Homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit v. Bp. Paprocki of Springfield, IL – ACTION ITEM!

action-item-buttonACTION ITEM at the end!

A little while ago, His Excellency Most Reverend Thomas John Paprocki, Bishop of Springfield in Illinois, issued a Decree “Regarding Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ and Related Pastoral Issues.”

This Decree reaffirmed Catholic teaching that a marriage is only possible “between one man and one woman.”

The Decree included the following directives:

  • No member of the clergy or representative of the Diocese should assist or participate in a same-sex marriage;
  • No Church property should be used to host same-sex marriage ceremonies or receptions;
  • Persons in a same-sex marriage should not present themselves for Holy Communion, nor should they be admitted to Holy Communion;
  • Those in a same-sex marriage can be restored to communion with the Church through the Sacrament of Reconciliation;
  • In danger of death, a person living in a same-sex marriage may receive Holy Communion “if he or she expresses repentance for his or her sins.”

You saw how Ed Peters handled one critic HERE.

Immediately, homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit James Martin blasted Bp. Paprocki HERE:

If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments, women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock, members of straight couples who are living together before marriage, and anyone using birth control. For those are all against church teaching as well. Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor, or care for the environment, and anyone who supports torture, for those are church teachings too. More basically, they must ban people who are not loving, not forgiving and not merciful, for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings. To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination” (2358).

This, friends, is the raving of a lunatic.

For a complete review of homosexual sex obsessed Jesuit James Martin v. Bp. Paprocki, try HERE, a blog by a Catholic man who suffered with same-sex affliction and is now striving to live a holy life.

URGENT: In his post he makes a great suggestion: drop Bp. Paprocki a supportive note! The diocese’s contact form and addresses:




About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. mthel says:

    I think the most surprising part of Fr. Martin’s diatribe is that he actually acknowledges that premarital sex, contraception, second marriage without an annulment, and the like are sinful. That’s a big step for him.

    [Or… he could be implying that NONE of those things are sinful (since he obviously thinks that people engaged in them should be able to receive Communion).]

  2. seashoreknits says:

    Action item taken – note sent.
    Thanks for the contact info, Fr. Z.
    Thanking God for leaders like Bp. P.

  3. Jared Clark says:

    It was even worse on his twitter. Fr. Martin put quotation marks around “Church teaching”. I wonder what he was trying to imply there….

    Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/JamesMartinSJ/status/877910321989533696

  4. Kathleen10 says:

    My, Fr. Martin certainly is feeling very confident, isn’t he. He seems to feel he has the entire Church hierarchy behind him. This is appalling, on Martin’s part. It is a scandal to see a priest attack a Bishop for teaching actual Catholicism.
    Action item done and done, Fr. Z. Thank you for it.

  5. TNCath says:

    Action Item done. It seems to me that Fr. Martin doesn’t really acknowledge sin unless it falls into the categories that HE accepts. Let’s put the snakes in the table here: Fr. Martin is not looking for mercy or dialogue or any of that other nonsense he is peddling on his Fakebook page or in his book. Without explicitly saying so, he is obviously pushing for the Church’s acceptance of homosexual behavior and lifestyle, including “same-sex marriage.”

  6. spock says:

    Thanks Father Z. I emailed the Diocese of Springfield voicing support.

    Spock is going to be a somewhat scrupulous geek here….

    In the engineering space, the term “should” as a applied to technical requirements is a recommendation but is not binding. On the other hand, the use of the term “shall” in place of “should” renders the requirement binding and not simply a recommendation.

    Don’t know if it applies here or not.

    Scrupulous geek moment over. Please carry on…

  7. Aquinas Gal says:

    Action item done. Another suggestion: to pray for Fr Martin’s conversion. Failing that, we can pray this great line from the psalms, “May their plans this day come to nothing.” Also the rosary and the St Michael prayer.
    Martin has many followers and undue influence.

  8. Imrahil says:

    Well, for the fun of it, let’s take a look at Fr [?] Martin’s suggestions:

    If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral,

    which they should,

    they also have to be consistent.

    Consistency is always a good thing.

    They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments,

    possibly. The simplest answer here would be: Yes. A more nuanced answer might be that after all, a divorced-and-remarried couple is in a humanly difficult Situation which after all results from a natural disordered state, not a counternatural one; even in the 1950s before all this modern downwatering began, they were advised officially that “they cannot receive the Sacraments, but for all sakes let them keep contact to the Church, call upon the priest from time to time, and fetch for a priest at the hour of death whatever may happen.” A divorced-and-remarried person who does this… even if death came earlier than the priest… let them be buried. After all, as Stern a man as St. Augustine said, “He who, as I have said, acknowledging his iniquity, withdraweth himself through lowliness from the Altar of the Church, till he have mended his life, need have but little fear that he will be excommunicated from the eternal marriage supper in heaven” (as quoted in the Dedication Office).

    If they took their remarriage as occasion never to be seen again in Church: then yes.

    women who has or man who fathers a child out of wedlock

    Big fail. Fr Martin fails to grasp the difference between an ongoing sinful state and a past sin which may well have been repented of. (And no, repenting of inchastity or even adultery does not mean to wish that the child in question didn’t exist.)

    members of straight couples who are living together before marriage,

    For all the public knows, they are just engaged couple heading off towards marriage, with perhaps the one or the other slip in the meantime. This is even if they share Apartments (whether that is wise under the “Occasion” header is another question).

    For an unmarried couple sharing Apartment making no secret out of the fact that their relationship is sexual and making no mistake either that they aren’t heading towards marriage at all: yes.

    and anyone using birth control.

    This is usually not in the public forum. If it were, and if it were not so much the specific sin, but the general attitude that birth control is quite legitimate: then yes.

    Moreover, they must ban anyone who does not care for the poor

    If that is of public notice, then yes. Note that preferring other means to care for the poor than those who claim to be the ones who care for the poor does not constitute not caring for the poor.

    or care for the Environment

    Similar case as with poverty, though it has been noted that in this question, goods have to be weighed against each other, not excluding, as it were, poverty (and not reducing just-above-poverty to poverty) itself.

    and anyone who supports torture

    If that is of public record, then yes, unless he has recanted and abjured. Note, however, that “torture” means “interrogation techniques breaking the will by force”; if a man would, say, be for the institution of the application of so and so many lashes with the Whip as a means of punishment after an orderly sentence in a due process, this would not constitute “torture” in the sense the Church intends, as little as locking people behind bars for years and years. She speaks out against an intrinsic evil, not for the sacredness of modern sensibilities.

    More basically, they must ban people who are not loving,

    If that is of public record and has its reason in an ongoing and unrepented moral decision of the person in question to be unloving (again of public record), yes. Failings of character are another thing.

    not forgiving and not merciful
    If the Person has publicly and unrepentedly said that they would not wish to enter Heaven if God shows mercy to so-and-so, then yes. Otherwise, it has been proven by theologians that the Christian may desire a just punishment for actual wrongs suffered so that justice be served.

    for these represent the teachings of Jesus, the most fundamental of all church teachings.

    Fail in the intended sense. There is no Church teaching that would be additive to the teaching of Christ. There is law that is in a way additive, such as the Church commandments, and there is a lot of explanation, but no addition (unless perhaps there were teachings other than those made explicit by Christ which were revealed to the Apostels in a prophetic manner after the Ascension and which went into Holy Scripture and then Church teaching, but I’m somewhat sure Fr. Martin does not mean that.)

    To focus only on LGBT people, without a similar focus on the moral and sexual behavior of straight people is, in the words of the Catechism, a “sign of unjust discrimination”.

    No, it isn’t. To make a difference between sinners struggling with sin, and people who have decidedly chosen to go over into a counternatural culture, (and yes I know, there are other People experiencing LGBT tendencies, and struggling with them, but I don’t see them understood as “LGBT people” by either Fr Martin or general language use), is but to treat an actual distinction as existing, hence not unjust discrimination.

  9. lmgilbert says:

    One should pray for his conversion, of course, and do penance as well.

    In the meantime he is leading people astray in a variety of ways. Therefore, a few questions present themselves. Leaving aside all the intermediate cautions, reprehensions, and disciplinary measures under which he undoubtedly struggles or should be struggling, what is standing in the way of his being exclaustrated and laicized and bringing his torment and ours to an end?

    Effecting this, of course, would be ordinarily be the responsibility of his superiors, but since they are very likely in the same ideological and possibly the same moral camp, does not the ordinary layman, Joe B. von Donuts have standing to formally request this of the Holy Father? I mean a formal canonical petition that has to wend its way through appropriate channels and be seriously considered. Of course it would carry more clout if a bishop or archbishop were to do this, and especially if Bishop Paprocki were to do so. Ain’t going to happen, I am quite sure, but I am not sure why. Why?

    So then we are back to the energized and scandalized layman who has a manual of canon law, a printer, several addresses in Rome and stamps. Would it be Don Quixote all over again? And if so, why?

    If not, is there anyone who could coach Don Quixote so that he could actually have some hope of bringing down the windmill, and other windmills, too, for that matter? Sr. Joan Chittister comes to mind, for example.

    OR, is canon law only at the service of the marriage tribunal? In other words, in all seriousness, how do we vindicate our rights?

  10. SundaySilence says:

    Action taken!

  11. EmilB says:

    Action item done. Prayers for the conversion of Father Martin. They will not win. We will persevere. I came back to the Church at the height of the abuse scandal I will not abandon her now.

  12. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    When did Bishop Paprocki specifically say that persons in a same-sex marriage must be denied a Catholic funeral?

    If this is what the Bishop said (and nothing else), then Fr. Martin might have a point.

    You have to love how Fr. Martin focuses on one point of an opponent’s statement and then ignores everything else.

    Has Fr. Martin blocked Fr. Z yet on Twitter? I understand a number of people have reported being blocked by Fr. Martin on Twitter and Facebook for simply disagreeing with him or asking him too many questions.

    Would Jesus block anybody on social media? It might be fun to ask Fr. Martin.

  13. Emilio says:

    Father Martin is unhinged, emboldened by his nomination as a Vatican consultant and his friends in high places, and the gloves are off. They have been off for a while now. This morning he was also publicly corrected by Bishop Scott McCaig of Canada’s Military Ordinariate, on Twitter (@bishopscmc), concerning Martin’s interpretation of Our Lord’s words: “Judge not.” A priest who has now been publicly corrected by TWO prelates, but is nevertheless named as a consultant to the Holy See. Jarring.

  14. mepoindexter says:

    I’m remimded of when Mother Angelica said to a young man requesting prayers: “Yes, I’ll pray for you. I’ll pray you fail miserably!”

  15. RichR says:

    Bishop Paprocki actually jumped on Fr. Martin’s Twitter feed to answer Fr’s posts. I think His Excellency has some spine. But in the end, he is human, and when the weight of the homosexual establishment comes to bear on you, it is nice to have letters of support from faithful Catholics in order to mend the verbal wounds he will receive. I hope more WDTPRSers will go that extra step to show support instead of just saying,”Well, he’s only doing his job as a bishop.”

    Imagine closing down the local post office…..now smile.

  16. Moro says:

    I wish a bishop would grow a spine and suspend Fr. Martin’s faculties in his diocese. It may only be a de facto symbolic act rather than one with any teeth but a good one and a way to warn the flock to steer clear of Fr. Martin

  17. L. Th. S. Martin says:

    Those interested in Fr. Martin’s intellectual antecedents would do well to read ‘A History of revolutions and their consequences for the family’ by Roberto de Mattei, translation by Brendan Young, posted 18 May at Voice of the Family : . Clearly written, with copious references.

  18. JabbaPapa says:

    Thanks Imrahil, you’ve already done what I wanted to do myself.

  19. Mike says:

    The Church, thank God, still has faithful shepherds. Bishop Paprocki, God bless him, is among them. Martin and his enablers, God help them, are not.

    Follow the faithful shepherds. Steer clear of, and pray for, the false ones.

  20. Absit invidia says:

    James Martin is out of touch with who the assault on the family is coming from. Right now the army attacking the nucleus of society, as St JP2 calls the family unit, is the LGBT lobby. They attack the sacred institution of marriage by bamboozling gullible and squishy Jimmy Martins of the world into thinking they are on the side of “L-O-V-E” when they are in fact on the side of the devil. The LGBT lobby attacks the family unit, and demand more rights – to attack it deeper. Martin is being hoodwinked by the zeitgeist. Who is really the victim is God and the family. God instituted marriage, not man. God created love, not man. Therefore both are subject to God’s terms and conditions not man’s. When Martin’s head stops
    spinning, let’s hope it is facing the right direction for his own sake.

  21. Toan says:

    Honest question for y’all.

    Fr. James Martin leads off with Catholics who are divorced and remarried without an annulment. This one I’m curious about (the rest of his examples are dopey for reasons more obvious to me). Should Catholics who are divorced and remarried without an annulment be denied Catholic funerals also? Or is that status not quite “manifest” enough? If this question is answered somewhere else, I’m open to following a link. Thanks.

  22. AnnTherese says:

    I agree with Fr. Martin. Heterosexual sinners have no more right to the Eucharist than homosexual sinners. I don’t think his statement is unreasonable at all. All those people he described are in our Communion lines.

  23. Eugene says:

    I have done 2 things to support the good Bishop; looked up his office phone number on the diocese of Springfield website and called and left a message of gratitude and prayerful support, and signed a letter of support on the Lifesite News website, their goal is to get 5,000 signatures

  24. HeatherPA says:

    Dmitri, you could ask Fr. Martin that question, but he would block you and you would never see his response.

    Add me to the list of people blocked by Fr. Martin. I was blocked 2 years ago.

  25. pmullane says:

    Urgh. The watertight argument that you cant address one issue unless you address all issues at the same time. Pathetic.

    And to say:

    “If bishops ban members of same-sex marriages from receiving a Catholic funeral, they also have to be consistent. They must also ban divorced and remarried Catholics who have not received annulments”

    Really? Faithful Catholics have spent the entirety of this pontificate defending marriage from old men with bad ideas, and he has the cheek to say this?

  26. CrimsonCatholic says:

    Thanks for the link Father.

    We need more good Bishops like Bp. Paprocki. You know they are good when they make leftist get unhinged. See Michael Sean Winters.

  27. dbrigtex17 says:

    Action item taken. Just wondering how Bishop Poprocki’s directive will play in the neighboring Archdiocese of Chicago?

    From the Liturgy of the hours Morning Prayer of Jan 28:

    [Pastors] Hebrews 13:7-9a
    Remember your leaders who spoke the word of God to you; consider how their lives ended, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teaching.

  28. Charlotte Allen says:

    Fr. James Martin loves the LGTB’s–but the LGTB’s sure don’t love him.

    Here is CNN lesbian commentator Sally Kohn in the Washington Post TRASHING Fr. Martin’s new why-can’t-we-all-get-along book “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGTB Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Community:


    I just laughed as I read the above. How many months out of his life did Fr. Martin waste trying to be nicey-nice to people who loathe the Catholic Church and want to put a stake through its heart?

    And here is Fr. Martin in America magazine having a sad because Sally was mean to him:


    Is Schadenfreude a sin? Maybe just only a venial sin, I hope….I’ll try to make it up by praying for Fr. Martin.

  29. Dimitri_Cavalli says:

    Catholic bishops have authority only over diocesan or regular priests in their diocese. Bishops do not have authority over priests or nuns who are members of a specific order such as the Jesuits. (The only bishop who has authority over all priests and nuns all over the world is the Bishop of Rome.)

    In the Catholic Church, there is a lot of deference to individual bishops, religious orders, associations, and institutions such as universities.

    Events such as Cardinal Ratzinger forcing Catholic University to fire Fr. Charles Curran are the exceptions, not the rule. It may seem like the rule because such actions generate substantial publicity around the world and liberal outrage.

  30. Hidden One says:

    In tge article in America that Charlotte Allen links to, Fr. Martin includes the following passage:

    “‘Martin is careful never to call magisterial teaching into question,’ Prof. Cloutier writes. That is correct.”

    Not having read Fr. Martin’s book, I would like to ask those who have whether Fr. Martin and Prof. Cloutier are correct.

Comments are closed.