He penned a piece about Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin’s wobbly affirmation of “official” Catholic teaching about homosexuality and homosexual acts. Ruse made pretty much the same point I made several days ago. HERE
However, Ruse always writes well. I liked this bit in particular along with the great title.
James Martin S.J. vs James Martin S.J.
Donald Trump might refer to James Martin S.J. as “Slippery Jim.” He is certainly slippery. His latest act of slipperiness is a column he published this week at America wherein he claims to support the teaching of the Church on homosexuality.
He goes on to quote my good friend Fr. Gerald Murray, who is always worth paying attention to.
Father Gerald Murray points out that for Martin “…a disordered inclination or tendency is ‘one of the deepest parts of a person.’ He refers to ‘the part that gives and receives love.’ It is our heart and soul that constitute our innermost being, the center of love. An inclination toward unnatural sexual activity is not the heart and soul of a person. True love is expressed in virtuous deeds. Evil inclinations or tendencies to sin must be seen by the Christian for what they are and resisted.”
What he prefers is that the homosexual inclination is merely “differently ordered.” You are right handed, and I am left and that is just different. As Father Murray writes, such a change to differently ordered “…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.” Murray says if the inclination is merely different, then the act—sodomy—is too, and therefore would be “simply natural” and not disordered.
But we know that that is not the case. More on that HERE.
Also, Austin adds:
For some, this column settles the question. On Twitter, Elizabeth Scalia of Aleteia called the column “elegant.” My friend Maggie Gallagher says we need to take a yes for a yes. But, I do not believe this is a yes.
No. This is not a “yes” and it wasn’t “elegant”. It was a ruse, as Ruse and I point okay.
Martin’s piece is so filled with hedges and evasions that it cannot be taken for anything other than a signal to his followers to dig in their heels, defy the Church and continue on their merry way towards the cliff edge.