Jesuit James Martin: Back to the Reformation!

Jesuit James Martin – now best known, pretty much only know now, as a homosexual advocate – has become more strident.  Martin accuses the Church (therefore you, me, Christ) of homophobia. HERE  He has even suggested that the text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church about homosexuality should be changed. HERE

Card. Napier reacted:

Yes, Your Eminence, that’s pretty much it.

More on Martin at Crisis HERE.

May I suggest prayers for him?

The other day – at the request of a reader – I jotted off a prayer for Jesuits.  HERE


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. GordonB says:

    I think the only way to combat this is to pick some other serious sin and make the same NonJudgment and welcoming language as an overture to this group. Example: We need to, as a church be more welcoming to Those Who Withhold Wages from Workers. They are just pursuing capitalism and the Biblical and Church prohibition makes them feel unwelcome. We need more outreach because, as such sin cries to heaven for vengance, those who commit such sins feel rejected and unloved (PS there are many many lawsuits and class actions about such things). Or maybe we brand this as outreach to those Corporate Execs who “OK” exploding tires and consumer death as preferrable to paying to fix it. Im sure such folks could also use MartinMercy.

  2. GordonB says:

    (In reality the Church calls and welcomes all sinners– not just those who act on same-sex attraction).

  3. So much going on in the Church right now; very confusing times indeed. I am starting to feel like my friend’s husband. He says, “If I were God I would have flushed this toilet a long time ago.” I can understand his frustration. God is a lot more patient than a lot of us; that is s good thing!

  4. NBW says:

    Martin’s mercy will lead more to Hell than to Heaven. He is not asking for these people to repent and change their lives; he wants them to stay in their sinful state without repentance.

  5. THREEHEARTS says:

    It would be better if we returned to the Church at Christ’s time and how He left it.

  6. stuartal79 says:

    Can someone please explain Martin’s popularity among certain people in this world? I mean, I simply do not get it.

  7. stuartal79 says:

    THREE HEARTS, are you Catholic?

  8. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:


    In Jesus’ time, a smaller percentage of bishops were betraying Him. 1 out of 12 (unless you count Peter’s denial) is better than the number today. Even if you count Peter’s denial, 1 out of 6 is probably better than nowadays.

    Still, I take your point that we can’t “go back”.

  9. AHCatholic says:

    The cover of the July 2017 issue of Fr. Martin’s daily prayer companion publication “Give Us This Day” features a rainbow design combined with an image of the apostles that clearly appears to be gay cause promoting propaganda. I subscribed to the magazine last year without any prior knowledge of Fr. Martin’s teachings. I sent the below email to the magazine yesterday and I am awaiting a reply, hopefully from Fr. Martin himself. I suppose anything is possible, but I do not expect to receive anything like, “We are very sorry this happened. The editorial staff and I did not realize that there was a rainbow design on the cover art which could easily be construed to appear as though we are endorsing the homosexual agenda. The last thing we ever want to do is bring scandal to Holy Mother Church, especially in this time of such great confusion when it is so important that we speak clearly and truthfully about such vital issues as sexuality. We sincerely apologize and will devote a large portion of the next issue to explaining the authentic Church teaching on this important moral matter.”


    I just received the July 2017 issue of Give Us This Day in the mail and I see there appears to be an oddly placed rainbow design at the top of the cover art. Is there a reason for this? If there is a good reason, it evades me because it clearly is not intended to be an actual rainbow, nor does it fit with what is going on in the rest of the picture. If this is intended to represent and promote the homosexual agenda, please cancel my subscription and do not send me any subscription offers for this publication. To intentionally juxtapose the symbol of the gay cause with a depiction of the apostles would be blasphemous, shameful and blatantly opposed to the moral law, which has not and cannot ever pass away. If this is celebrating the symbol of the homosexual movement, it is explicitly promoting a secular libertine agenda that is opposed to Jesus Christ and his Church, and therefore it would make this publication non Catholic. If this were the case, I would see no reason to continue my subscription as I am a Catholic who seeks solid, orthodox spiritual nourishment.

    I pray for those who are associated with this publication that they believe the truth which is that homosexual acts (not persons) are intrinsically sinful and will only lead to further slavery to sin. For as we know, it is only through chastity and observance of the moral demands of the gospel that we can truly be free. To reject the moral demands and teach others to do the same is to reject true gospel freedom and put souls at risk of hell. If this cover is not intended to promote the homosexual agenda, it appears to be doing so, and I would recommend a clarification be made to readers in the next issue, as it could easily be construed as being not so cleverly concealed propaganda.

    Please forward this email to Fr. Martin and all those involved with the cover artwork.”

  10. Rich says:

    We cannot trust Fr. James Martin’s suggestions in this matter because his reasoning builds on the following false premises:

    FALSE PREMISE #1 – The Church’s approach at evangelizing with such ideas as “hate the sin, love the sinner” has been tried and found wanting.

    On the contrary, very few are aware of the Church’s true teachings in the matter, for example, of the distinctions that Church teaching makes between homosexual tendencies and behavior. Most still think that the Church’s teachings on the matter can be summed up by the false generalization “gay=evil”.

    FALSE PREMISE #2 – People who experience homosexual tendencies feel pushed away by the Church’s teachings in the matter.

    On the contrary, I don’t know what Fr. Martin’s experience is, however, I can say that I have known many people who struggle with homosexual tendencies who find in the Church’s teachings a challenge to holiness and opportunity to grow in a genuine relationship with Christ, especially through the sacraments, in the midst of their struggles, as gradual as their grown in holiness may turn out to be.

    Fr. Martin then concludes that the Church now needs to “update” (read: “change”) its teachings in order to succeed at the mission at evangelizing persons with homosexual tendencies, and in so doing develop language which “build bridges” rather than pushes them away. These conclusions are false, however, being founded upon false premises.

    I find it disingenuous that certain priests and other Church leaders have sabotaged the Church’s efforts at faithfully conveying its teachings in this matter yet suddenly assert not only that the Church failed in this mission, but that now it’s time for the Church’s teachings to be “updated”.

  11. Alanmac says:

    Father Martin has become a homosexualist and should be sent into seclusion to seek repentance.

  12. THREEHEARTS says:

    stuartal79……probably as good as you are. in fact we have as good a chance or more so if we lived our live today exactly as Christ taught us. or do you think you can live it better

  13. Imrahil says:

    Dear Rich,

    I can say that I have known many people who struggle with homosexual tendencies

    seriously, you do?

    I don’t even know many full-fledged homosexuals, and none of the above. Of course, they would also tend to be silent about it.

    Then, of course, even among the heterosexuals those who think the 6th commandment has a meaning before marriage and are willing to act upon it are a tiny minority, so this may account for the fact that if you are homosexual, you pretty much act upon it (or so it seems).

    And maybe if you firmly believe that homosexuality is (to spell it rightly) an inherently disordered tendency whereof the things which it aims to do are evil, then maybe, just maybe you are less likely to get such a tendency (if, of course, you don’t already have it). Could be.

  14. Pingback: SATVRDAY CATHOLICA EDITION | Big Pulpit

  15. benedetta says:

    I personally do not think there is anything wrong with ministering to the peripheries, nor to reaching out to alienated groups in love. The problem arises, a very serious problem, as recent events over the past decade have shown, when the outreach also includes actions which attack others in order to seemingly build up that periphery, to incite reactionary or retaliating or vengeful actions towards those with whom the Church undeniably whether orthodox, heterodox, dissenting, or other, insists upon for all. This modern political power move, imported into the Church by Alinsky, modern Marxists, nihilists, and others, into the Church and employed by nearly all in the realm of mission and activism in these circles, sometimes with a really violent and hateful, even terroristic underside that when visible is denied or ridiculed but never leads to conversion of heart and change of ways or reconciliation for them, to apology, and often harms very seriously the very persons these groups purport to be serving in myriad ways. The only thing that seems to reliably and without fail be advanced through these power groupings dividing the Church and believers from believers, and actually rips at all community in the sense of the Faith and in the sense of Jesus, is that the power movers, clericalists often, pundits, academics, non profit and the like type organizers and activists, get promoted in visibility and loudness. Are their targeted special interests groups truly better off by their in a sense taking them hostage as their spokesperson and animating them to go out and be hateful themselves and unforgiving and belligerent towards whomever they perceive for whatever and often truly erroneous reasons to be against them, and bigoted, in paranoid fashion? I think not. And, it has obviously with the sad election cycle we just witnessed, suffered through, not helped any of these constituencies in the way designed to. I think the era of people condescendingly designated by privileged clerics with power as in need of some Alinskyist representation, by them, and instrumentalized, not shepherded, into groups which in effect cause a deep and hurtful wound in the body of Christ and in the material and spiritual lives of believers who through Christian community could actually have been gift and love for one another, absent the bludgeoning community organizing and loudmouth activist take groups hostage and fire away approach. I beg these leaders with their power to for the sake of the next generation to find a better way. Ask me, I know. All whom they designate as bigots and against them are not so. How is this charity?

  16. stuartal79 says:

    THREE Hearts, it was just a question. I wasn’t sure where you were coming from.

  17. Peter Stuart says:

    Does Father Martin make an act of faith every morning? I am a Catholic with SSA. I struggle daily with purity. It doesn’t help that Martin and New Ways Ministry clearly do not believe what the Church believes. Nor that the Pope seems to endorse both Martin and NWM (which was highly visible at the Synods) but not the Courage Apostolate (which wasn’t).

    Looks to me like they’re burning bridges, not building them.

  18. Rich says:

    Dear Imrahil,

    Yes, seriously, I can.

    I wouldn’t throw such an assertion around in an un-serious manner, anyhow.

  19. Imrahil says:

    Dear Rich,

    thanks for the answer. If that was in any way unclear, I was not doubting your honesty, just expressing my astonishment.

  20. Rich says:

    Dear Imrahil,

    I have lived 34 of my 39 years in or around the San Francisco Bay Area, so, yeah…

  21. joekstl says:

    I think the language is faulty here. The talk is of “homosexual tendencies” as if these are something that can be innerly repulsed. I am heterosexual – and I do have heterosexual tendencies. But that comes from who I am and my nature. Homosexuals come from God who they are. [Nope. That’s where you go wrong. Are asking us to accept the premise.] The homosexuals that I know – relatives and close friends – are at peace with their sexuality. [So what?] Yes, some have had questions due to the pressures from society and Church. But they are who they are and live accordingly. Their sexuality is not a choice. [Yes. It is.] So I think Fr. Martin is correct that we need to recognize the way God has created sexual reality. It’s the same way our Church had to recognize that the late 19th century declaration from the Holy Office that slavery was compatible with Church and biblical teaching had to be discarded. Ii find it difficult to comprehend that our Church wishes to deny God’s creation of human beings w ho are by nature homosexual.

    As to the Jesuits – God bless our Church for their ministries and missionary activities. The evangelization of China would have proceeded better without the insistence from Rome that the Latin rite and ritual be observed. [Which means you think that INVALID sacramental rites should have been okayed. Figures.] We in our Roman Rite continually insist that Latin is the best language to convey the Eucharistic liturgy – while we have multiple Eastern Rites with their own language and rituals. Why is the Tridentine Mass the only preferable ritual? [Another bad premise.] Our local parish is thriving and growing with disciples committed to the Catholic Gospel with a vibrant liturgy using contemporary music and instruments. We come together as an assembly/gathering – the meaning of “ecclesia. [Maybe you are simply deluded.]

    Lastly – the put-down of the Jesuits in this and other posts is unfortunate. The suppression of the Jesuits was a political act. Live with it. [DITTO.] My Jesuit theological training was superb. [Riiiight. We see what it has produced in your comments.] Despite being sanctioned by Rome in the 50s Karl Rahner was a luminary at the University of Innsbruck and I am the better for it. Same for the work of de Chardin. I praise Pope St. John XXIII for appointing Rahner as a peritus at Vatican II. [Sapienti pauca.]

  22. Rich says:

    Dear joekstl,

    We can’t say that all people who experience homosexual tendencies are all comfortable with their sexuality, who all feel “pushed away” by the Church’s teachings. This is one of the false premises Fr. James Martin is using in his proposal to “update” the Church’s teachings in this regard. We can’t put all people who experience homosexual tendencies in a box. Generalizing this group in such a manner – who Fr. Martin claims is feeling so isolated by the Church’s teachings – actually undermines them in the generalization of them and objectifies them in using them to push an agenda.

    OK…so, if we are to admit that we are not generalizing them so, or that this proposal is not an agenda but really a “movement of mercy” or something, then we must ask ourselves what the point would be to update the Church’s teachings in the first place. If the Church’s teachings are so subjective so as “update” them based on how a certain subset of a certain segment within the Church responds to those teachings (and, I concede here that even referring to them as a segment itself may undermine their individuality and the personal call to holiness of each and every one of them), then we are on the one had acknowledging how prone we are to “update” the Church’s teachings given so subjective a basis, yet on the other clambering for this “update” to be enshrined within the universal law of the Church. If the universal law of the Church is so subjective, then why bother with it? It’s because there is agenda to be pushed through, and such cognitive dissonance present in the arguments of some really doesn’t bother them, just like ultimately generalizing and objectifying persons who experience homosexual tendencies doesn’t bother them, because in the end it isn’t really about the reasons they are using to propose “updating” the Church’s teachings – as if such an “updating” to the Church’s teachings would be a solution to a problem that’s really there – only as long as they are able to achieve the end of changing the Church’s teachings in this matter.

    People within the Church now pushing for an “update” of the Church’s teachings in this matter have never been very faithful to communicating what the Church’s teachings really are, are now claiming that the Church’s mission of evangelizing persons who experience homosexual tendencies has failed while these same people within the Church have been sabotaging or at least undermining this mission all along, and they now generalize and objectify people who experience homosexual tendencies while at the same time disingenuously proposing an “updating” of the Church’s teachings as a universal solution to a problem which really isn’t as universal as they claim, all in order to push their agenda through. And, something tells me that a mere “updating” of the Catechism’s language to “differently ordered” would only be the first step of many to this agenda.

  23. DianeKor says:

    I wonder if Cardinal Napier was blocked by Martin like the rest of us who have raised justifiable questions looking for clarity on something of this nature.

  24. eamonob says:

    He represents what they want the Church to be. Part of them wants to still belong to the Church, but it’s too hard for them to accept the teachings as true. So they cling to him as a priest and spiritual leader because he tells them they are right in not accepting moral doctrine.

  25. dallenl says:

    It appears that the good Jesuit is fighting some personal demons and the demons seem to have the upper hand.

Comments are closed.