Parry and riposte over Jesuit James Martin’s defense of homosexuality

james_martinYou have probably seen commentaries on the recent book of homosexualist activist Jesuit Fr. James Martin concerned with “building bridges” between the Church and homosexuals.

It might help to put some of the major players into a single post.

Martin’s basic notion is that, for her entire history, the Church has misunderstood God’s intentions and plans for human sexuality and that they should be corrected.  He rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358).  He claims that, since they were made that way, so to speak, their sexual expressions are the equivalent of those between members of the opposite sex.

Writers such as Fr. Gerald Murray have demonstrated that Martin’s notions undermine the Church’s teaching.  HERE  Fr. Paul Mankowski, SJ, also showed the flaws in Martin’s bad ideas.  HERE

Others have criticized Martin’s book as well, for example, Archbp. Charles Chaput of Philadelphia.  HERE

Martin has tried to defend his notions, for example at Jesuit-run America Magazine.  He was unconvincing.

Another priest jumped into the fray over Martin’s book.  Basilian, Canadian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a sometime aid to the Holy See Press Office in times of high activity such as during Synods of Bishops, wrote at his media outlet Salt & Light a full-throated defense of Martin.  Fr. Rosica, being so visible, has not avoided controversies.  For example, despite his clear gift for languages, he wound up at the center of a translation issue during a press conference during a meeting of the Synod.  HERE  He is also known for his admiration for Gregory Baum, an ex-priest who married a divorced ex-nun, whom he too divorced.  Baum lead dissent against Humanae vitae and was involved in the infamous Winnipeg Statement.  HERE  Baum admitted in 2017 in an autobiography to a long-time secret, active homosexual life. HERE

The plot thickens with a response to Rosica’s defense in Catholic World Report by Deacon Jim Russell who serves in the Archdiocese of St. Louis.

In the initial blurb above Russell’s piece we read:

Fr. Thomas Rosica’s recent commentary on Fr. James Martin’s book seems to imply that the Church’s doctrine that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” actually misses the mark and doesn’t reflect reality.

Russell writes:

Rosica offers his thoughts on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the “LGBT community”. In the process, he appears to unintentionally reveal the core problem in the Church today regarding homosexuality, same-sex “marriage”, and related issues, such as the transgender phenomenon. As I read it, Rosica’s commentary manifests an “overly benign interpretation” of the homosexual condition itself.

Russell has quite a bit more on Fr. Rosica’s defense of Fr. Martin.

So, if you have been following this back-and-forth controversy closely, there’s even more reading to do.

The moderation queue is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in One Man & One Woman, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Parry and riposte over Jesuit James Martin’s defense of homosexuality

  1. sekcatholic says:

    If only someone could find that pesky “gay lobby”…

  2. PhilipNeri says:

    I believe all these recent spates of Let’s Change Unchangeable Teachings is the last gasp of a rebellious generation bent on seeing their wreckage survive the coming renewal.

    Young priests and seminarians aren’t buying what they’re selling. AND even if they manage to dilute or damage some unchangeable teaching, the dilution/damage won’t last past the demise of the vandals.

    Fr. Philip Neri, OP

  3. JustaSinner says:

    Is Jesuit James Martin gay? It is obvious why such a question needs to be answered…

  4. Kent Wendler says:

    In every young child’s life there comes a time when he or she becomes more interested in his or her own body. Eventually this includes the excretory organs which happen to also be the genitals. This in turn comes to the discovery that there are others who’s organs are like their own, but also others who’s are different; i.e., there are boys and there are girls, and the individual belongs to one of those groups.

    In time, puberty arrives with its intensification of interest in the sexual organs. At first an individual, understanding that there are differences between the sexes, will likely tend to socialize with others of their own sex and exclude the other. “Boys are yucky!” “Girls give you cooties!” In both cases sexual urges develop, seeking expression.

    In the usual case, in normal development, the individual comes to realize that these urges seek their completion with a member of the other sex, and that members of that other sex have become somehow mysteriously attractive.

    In my view, those who have same sex attraction never get to that stage. In other words, they have an arrested development in their maturity. Arrested development is inherently disordered. Those who suffer (even if they will not admit it) from this arrested development still have those sexual urges, but because they do not progress to heterosexuality they are inclined to express themselves sexually with others of their own sex.

    (A truly Christian understanding of the God-given gift of sexuality goes further, but that’s beyond the scope of this thread, I think.)

  5. robtbrown says:

    Acc to Fr Martin in human nature there are sexual appetites that are not ordered toward procreation.

    So much for Humanae Vitae

  6. thomas tucker says:

    You’ve heard the expression, follow the money trail? In this case, follow the trail of desires, and you’ll usually understand why the dissenters are dissenting.

  7. chantgirl says:

    Perhaps a new type of challenge coin is needed- an honesty challenge coin.

    We could give them out to priests who start admitting “I really enjoy sodomy, and that is why I am trying to convince the whole world and myself that what I want is ok even though it goes completely against God’s word and natural law.”

  8. James C says:

    “Others have criticized Martin’s book as well, for example, Archbp. Charles Chaput of Philadelphia.”

    Indeed ARCHBISHOP Chaput did, and it was very eloquent. But across the Hudson, the CARDINAL Archbishop of Newark, Joseph Tobin, has not only praised Martin’s book but hosted him at the cathedral for a homosexual ‘pride’ mass last month. Another American CARDINAL, Kevin Farrell (very close to Pope Francis), not only supplied a blurb for Martin’s book but has praised Spadaro’s attack piece on Twitter.

    Archbishop (not Cardinal) Chaput is fighting a valliant but lonely battle. He will have his reward for standing up for the truth, even if it hinders his ecclesiastical career and brings him ridicule. God bless him!

  9. aquinas138 says:

    The tired “born that way” argument. Sigh. Our Lord and Lady aside, we are all born a certain way – as children of wrath (Eph 2:3). Our nature is FALLEN. Our passions are DISORDERED. We can’t look at the way people are as the goal, but rather what people were created to be.

  10. Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:

    The featured speaker at Alumni Days at Theological College at CUA, in Washington, D.C., October 3-4, is James Martin, S.J.

  11. MrTipsNZ says:

    Upon reflection of this, two books come to mind: 1984 (George Orwell) and A Canticle for Leibotwitz (Walter Miller). We seem to be in a bizarre combination of the two.

  12. Pingback: THVRSDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  13. edwar says:

    Why is it that the 6th and 9th commandments, eternal truths, are counterintuitive to so many people?

    An enormous number of people live their entire lives with almost no contact with any animals other than spayed or neutered cats and dogs. This is unprecedented in world history.

    When we break the 6th or 9th commandment, we are in some sense “acting like animals.” The problem is that many of us don’t know how animals act.

    I am convinced that before the industrial revolution, the majority of people (rich or poor, city or country dweller) had enough exposure to animals to develop, while growing up, a sense of the vast, vast difference between animal reproduction and human procreation, an understanding that was so profound as to be undeniable, yet so obvious that they didn’t think of it as profound.

    Purity was not what it is today, even for many of us who try to live it—a set of rules that we seek to apply to our thoughts and actions. It was a palpable dignity, almost like a piece of clothing, in which you could intuitively grasp that going outside its boundaries would make you less human-like and more animal like. It was not easily forgotten. The sights and sounds of animals were always there to remind you.

    Saints Jacinta and Francisco had sheep. I’m sure that Saint Maria Goretti had animals around. Children had to help with the flocks and herds. The reality of where baby animals come from was obvious. Obvious is an understatement. You had to help out. Obviously you didn’t want to be an animal yourself. That’s what purity was–being human, not animal.

    I am convinced of this, but I don’t have first- or even second-hand experience to back it up. Families with farm animals–those who are reading this–does this make sense?

  14. kram2181 says:

    “Fr. Vincent Fitzpatrick says:
    19 July 2017 at 4:45 PM

    The featured speaker at Alumni Days at Theological College at CUA, in Washington, D.C., October 3-4, is James Martin, S.J.”

    Let us hope and pray that he is not a keynote speaker at next year’s Synod on Youth and Vocations. I’m sure the “god of surprises” will be in full force during that one.