You have probably seen commentaries on the recent book of homosexualist activist Jesuit Fr. James Martin concerned with “building bridges” between the Church and homosexuals.
It might help to put some of the major players into a single post.
Martin’s basic notion is that, for her entire history, the Church has misunderstood God’s intentions and plans for human sexuality and that they should be corrected. He rejects the teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that the “inclination” to “homosexual tendencies” is “objectively disordered” (2358). He claims that, since they were made that way, so to speak, their sexual expressions are the equivalent of those between members of the opposite sex.
Others have criticized Martin’s book as well, for example, Archbp. Charles Chaput of Philadelphia. HERE
Martin has tried to defend his notions, for example at Jesuit-run America Magazine. He was unconvincing.
Another priest jumped into the fray over Martin’s book. Basilian, Canadian Fr. Thomas Rosica, a sometime aid to the Holy See Press Office in times of high activity such as during Synods of Bishops, wrote at his media outlet Salt & Light a full-throated defense of Martin. Fr. Rosica, being so visible, has not avoided controversies. For example, despite his clear gift for languages, he wound up at the center of a translation issue during a press conference during a meeting of the Synod. HERE He is also known for his admiration for Gregory Baum, an ex-priest who married a divorced ex-nun, whom he too divorced. Baum lead dissent against Humanae vitae and was involved in the infamous Winnipeg Statement. HERE Baum admitted in 2017 in an autobiography to a long-time secret, active homosexual life. HERE
The plot thickens with a response to Rosica’s defense in Catholic World Report by Deacon Jim Russell who serves in the Archdiocese of St. Louis.
In the initial blurb above Russell’s piece we read:
Fr. Thomas Rosica’s recent commentary on Fr. James Martin’s book seems to imply that the Church’s doctrine that the homosexual inclination is “objectively disordered” actually misses the mark and doesn’t reflect reality.
Rosica offers his thoughts on the relationship between the Catholic Church and the “LGBT community”. In the process, he appears to unintentionally reveal the core problem in the Church today regarding homosexuality, same-sex “marriage”, and related issues, such as the transgender phenomenon. As I read it, Rosica’s commentary manifests an “overly benign interpretation” of the homosexual condition itself.
Russell has quite a bit more on Fr. Rosica’s defense of Fr. Martin.
So, if you have been following this back-and-forth controversy closely, there’s even more reading to do.
The moderation queue is ON.