The other day I posted – HERE – about Archbp. Chaput’s column in Catholic Philly about a address given by Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin in Philadelphia. Chaput’s column nailed it – after the fact, alas, of the event. I suggested that his post factum column be a template for other bishops in addressing the problems inhering in Martin’s ambiguous messaging.
There have been a couple developments. Martin wrote to Chaput and Chaput responded to Martin. The exchange is at Catholic Philly.
Martin’s complaining missive to Chaput is what you would expect. Oh dear, this is all so unnecessary. No one seems to understand what we are doing. I never imply anything or challenge any of the Church’s ‘official’ teachings. Can’t we all get along?
Chaput responds. Martin was polite, but his note changed nothing. The Church’s ‘official’ teachings can be undermined by not teaching them in their entirety. And we reject the assertion that the only thing homosexuals hear is rejection. Quidquid recipitur is also at work.
Read the exchange.
Then you can read the reaction of One Mad Mom, which usually gets straight at the points. Such as, Martin says he really isn’t challenging the Church’s ‘official’ teaching. Uh huh. There’s a lot more.
Loading ...
Just like there is more than one way to skin a cat, there are many ways to undermine the Church’s teachings. I have have also noticed Fr. Martin’s sly usage of “official” teachings… and he is craftily insinuating that, yeah, there’s what’s on the books “officially”, but unofficially there may be other ways of making the unacceptable become acceptable.
The disagreement in unres0lvable and will remain so.
What so many are missing– including Fr. Matin, from his words, which belie his behavior– is that persons of faith can distinguish between the person and his or her behavior, what one is vs what one does, and respect the first and abominate the second d.
In the case of the LGBT..XYZ crowd, however, who identify with their sexuality, what they ARE and what they DO are inseparable. No amount of welc0ming the pers0n but rejecting his or her deeds will ever meet their demands in the all or nothing-at-all they have set up for us.
And so, only the bravest make it clear: As you wish. We accept you and reject your deeds; do with that as you will. But stop complaining.
I am always pleased when a bishop actually speaks to these issues with the mind of the Church. That said, I sense fear in Archbishop Chaput’s response to Fr. Martin. The response comes after Archbishop Chaput had already allowed Fr. Martin to speak in his Diocese. In my reading, the response was overly gracious and timid.
What if Archbishop Chaput said something like this: “Fr. Martin sows division wherever he treads. He does not seem to acknowledge the need to work with civic society and its representatives to present clear Church teaching on homosexuality. And we are not going to spend/waste time arguing with him. He is sincere, but also destructive.”
Oh, wait, that’s pretty much what he said to Church Militant and the Lepanto Institute when they questioned the abortion supporting, gay-rights loving catholics on his board for the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia.
Clearly the Archbishop does have it in him…
Archbishop Chaput’s comment “I find it necessary to emphasize that Father Martin does not speak with authority on behalf of the Church” appears to me a very stern rebuke, nothing timid about that sentence. His analysis and comments regarding Fr Martin’s ‘teachings’ and statements are balanced and temperate in every way and done so in a very charitable manner. Fr Martin seems intent on promoting the line that the Church has, and is, discriminating against homosexuals for their very existence, which is untrue. That he keeps focusing on this ad nauseam, his signature raison d’ê·tre, does not promote the true Christian values of the Church. “Build a Bridge”? There’s a bridge already there for all people to cross, regardless of their sexual orientation. He seems intent on stirring the hate pot, in a passive-aggressive manner; maybe not his intention but clearly it is a side-effect, and to what end? I suspect his is a long haul strategy. And to not counsel celibacy and continence, as is expected of heterosexual singles who wish to receive the Sacraments, is a serious omission. (Maybe he has done this but I cannot see where, certainly not on twitter). That more Bishops are not speaking out is confusing but thank God for Bishops like Archbishop Chaput. We need to pray and do penance for our Bishops. And for Fr Martin.
It will be interesting to see if, the next time Fr. Martín wants to schedule a lecture in Mgr Chaput’s Archdiocese, the Archbishop lets him.
Archbishop Chaput:
“Finally, Father Martin and I emphatically agree that persons with same-sex attraction are children of God and well loved by him.”
My two cents:
Yes, indeed, and well and good. But the critical point has yet to be made : God loves everyone and everything He created. “God saw that it was good.” That means God loves even Satan and the millions of demons and the damned souls. He loves them even after they have fallen. Otherwise they simply would not exist! However, they detest that God loves them, and knowledge of God’s loving them causes their everlasting suffering.
So: “God loves you, no matter what!” sounds … well … lovely. But it is not by any means the end of the Gospel message. Being loved by God is a necessary condition for being united with Him in eternal bliss. It is by no means a sufficient condition. One’s response to God’s love must also be of love in order for one to live with Him in the unity He intended.
And Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
So, to be a damp squib at Fr Martin’s bonfire: God loves me with an infinite love, even if I reject His love and suffer thereby in saecula saeculorum.
We should pray for Fr Martin, and each other.
Katherine said, “…over gracious and timid”. Not timid, harmless as doves. It seems to me Fr. Martin’s modus operandi is to call those who disagree with him names and denigrate them. Think Lucy van Pelt. He throws tantrums. The Archbishop gave him nothing to throw.
When with integrity we are all adhering to the perennial Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church such disagreements are nonexistent. Who, in this case, is adhering to the perennial Magisterium?
The discord could be eliminated by a corrective from Martin’s immediate superior in Manhattan, his provincial superior (who could be moved to act by the local ordinary), or by Marxist Arturo Sosa who is Superior General of the Jesuits.
It could be eliminated by the Jesuit Pope, Francis.
No corrective?
Silence can only be interpreted as approbation. Pastoral responsibility abandoned is pastoral malpractice. In this case it is, in essence, a demonstration of practical apostasy.
There is a moment when denial and self-deception are no longer able to be maintained. Are we not six years beyond that point?
But who am I to judge?
Despite his good effort, and those of a singularly few other members of the episcopate, the Archbishop beats a dead horse. He has been consigned to the dust bin of orthodoxy by those who deem themselves merciful, graced with mystic insights which transcend the pedestrian character of the perennial Magisterium.
Afraid of schism when it is already staring you in the face?
Not the time to fear, it is the time to act.
Archbishop Chaput has publicly addressed Fr. Martin’s subtle encouragement of gay unions, and has clearly corrected this, and has stated that Martin doesn’t speak for the Church.
Chaput has set an example of what all the bishops should do when confronted with error in faith and morals, even if that means confronting specific people.
I’m starting to wonder if FrbMartinnis a flat earther. They haven’t received the news that the earth is round either. Into your rocket Fr Martin, prove the Greeks right!