other sex, to persons of the same sex,” Horn concluded. 

READ: Archeology appears to confirm biblical account of Sodom’s destruction 

[Cronos]

eagleone Christians had the Bible long before Rome dogmatically declared their cannon at Trent.

You have a number of errors in your statement, eagleone

1. Firstly - the council of Trent REAFFIRMED the 4th century finalization of canon - it didn't declare it, just REAFFIRMED --

   ref: council of trent online the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid;
   
   

2. Christians pre1500s were not in any way related to the various non-Catholic western movements in dogma or theology
   
   
3. The Biblical BOOKS (or rather parchments) were only collected in a Bible as a single entity due to the Catholic/Orthodox/Oriental Orthodox Church - no historian disputes that historical fact
   
   
4. Christians of the first century or rather to use the time-specific term, Jesus-movement Jews/followers of "the way of Jesus" had multiple scriptural scrolls, but their Old testament scriptures, the scriptures that Paul and the Apostles referred to were the Septuagint, which included the book of Tobit and Maccabees and Sirach
   
   
5. The decision about which books were to be included in the Bible and which were not was based on whether the books aligned with Apostolic Tradition

[Cronos]

Actually Pope Francis (who is a putz, let me say that) didn't say "it's ok to bless couples in same sex relationships" - the Fiducia Supplicans is a mess of a document and it is so ambiguous to be meaningless - and that fault is Francis' completely. However, if you actually read through the document it says

• From a strictly liturgical point of view, a blessing requires that what is blessed be conformed to God’s will, as expressed in the teachings of the Church.
• since the Church has always considered only those sexual relations that are lived out within marriage to be morally licit, the Church does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice.
  
  
• it is essential to grasp the Holy Father’s concern that these non-ritualized blessings never cease being simple gestures that provide an effective means of increasing trust in God on the part of the people who ask for them, careful that they should not become a liturgical or semi-liturgical act, similar to a sacramen
  
  
• one should neither provide for nor promote a ritual for the blessings of couples in an irregular situation.
  
  
• when the prayer of blessing is requested by a couple in an irregular situation, even though it is expressed outside the rites prescribed by the liturgical books, this blessing should never be imparted in concurrence with the ceremonies of a civil union, and not even in connection with them. Nor can it be performed with any clothing, gestures, or words that are proper to a wedding.The same applies when the blessing is requested by a same-sex couple.
  
  

I agree that this is a complete pigs-meal of a document that in the end says absolutely nothing but confuses everyone. But that's the point - it says nothing except two points:

1. that you can bless people to get them closer to God and
2. that these are not civil unions nor couple blessings

[Skwor]

No I do not just pontificate, I had not counted your thread sin their entirety and quit literally not long after posting the previous realized I was wrong about your position on the current issues.

I apologize for that.

[Skwor]

Having considered prayerfully that Scripture quite often I do not see how Peter being selected as the chief apostle at that time now confers the same authority to the pope today. I am pretty sure Peter would not be appointing such openly corrupt individuals to such high places of influence within the Church.

My issue is not in a lineage of structure but with the continued near infallibility imbued within that structure, an infallibility not born out in Scripture nor in the acts of the Catholic Church itself.

Many faithful disagree with how that Scritpure is interpreted by Catholicism. That is a stretch even just considering as it is written linguistically. All you are doing in asking that question in that manner is insisting I abdicate my search for the truth and accept dogmatically what the institution of the Catholic Church insists is the correct way to read those Scriptures.

[daniel1212]

“I’d say the Bible doesn’t say anything about LGBT relationships as we know them today, but it does rightly condemn sexual abuse and exploitation, which is something that all of us should be willing to condemn,” Robertson concluded.

Actually, what the Bible does say/teach is that God made man and women distinctively different yet uniquely compatible and complementary, and only joined them together in marriage - as the Lord Jesus Himself specified (Mt. 19:4–6) - and Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

And homosexual relations have been tragically primarily responsible for approx. 80% of new HIV cases among men and over 700,000 American deaths, though such is not even the decisive reason why homosexual relations are wrong.

Yet there is still room at the cross for all who will come to God in repentance and faith, and trust in the Divine Son of God sent by the Father, the risen Lord Jesus, to save them on His account, by His sinless shed blood, and thus be baptized and live for Him. Acts 10:36-47

Scripture only condemns homosexual relations wherever they are manifestly dealt with.

[daniel1212]

Nature itself condemns the futility of a man spending his seed where it does not belong, namely where it generates new life. “Birth control,” masturbation, anal sex, oral sex upon the male; these are all abuses not only of nature but much more. Obviously there is not one person who has not gone astray in this matter, except the little ones whose lives have been ripped out of creation without due process.

Don't stop there. All sin is essentially a misuse or abuse of what God has given us, and which is just a matter of degrees. I am one who can attest to this myself (former fornicator, etc.), and in some way or degree, we have all been or are guilty of what others do to a greater degree. And God is more focused on the sins and defects of true believers in His body, the church - where judgement begins (1 Peter 4:17; cf. Ezekiel 9:6) - then those of the world

However, we can condemn sin if we are repentant over our own sins and defects, which are more than we know. However, the redeemed are those who have been spiritually born of the Spirit (Jn. 3:2-7) by effectual, penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating faith in the Divine Son of God sent be the Father to be the Savior of the world, (1 Jn. 4:14) who saves sinners by His sinless shed blood, on His account. And which faith is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and which is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27, 28) whom they shall go to be with or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; Heb. 10:25-39) Glory and thanks be to God.

[Elsie]

Fr. James Martin promotes Protestant pastor who falsely claims Bible doesn’t condemn sodomy

I think one can find sodomy as SIN even before the Ten Commandments were given.

Genesis 13:13

Now the men of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the LORD.

Genesis 18:20-21
20. Then the LORD said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous
21. that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know."

Genesis 19:4-7
4. Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom--both young and old--surrounded the house.
5. They called to Lot, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them."
6. Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him
7. and said, "No, my friends. Don't do this wicked thing.

[Elsie]

According to the Lectionary; Gen 18:20-32 will finally get read on Sun, Jul 27, 2025

---

²⁰ And the Lord said: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrha is multiplied, and their sin is become exceedingly grievous.

²¹ I will go down and see whether they have done according to the cry that is come to me: or whether it be not so, that I may know.

²² And they turned themselves from thence, and went their way to Sodom: but Abraham as yet stood before the Lord.

²³ And drawing nigh he said: Wilt thou destroy the just with the wicked?

²⁴ If there be fifty just men in the city, shall they perish withal? and wilt thou not spare that place for the sake of the fifty just, if they be therein?

²⁵ Far be it from thee to do this thing, and to slay the just with the wicked, and for the just to be in like case as the wicked, this is not beseeming thee: thou who judgest all the earth, wilt not make this judgment.

²⁶ And the Lord said to him: If I find in Sodom fifty just within the city, I will spare the whole place for their sake.

²⁷ And Abraham answered, and said: Seeing I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord, whereas I am dust and ashes.

²⁸ What if there be five less than fifty just persons? wilt thou for five and forty destroy the whole city? And he said: I will not destroy it, if I find five and forty.

²⁹ And again he said to him: But if forty be found there, what wilt thou do? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of forty.

³⁰ Lord, saith he, be not angry, I beseech thee, if I speak: What if thirty shall be found there? He answered: I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

³¹ Seeing, saith he, I have once begun, I will speak to my Lord. What if twenty be found there? He said: I will not destroy it for the sake of twenty.

³² I beseech thee, saith he, be not angry, Lord, if I speak yet once more: What if ten should be found there? And he said: I will not destroy it for the sake of ten.

---

The other two groups in Genesis apparently don't mentioned.

[daniel1212]

Do you deny Matt 16:17-19?

Not me. Peter was the street-level leader among apostolic brethren, whom he never ex-cathedra commanded (versus led and exhorted) but is one of those who were manifest as leaders, (Galatians 2:6) and specifically named as one of the apostles who was married, (1 Corinthians 9:5) and who preached evangelical gospel, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and is evidenced to have a general pastoral ministry. (Galatians 2:6)

However, nowhere in the rest of the NT, which is interpretive of Matt 16:17-19, is Peter said or described as being the rock upon which the church is built. In-stead, in contrast to Peter (“petros”), that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

Moreover, the NT church Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops. Which is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics rovides testimony against.

The NT church also never manifestly saw mention or intimation of preparation to choose a successor for Peter by electing a elder as a apostolic successor, much less conveying total supreme papal authority. Unlike king David and the promise of his son Solomon to reign over Israel and his institution as king, (1 Chronicles 29) and the record of his son Rehoboam reigning in his stead (2 Chronicles 9:31) and so forth, the Bible not only does not record Peter�s death but it also does not foretell of a successor or speak of preparations for one. Nor does it mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: Acts 12:1,2) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (Acts 1:15-26; :cf. Rv. 21:14), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. Prov. 16:33) which Rome has never used to select popes. What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous (see #8) being ordained to oversee the flock of God. (Acts 20:28)

Nor is ensured perpetual magisterial (conditional) infallibility ever promised to leadership as Rome imagines of the Peterine office, nor ever evidenced (Caiaphas will not do), neither is that essential for authority (Dt. 17:8-13; Mt. 23:2) and binding and loosing, and which is not restricted to Peter or apostles.

As with Mary, the Peter of Rome is not that of Scripture. Why did Jesus tell Peter (Luke 22:32) that He had prayed for him that his faith not fail him, and that he should convert his brethren (fellow Apostles)?

Which is begging the question, since the Lord did not tell Peter to convert his brethren(!), for the word at issue (stērizō) means "strengthen" (likewise stablish/establish) as your own Luke 22:32 NABRE translates it (as does the KJV and others, or similarly), versus convert. The Lord prayed for Peter as being the impetuous leader, whom He knew needed it.

Acts makes clear that, for whatever faults he may have had, Peter was the chosen one.

No, Christ is the Chosen Cne, while Peter was "a" chosen one, as described, though Paul is more manifest as a "pope" than Peter. 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy - using popular Catholic reasoning that is.

You can reject Jesus’ authority as He exerted it in Scripture, but that seems contrary to the Spirit.

Meaning there is not one command to all the church to recognize and or submit to Peter as the infallible supreme head in authority overall all the churches - much less in Rome - while it is Paul who calls a council, commissions elders, reproves, chastises, and daily cares for all the churches, and suffers greatly. Etc. And reproved holy faithful Peter for an exceptional instance of compromise (not that I am throwing stones at him!).

Who, as one sovereignly chosen by the Lord Jesus, was converted, baptized and filled with the Spirit thru a non-apostle, and preached immediately, before spending 3 years in Arabia, likely receiving the special revelations that were entrusted to him, having not received the gospel from man.

And apart from a non-eventful brief stay with Peter 3 years later, it was 14 years later that Paul went to visit James, Peter and John, whose formal approbation was needed due to charges by false apostles that he was not a valid apostle, which threatened to undue the labor of Paul. (Galatians 1, 2)

But we need anointed evangelical Peter and Paul converts today.

[metmom]

1 Corinthians 1:10-24 I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe's people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

It's all about Jesus.

Those who claim that they follow Peter are wrong according to Paul. Nor do we follow Luther as we are so often falsely charged and accused with. Nor any other man.

Salvation is about Jesus. Period. HE is the rock, the petra on which the body of Christ is built.

In ! Corinthians 10;4 Paul tells us that the petra the rock, is Jesus. Here it is in the Greek.

https://biblehub.com/text/1_corinthians/10-4.htm

*Petra* is also used in Matthew 16:18.

https://biblehub.com/greek/4073.htm

JESUS is the rock. There is no other.

[Elsie]

... the Septuagint, which included the book of Tobit and Maccabees and Sirach

Did the Hebrew text include these writings?

---

Septuagint

Translation of the Hebrew Bible and other books into the Greek language

 

 

Septuagint - Wikipedia

[Elsie]

I am pretty sure Peter would not be appointing such openly corrupt individuals to such high places of influence within the Church.

While probably true, in the present, a group of folks get to vote whomever they want into office.

[kinsman redeemer]

If you didn’t have the Bible, gathered together by the Catholic Church, what would you have?

This constant harping is ridiculous.

As if...
The Almighty God NEEDED the Catholic "Church" to preserve His Word.

You put God in a box - just like you do on your "altar".

...and just in case I'm not clear: The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.

[ebb tide]

You put God in a box - just like you do on your "altar".

And you put yourself above God.

[kinsman redeemer]

Awww...

Aren't you cute!

And you put yourself above God.

...and just in case I'm not clear:
The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.

[Trump_Triumphant]

So much hatred and bitterness.

[ebb tide]

Repeating a lie will not make it true.

[kinsman redeemer]

Awwww...

You're bothered by the truth - and call it a lie.

In a nutshell, YOU are under a great deception and it will lead to your eternal condemnation - unless you turn from it.

II Tim 4:3,4
"For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths."

and...

2 Thessalonians 2:9-12
The coming of the lawless one is by the activity of Satan with all power and false signs and wonders, and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. Therefore God sends them a strong delusion, so that they may believe what is false, in order that all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."

The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.

[ebb tide]

Shouting is a sign of an inferiority complex.

To continue to shout is an indication of immaturity.

Thanks for showing you suffer from both.

[kinsman redeemer]

I am moved by your tragic loss of dignity.

But remember:

The Catholic "Church" is a work of Satan.