REVIEW: Fr. Gerald Murray v. Jesuit homosexualist activist Fr. James Martin

Clement_XVI_Mug_02I have some homework for you.

First, read at the National Catholic Register the outstanding, comprehensive analysis of what homsexualist activist Jesuit Fr James Martin is attempting.  It is written by Judy Roberts. HERE

Then read my friend Fr. Gerry Murray’s obliteration of Jesuit James Martin’s recent book, which is a manifesto of homosexualist activism and worse.  This is also at the National Catholic Register.  HERE

Father James Martin Proposes an Alternate Catechism
BOOK REVIEW: The popular Jesuit priest puts forth the notion that the Church has misunderstood God’s plan for human sexuality for her entire history.
Father Gerald E. Murray

In his new book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity (HarperCollins), Jesuit Father James Martin has written a critique of the Catholic Church’s dealings with what he calls the “the LGBT community.”

What is the “LGBT community”? This acronym describes three groups of people: those who engage in, or feel drawn to engage in, homosexual activity (lesbians and gays); those who engage in, or feel drawn to engage in, both heterosexual and homosexual activity (bisexuals); and those persons who reject their sexual identity and think that they are in fact a member of the opposite sex (transsexuals/transgendered persons).

Is this, in fact, a community? Not really.

This is a lumping together of those who reject the natural order of human sexuality in different ways, and who thus share a common interest in seeing that laws and societal norms and customs that support that natural order be proscribed. [There is a movement in the Church to detach human sexuality from the purpose for which God intended it.  Once it is detached from procreation and marriage, anything goes.  That’s the brass ring.]

Father Martin’s book has practically nothing to say about bisexuals and transsexuals/transgendered persons. His book is about homosexual persons, and more specifically about Catholic homosexuals. Yet even this category of persons is not fully treated. Father Martin writes about Catholic homosexuals who embrace the “gay identity.” He ignores completely those Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and do not positively embrace this as their identity.  [What a surprise.]

He never once mentions Courage, a Catholic apostolate founded in 1980 by Cardinal Terence Cooke and entrusted to the direction of the late Father John Harvey.

In a book that alleges to analyze and critique the Catholic Church’s outreach to homosexual Catholics, this omission cannot be accidental.

The point of this book is not to suggest ways in which the Church, in fidelity to the teaching of Christ, can improve her outreach to those persons who feel attracted to commit the sin of sodomy in the hope that they will reject this wrongful tendency and embrace chastity. If that were the case, then the very successful experience of Courage, which has spread throughout the United States and internationally, would have been at least mentioned, if not highlighted.

[NB] The real purpose of this book is to advocate for a relaxation of the Church’s teaching that sodomy is gravely immoral and that any attraction to commit acts of sodomy is an objective disorder in one’s personality.

Father Martin rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358). He writes:

“The phrase relates to the orientation, not the person, but it is still needlessly hurtful. Saying that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is ‘disordered’ in itself is needlessly cruel” (pp. 46-47).

In a recent interview, he called for the use of the replacement phrase “differently ordered.” That would be a change in the Church’s teaching. [NB] It would mean that God created two different orders of sexual behavior that are both good and right according to his will: Some people are homosexual by God’s express design and some are heterosexual by God’s express design.  [Which we reject.]

If that were the case, then homosexual acts themselves could no longer be described, as they are in the Catechism in Paragraph 2357, as “intrinsically disordered.” If the inclination is simply different, and not disordered, then acting upon that inclination is simply different, and not disordered. Homosexual activity would simply be natural behavior for “differently ordered” people.  [This is the goal for these activists.  Fr. Murray identified it clearly.] […]

 

[… The vivisection continues as Fr. Murray provides quotes from the Jesuit’s book …]
Here we have the danger posed by this book: Father Martin puts forth the notion that the Church has misunderstood God’s plan for human sexuality for her entire history and that she must now switch to a new teaching, namely that the union of man and woman in marital love is not the only path for the true and good expression of human sexuality.

The thesis of this book is that lesbians, gays, bisexual persons and transsexual/transgendered persons have been made to be such by God, [wrong] and thus they should gladly live and express their God-given, differently ordered sexuality in a differently ordered way.

The truth is very different.

God in his goodness helps all of us to deal with our problems and temptations, no matter what they might be. One of his first mercies is to reveal to us the truth about our common human nature, including the truth about human sexuality, which is differentiated between male and female and is only rightly expressed by a husband and wife in the martial embrace that is in itself procreative and unitive.

Inclinations or tendencies toward sexual acts that are neither procreative or unitive, and thus inherently immoral, do not represent who we are or how we were made by God. They are deficits, ultimately traceable to original sin, which need to be dealt with by God’s grace and our willingness to believe firmly that God’s law is good and will produce the greatest happiness in our lives.

Fr. Murray did an excellent job of exposing this Jesuit’s false positions.  Be sure to read the whole thing over there.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

15 Responses to REVIEW: Fr. Gerald Murray v. Jesuit homosexualist activist Fr. James Martin

  1. Michael_Haz says:

    No doubt you have seen this. It’s the website for the “American National Catholic Church”, where LGBT persons may be ordained and serve as priests without all that pesky ancient theology and catechism standing athwart human arrogance.

    Also, “celibacy shmelibacy” seems to be part of the teachings.

    It’s pretty much what Fr. Martin wants for everyone.

    Link here (please delete in not appropriate for this conversation). http://americannationalcatholicchurch.org/about/beliefs/

  2. Norah says:

    I wonder if Fr Martin has been to Joseph Sciamnra’s website?
    http://josephsciambra.com/surviving-gaybarely/

    Mr Sciambra has written an article titled: Surviving Gay…Barely
    Warning: this article contains graphic sexual content

    Mr Sciambra has returned to the Catholic Church and is a street evangelist in the Castro district of San Francisco.
    Because a member of my family, whom I love dearly, is same-sex attracted I seek to obtain information about same-sex attraction.
    In your charity please pray for my family member who is attempting to live chastely and who is an orthodox Catholic believing all the Catholic Church believes and teaches,.

  3. Alanmac says:

    I really don’t understand why one of Martin’s supervisors hasn’t stomped on him yet. He leads a great many Roman Catholics into unorthodox positions.

  4. TNCath says:

    The fact that Fr. Murray even has to respond to Fr. Martin’s heresies is stunning. No wonder we have lost three generations of Catholics. Little to no catechesis in Catholic schools, horrendous liturgies, and the sanation of evil as good in secular society is now the norm in Church in the United States. Add Amoris Laetitia and Fr. Martin to the mix to insure that indeed “in finem citius.”

    [For every 100 words heretics write, the faithful have to respond with a combination of 1000 words tempered in Silence.]

  5. YoungLatinMassGuy says:

    Two points:

    1. “Transgenderism” is the single greatest argument for nuclear disarmament.

    If a society is going to throw out basic truth, and scientific facts that are observable, testable, verifiable, and repeatable, then that society should give up nuclear weapons. Just like a crazy man on the street pushing a shopping cart full of tin cans shouldn’t have a loaded firearm, a society that gives up sanity should not have nuclear weapons.

    2. Pedophiles are using the “LGBT playbook” to push their own evil on the world. EVERY argument our side used against gay marriage, and transgenderism (We didn’t put ANY fight against transgenderism…) is being use by pedophiles.

    One argument against them was the following:

    “Pedophiles need psychological help!!” That argument was made by a transgendered “woman” (really a man). We said the same thing about transsexuals not to long ago, and we said the same thing about homosexuality 40+ years ago. If that person can be a woman trapped in a man’s body despite all the evidence to the contrary, then a 45 year old can be a 9 year old despite all the evidence to the contrary…

    All the arguments against pedophilia are going to fail. Because they’re the same arguments presented against gay marriage, and the US Supreme Court has spoken.

    We all need to prepare ourselves. We are going to live in world where pedophilia is legalized. Give things another 20-30 years or so.

    “The Benedict Option” isn’t looking so bad now is it?

  6. CatholicMD says:

    Not sure which is worse: the book itself or the endorsements of recently appointed cardinals on its cover.

  7. Pingback: TVESDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  8. kram2181 says:

    Fr. Murray’s and Judy Roberts’s articles are excellent. Fr. Martin’s views expressed in this book appear to push the envelope to the complete edge of Church teaching on sexuality. Based on other articles I have read about him, he does seem to advocate softening the Catechism language to the point where it becomes meaningless and effectively eliminates any official view of rightly ordered human nature as designed by God. However, his book and his views do serve as a reminder that all Catholics are called to chastity. Bishop Paprocki and Fr. Martin himself have said as much. Those who are fearful of Fr. Martin’s attempts to officially normalize these views need to stand with our homosexual brothers and sisters in chastity. It needs to be explained that chastity is not a denial of pleasure but rather a way of life that draws one closer to our Lord by taking up a cross and ordering our minds, desires and efforts to the Lord. Society says: you are a person defined first and foremost by your sexual desires; denying your desires denies yourself as a person. The Church says: you are a child of God called to live in the light and beauty of the truth; repent and believe in the Gospel. The LGBT community still seems to see itself as a counter-cultural group standing against the Christian norms of marriage and family. But the reality is that all Christians, whether gay or straight, are called to be practitioners of chastity and the real counter-culturals living against the sexual revolution as a whole. It would be great to have young, outspoken, chaste Catholics, of any and all sexual inclinations, with just as loud a voice as Fr. Martin to serve as witnesses to the beauty of chastity and the true freedom it brings to their lives. Let’s face it, to both heterosexual and homosexual young people, chastity does not seem like a heavy cross to carry for an elderly priest or the octogenarian who goes to daily Mass. But young folks living truly chaste lives – the married couple who practices NFP, men who have given up pornography, women who do not use contraception, and gay men and women who are chaste and practicing Catholics – must serve as concrete witnesses to God’s plan of creation. Fr. Martin’s bridge-building efforts to the LGBT community would be vastly better served by these such folks rather than by redefining the Catechism. He seems to want to accommodate the sin in order to hide the truth of Christ rather than accompany the sinner toward Christ.

  9. Dimitri_Cavalli says:
  10. Ocampa says:

    Begin rant.

    I want to state my opinion again:

    There is no such thing as homosexuality or heterosexuality. There are only homosexual acts or heterosexual acts. As such, a “homosexual” is someone who tends to prefer or desire homosexual acts, and a “heterosexual” is someone who tends to prefer or desire heterosexual acts. That being said, some homosexuals have engaged in (and sometimes even enjoyed) heterosexual acts, even to the end of conceiving children, and some heterosexuals have engaged in (and sometimes even enjoyed) heterosexual acts.

    Human sexuality is simple enough that there is no need to divide people when we can divide actions instead. However, it is complex enough that the reasons for the differences in preference are difficult to explain, all the more-so when paraphilias come into play.

    I am someone who has a desire for both homosexual and heterosexual acts. I have engaged in both, but now I am married and engage only in heterosexual acts with my wife, within the bounds of the teachings of Christ.

    I also have a seriousparaphilic disorder which plagues me (I will not say which one, but use your imagination. It’s one of the more common and hated ones). These are desires which, for the time being, almost everyone finds repugnant. I expect that will change in a few decades, as there is growing consensus in the psychiatric community that what I experience is a separate “sexual orientation.” Although I have these desires, just like I have homosexual desires, I am committed to not acting on them.

    I bring all this up, not as a public confession, but to demonstrate the point that my paraphilic desire is just as real as my homosexual desire. I did not “choose” the desire. By all means, they seem perfectly natural. Yet, those desires do not make the acts moral or natural. They are all unnatural. They violate the purpose and order of sexuality within nature itself.

    One time I was reading a book or article about my particular problem. The author stated that it’s odd that my disorder would develop in humanity in general because it is so contrary to evolutionary progress. Later, the author accepted that homosexuality is perfectly natural. Darwin be damned, apparently. The logical disconnect will catch up with us, and soon you’ll see a new breed of activists.

    End rant.

  11. Giuseppe says:

    Alanmac, re. Rev. Martin’s supervisors. His book “Building a Bridge” has an Imprimi Potest given by the Very Rev. John Cecero, SJ, Provincial Superior, USA Northeast Province of the Society of Jesus.

    I don’t see an imprimatur or a nihil obstat, thought.

  12. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    To borrow from an old Asia song (you had to be there), “Only time will tell” if Fr. Martin pulls a Sr. Elizabeth Johnson and claims that bishops who are critical of his book and arguments “misunderstand” them.

    I believe this is what Sr. Johnson claimed about six or seven years ago when the USCCB publicly criticized one of her books.

    Odd. Feminist and liberal theologians can criticize the pope, cardinals, and bishops but they have no business in daring to criticize feminist and liberal theologians, priests, and nuns.

  13. I was going to make the point Ocampa made, so I will simply reiterate it: the terms “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are both problematic, and derive from false notions of human nature and human sexuality.

    A priest friend has made a different point, worth mentioning here, in the context of getting the language right: that even “same sex attraction” misses the boat. As my friend would say, it is perfectly natural and normal and healthy for people of the same sex to be “attracted” to each other; indeed, that is, in some ways desirable. He means, of course, friendship.

    What is problematic is the eroticization of same sex attraction; which, if you think about it, explains so much. Often people will say, why do you care if a teammate or a fellow soldier is gay? And on one level, the right answer seems to be, OK, I guess I shouldn’t, so I won’t. But what is missed is that this disrupts a process of friendship. This disruption to friendship is what, I think, draws intuitive negative reactions from so many. And I might also point out that one of the things often remarked upon, about our society, is the loss of friendship. Many people, especially men, find themselves terribly lonely. This phenomenon is at work both for men with all manner of erotic attractions.

    This disruption of friendship can be overcome; and, notably, this is precisely something the Courage apostolate recognizes as a need for men and women with erotic feelings toward their same sex: that they seek out “disinterested friendships.”

    There is much uncertainty about the genesis of erotic, same-sex attraction; my own amateur view is that probably there are several paths by which someone can come to have such feelings persistently. But one theme that seems to arise frequently is that that individuals with erotic same sex feelings have experienced some sort of wound, or alienation, in their relations with peers of the same sex.

  14. Pingback: Canon212 Update: Why Propagate New FrancisGuidelines for Sanctity? Just Check Them Against the Five Points Cd. Muller Flunked – The Stumbling Block

  15. Kathleen10 says:

    Thank you Fr. Murray. It is not as effective for laypeople to counter a wayward priest who is determined to get a stamp of approval on his particular brand of sin. It takes a priest, really, so what Fr. Murray has to say is of great value.
    We are very late in the game here. I don’t have anything to offer that’s new about this issue, except this, our church is sending out the message that gay is okay, I don’t care what formal messages there are, that is the real message that is out there in the secular world. We all know it.
    And secondly, children are off limits. This is the hill to die on. Watch for those consent laws, and when they come up in your area, please gear up and go at it. You will be fighting to protect our sweetest little beings. I work with children of all ages, right now children in middle school and high school, and I can tell you, they are all still very “young”. When you work with them you realize how vulnerable they really are, and how a predator could take advantage of them and harm them for life. We can’t let them have our children or young adults, and I mean of any persuasion, gay or straight. MassResistance, the great organization that knows very well how to battle these things at the state level, offers help to people or groups who want to take on these issues. Brian Camenker is at the helm, and he is Superman in disguise. There is a great deal people can do, especially when there are a number of people. MassResistance has shown that Gay Clubs are often the place where adults act as predators for the confused young people there. Adults/parents should be very wary of the adults in their child’s life, maybe in particular when it is an “LGBT” Club or support group. Their child is at risk.
    We can never let anybody have sexual access to children or young people. We just can’t.