Fr Z responds to something in LATimes

From the LA Times:

Father John Zuhlsdorf, who runs a blog called Father Z, repeatedly labeled Martin a “homosexualist activist” and called for Catholic institutions not to host him.

Look, I may getting older and I have monsignor moments, but I don’t remember ever doing that. Let me clarify.

First, the LATimes did not contact me and, if they did, I am unaware.

I have attached the “label” to Martin, sure.

Have I, repeatedly or otherwise, “called for Catholic institutions not to host” Fr. Martin?

In my most recent post, all I did was ask questions. HERE  Here’s what I wrote.

REMEMBER: I was concerned about a speaker at a seminary.   Yes, this is also at Catholic University, but I don’t care as much about the university.  The major seminary was my concern.  I wrote:

I’ll grant you that a speaker might be capable of addressing more issues than just his primary focus.  But there is no way around the fact that, right now at least, when Fr. Martin’s name comes up, the first thing you think is activist for a homosexualist agenda.

I don’t get it.

If I were a bishop or an alumnus of Theological College, I’d have some questions.

What message are they trying to send?

What are they promoting by this move?

What are they teaching those seminarians?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with those questions.

I asked them then.  I’d ask them again.

The moderation queue is ON.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Mike says:

    If it is any consolation, you have company. The Twitterverse is ringing with reported threats—generally to people’s jobs—against a number of faithful clerics and layfolk who call out Martin’s errors and his manipulative argumentation. Martin, as we’ve seen, does not work in isolation.

    Right now the public face of the Society of Jesus is a filthy one. Ignatius’ legacy has been dragged through precincts near which it has no business being. Henceforth I’d think it reasonable for faithful Catholics, in charity, to shun the Company and the evil words and works of its most visible members.

    At least as disturbing is the equivocal protest of Catholic University President James Garvey, who is apparently tone-deaf to the wreckage that Land O’Lakes has wrought for the past fifty years (Ex Corde Ecclesiæ notwithstanding) on Catholic higher education in North America.

  2. Herman Joseph says:

    A seminary setting us absolutely off limits, For sure; but I would add that since he is spreading such dangerous stuff we are within our rights, as a matter of spiritual self defense concerning ourselves and others, that we should object to him giving any public talk anywhere.

    [Look. I don’t object to Fr. Martin talking about his thing in public. I DO OBJECT to that in a seminary. However, Fr. Martin should be willing to DEBATE on the issue.]

  3. Joseph Revesz says:

    Father Z. Don’t let the Sodomites shame you! Courage! Courage! Courage,

    [Sodomites, first, shame themselves. In their shame, they want to slough their shame onto others, because they are unhappy. We have to have great patience and compassion. Homosexuals are not our enemies. The promoters of an active homosexualist agenda are the ones whom we must war down, because they perpetuate the shame.]

  4. wisbadger22 says:

    The media are eager to paint James Martin essjay as a victim. Telling the truth is a hate crime these days dontcha know. They don’t care if souls are led to perdition by a priest who seems so eager to make sodomy a virtue. As Austin Ruse argues over at Crisis Magazine, Martin should be challenged everywhere he goes. Souls are at risk.

  5. ResMiranda says:

    Praying, Fr. Z. Also, interesting aside: In the Amazon ads with related content at the bottom of this page is “Building a Bridge”.


    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  6. James C says:

    Good Lord, first Hell’s Bible, then WaPo, and now the LA TIMES is covering this? Fr Martin has clearly called up his well-placed friends. We’ll see what sort of reward he’ll get in Rome for his ‘courage’ in ‘accompanying’ souls to perdition.

  7. Those who can’t do, teach and those who can’t teach become journalists. They’re bottom feeders on the whole and have too little time and inclination nowadays to actually think through the issues. Their job is to fill in the bits between the advertising.

  8. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    You’re being specifically named by the LA Times?

    You are making some big enemies out there, Father.

    You must be doing something right.

  9. JustaSinner says:

    You got mad pull, Father Z! And that be a gud thang!

  10. dahveed says:

    wisbadger22’s correct on the media. I can’t speak to Father Martin’s intentions, but it would almost seem that his hurt feelings trump the potential for lost souls. Does this have anything to do with the holding back that the society of Jesus were once renowned for? I think it would be a very good thing for someone of an official capacity within the Church to ask those questions of yours, Father Z, as well as some more pointed ones of Father Martin. Better to get this out in the open.

  11. Deo Credo says:

    Don’t worry so much Father. Sure the libs are out to get you but haven’t they already had you on their targets. Who cares. [Don’t worry. This isn’t my first rodeo. I’ve been at this internet thing since 1992.] Fr Martin can preach Jesus as Barney the lovable dinosaur all he wants. He, and his order know if they are working for the upstairs or downstairs department and they will all pay in the end. Keep preaching the truth to save as many souls as possible. You should be honored that the weenies think you influenced the cancellation. Good. Less souls led to perdition. The road to help is wide and well travelled…struggle to enter through the narrow gate. Doesnt sound like what Martin is preaching does it? Oh thats right the head of SJ says we dont know what Jesus said since we didn’t have a tape recorder.

  12. Ave Crux says:

    I had a good friend in the Seminary 30 years ago (Newark Archdiocese) who blightly explained to me how they were having homosexual activists come to give them the equivalent of “sensitivity training” regarding this lifestyle even then.

    He had no sense or concern at all that this could be detrimental to the moral compass of those in the priesthood called to guide others to preserve a horror and rejection of sin (ALL sin, even something deemed as “harmless” as “white” lies, let alone sins against human nature).

    Alas! Father Martin follows a decades long line of homosexual apologists being invited to seminaries to advocate their lifestyle and desensitize the “first responders” in the present moral crisis.

  13. MrTipsNZ says:

    One of life wonderful ironies is that when I went to the LA Times to look at the article, my Privacy Badger app went off like crazy at all the dodgy and blockable features the LA Times have on their site…

    Anyhoo. Fr Martin enjoys media dahling status. Its only natural they present him as the oppressed. So what? The Gospel of NiceFeelings™is on limited time and it knows it.

  14. hwriggles4 says:


    Years ago, and experienced teacher gave a young teacher these words of wisdom:

    “If parents are complaining about you, that means you are doing your job.”

    Seventeen years ago, and old boss gave me these words of wisdom that I haven’t forgotten:

    “I am not here to win a popularity contest. ”

    Fr.Z, keep walking the walk – it is a good example for the young, the old, male, or female.

  15. ChesterFrank says:

    Interesting that a large newspaper such as the Los Angeles Times, the fourth-most widely distributed newspaper in the country and owned by Tronc incorporated; would go after a humble priest that writes a small independent blog, often about Latin and the Traditional Latin Mass. And why did they go after that priest this time around? Whos toes did he step on? It certainly was not just Fr. Martins. That priest-blogger must have gone after something much bigger for such a massive publishing institution to retaliate.

  16. Lurker 59 says:

    It seems to me that Fr. Martin s.j. labels himself and further, why should such a label bother him or those who support him? Isn’t that what they want?

    Fr. Z, you are very keen on the importance of identity, specifically Catholic identity. In way, Fr. Martin s.j. also is focused on identity (though not a true identity but rather conflating one’s sins and temptations as one’s identity). If one notices, he is ashamed of both of God-given Catholic identity, and his choice to live as a promoter of the homosexual agenda. His shame is seen in how he seeks to justify himself. If he was not ashamed, he would accept the label instead of engaging in justifying himself.

    The just man need not justify himself before others, for his own self and actions will testify on his behalf. The unjust will forever be trying to justify himself as he knows in his heart that he is unjust and must seek the praise of men as a balm to quiet the anguish of his soul.

  17. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:

    Thank you, Father for pointing out the difference between those who endure the disordered desire and those who promote it as a positive good.

    Personally, if I were to want to learn about how to be pastoral and sensitive toward those who endure this desire, I would read Fr. John Harvey, or Fr. John Hardon (S.J>?), because the best way to be helpful to anyone is to speak the truth to him.

  18. JesuitEducated says:

    1992? Really early adopter, eh?;)

  19. JesuitEducated says:

    Honestly, I saw one of your posts where you called upon your readers to “reach out” to these organizations. Did you edit the post?

    I would not have come back to the Catholic Church except for the Jesuits, and one of those priests was Father Reese. I love the Jesuits because they challenge us to think, and that is something I have yet to see a non-Order priest do. Why are you and your followers so afraid to have a constructive dialog? I had not planned on reading Father Martin’s new book, but I plan to now so I can see what the hubbub is about.

    And I ask all you and your readers: Where is it in the Bible that it says it is ok to attack someone with venom and vindictiveness because you do not like what they have to say? How is that Christian behavior by any sense of the definition?

    And finally, have any of you (including Father Z) even read the book? Or our you basing your judgements on what you think is in the book or what others have told you is in there?

  20. george says:


    If a post is updated post hoc, it will usually have an “updated” tag in it.

    You make good use of the same pro-Fr. Martin talking points I’ve seen elsewhere on the web:
    1. Fr. Martin just wants dialog
    If that were really the case, then Fr. Martin would engage those who disagree with him and would answer the questions posed to him. Instead, he seem to favor “safe” venues where his heresy will be applauded.

    2. You are being mean and the Bible doesn’t say to do that
    “Brood of vipers,” “better to have a millstone ties around your neck and thrown into the ocean,” “get thee behind me, satan!” Our Lord had very direct words for those who would twist His teaching to their own temporal benefit.

    3. If you haven’t purchased and read the book yourself, you can’t comment
    Not only is this a shameless plug to garner more book sales, but the accusations against the book are rather simple and few. Perhaps those who *have* read it could point out where Fr. Martin does mention the Church’s perennial teaching about unnatural sex acts or could explain away how Fr. Martin says that sodomy, a sin which cries to heaven for vengence, should be “reverenced,” I’m sure readers would love to be proven wrong.

    Those who are giving straight talk about the dangers of sodomy are really the ones who love those stricken with SSA. Patting them on the head, telling them that God made them that way and therefore they are perfect, telling them that Church is wrong (and always has been), and letting them slide toward perdition is the opposite of love: it is hatred. Fr. Martin is demonstrating hate towards those with SSA when he encourages them to remain in that lifestyle.

  21. Aquinas Gal says:

    Jesus was highly critical of the Pharisees, those whitewashed tombs.

    Martin is having his 15 minutes of fame, but in the end what matters is the eternal salvation of souls. True love of persons means warning them that if they are practicing sinful acts, such as homosexual acts, those acts are grave sins and their eternal salvation is in danger. Especially today when so many people are misinformed and confused about the basics of the Catholic faith and the sacrament of marriage, Martin’s approach certainly comes across as approving of the so-called gay lifestyle, which involves sinful acts for those who practice it.
    We should pray for Fr Martin’s conversion and full adherence to and proclamation of Catholic teaching.

  22. makreitzer says:

    With all due respect, Jesuit Educated, I have no intention of reading Fr. Martin’s book because his public statements up to this time have made it clear exactly where he stands. At a forum recently he called on the audience to “reverence” those in same-sex marriages. That is what makes him popular in the “gay” community, but it is scandalous.

    He came out with gushing praise for the nuns on the bus and for specific dissenter nuns including Sr. Jeannine Gramick who was directed by the Vatican to dissociate herself from “gay ministry” and proceeded to demonstrate her fidelity to Holy Mother Church by ignoring and disobeying.

    Fr. Martin’s consistently undermines Church doctrine on human sexuality. Calling him out for it is neither uncharitable or unChristian. I’m sure there are critics who have gone overboard and attacked him. However, he is well-known for name calling those who uphold doctrine, so his whining is the pot calling the kettle black. More and more he sounds like Hillary Clinton as he makes himself a poor victim rather than taking the blame for his own promotion of immorality.

    I just sent a Mass stipend to an abbey in France I support asking them to pray a Mass for his conversion. He has many talents. It a shame to see him using them to damage the faith and lead souls down the primrose path of dalliance.

  23. Rich says:


    You have to be more discreet at playing the victim card. You can’t just play it at any old time someone articulates their position on something. You especially can’t play it when the reason you convey for playing it is in response to an attack that really didn’t happen. That’s what Fr. Z. is addressing here. And, I think that you would do well to learn that people can actually do things like use Google to see if the purported attack from which one is defending oneself even exists, as opposed to one’s attempt to put forward a veiled ad hominem attack against another through a misrepresentation of the other’s position, and subsequent attempt to paint the other as a big, ignorant meanie.

    Remember that whole article in America magazine in which Fr. Martin was quoted a few times defending his book against Cardinal Sarah’s “critique”? This when all Cardinal Sarah said was that, in his book, Fr. Martin indicates a double standard on the part of the Church pertaining to how and when the Church upholds its teachings on sexuality. Of course, Fr. Martin appeared the innocent victim throughout the whole farce of an article and, Cdl. Sarah, the big meanie; but hey, we can’t allow a Cardinal’s writing an article in the Wall Street Journal which may very well be an authentic attempt at dialogue do anything to upset the narrative, can we?

    This article, by the way, was much shorter than Fr. Martin’s book, by like 200 times, but one would still question whether Michael O’Loughlin had read the article before writing that Cdl. Sarah had critiqued the book, and Fr. Martin, before defending his book from the cardinal’s purported critique.

    The same can be said of accusing Fr. Z. of attacking someone with venom and vindictiveness. The real vindictiveness is present when people misrepresent what someone else is saying, characterize him in a certain way, and then publish this characterization of their person in a way which demonizes him.

    Where in the Bible say it is OK to misconstrue what another is saying and attack them for this? Oh, wait…it doesn’t does it? Actually, this is very much what the Pharisees did before Pilate in accusing Jesus of perverting their nation and forbidding they give tribute to Caesar (cf. Luke 23:2). But, hey, what’s dragging someone’s name through the mud when you have an agenda to push, RIGHT???

  24. Atra Dicenda, Rubra Agenda says:

    That God can use the Jesuits, in their current status, as a vehicle for salvation is a testament to his infinite mercy. God truly can bring light from darkness and good out of evil. St. Thomas Aquinas was right about this.

    I have been as challenged to think by non-Jesuits and non-ordered priests as by Jesuits. Unless you mean challenged to think about things other than Jesus Christ, His Church, the Four Last Things, rejection of the world and it’s pomps, and eternal Salvation. When it comes to thinking about worldly things for the sake of themselves, yes the majority of Jesuits do have monopoly among the ordered clergy.

    People who read this site (we aren’t “fans” or “followers”) are not afraid of dialogue, constructively or otherwise, so long as it’s final end is the Logos.

    And I would not recommend reading a book simply because of hubbub. Nietschze and Fifty Shades of Gray and Mohammed and L. Ron Hubbard and the Marquis de Sade all have had a lot of hubbub in their time, but all are spiritual poison nonetheless.

    You are right, Christians should not attack individual people because they don’t like what they have to say. They should attack what those people say because they don’t like what they say. That is called argumentation, rationality, and also includes the works of mercy 1) instructing the ignorant and 2) admonishing the sinner. We are supposed to confront false belief and correct it. It is merciful so to do. It protects the little ones from the scandal of error. It is better to have millstones tied around your neck and be cast into the sea than to allow the innocent to be scandalized by the public teaching of error. Heresy is an ugly word for an ugly thing, it isn’t vindictiveness to use appropriate vocabulary in calling the spade a spade or the square a square. It is charity and mercy.

    I don’t think any Christian needs to endure the near occasion of sin of reading Fr. Martin’s book on on homosexuality. His twitter account tweets, facebook statuses, and public statements clearly express his views which he assuredly expounds upon with flourish and appeals to emotion within its pages.

  25. I suggest strongly to our commentators that you not react to “JesuitEducated” in the way we are treated at the “liberal catholic” sites.

    Instead of the vicious bigoted attacks on “conservatives” (i.e. merely orthodox) Catholics typical there, either ignore him or give “JesuitEducated” links or suggest scholarly books to read.

  26. Chris Garton-Zavesky says:


    What you perceive as being a fear on “our” part to have a “constructive dialog” is, rather, an awareness that it is utterly wrong to treat some subjects as open to multiple opinions. On this, we agree with those who think that racist bigotry has no place in a civilized society…. but unlike those people, we won’t engage in violence to make our point. Furthermore, if “constructive dialog” is the same as “compromise” — which often means “let’s hold your ‘facts’ completely in stasis while I voice my opinion” — will both sides really listen? Could Fr. Martin actually be mistaken?

    With the permission of our gracious host, I would like to take this conversation off-line. Can you, Fr. Z., put us in touch with each other?

    [Probably not a good idea.]

  27. Pingback: Growing Fr. James Martin Scandal | Big Pulpit

  28. whitewings says:

    First admission – I haven’t read the book either. But I’m now seriously considering doing so, to see what the fuss is about. A thought – after the CDF censures Sr Margaret Farley for her book, “Just Love”, one of the immediate unintended consequences was that the sales went through the roof – I seem to remember that a book which was never expected to reach more than a limited audience actually ended on Amazon’s Top Ten list. Food for thought.
    I will also say that I am never, ever a fan of silencing anyone as a means to sort out an argument. As far as those I disagree with (both conservative and liberal, and there are both), I want to hear what they have to say. Because in the end, I think Gamaliel gets the last word in Acts 5:34-39

    34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while.
    35 Then he addressed the Sanhedrin: “Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men.
    36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing.
    37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered.
    38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail.
    39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God

  29. Fallibilissimo says:

    For those interested: Robert P. George had a short exchange with Fr Martin at the end of which, Professor George asked a simple question which the Fr hasn’t [yet] answered.
    So questions are being answered all around, but nobody seems to want to answer them. Funny, I heard all this talk of openness and building bridges by those who seem to know it all and write books about bridging gaps. Well, if they’ve figured it all out, why not just answer simple questions instead of insulting and painting with broad brushes? I know people, insiders, who only had questions about Fr Martin’s recent situations, and they feel rather hurt by his attacks and accusations.
    Bridge-building seems to be a sort of ideal which nobody can really reach in reality. But I like guys who deal in reality and make concrete efforts in laying bricks and mortar for bridges. Men like Pope Benedict who gave the Church SP, not only to bridge gaps for those communities that have a particular love for the Usus Antiquor, but also for folks like me (OF goer) who love to hear and learn about our ancient holy heritage. Building bridges “in” and “through” time.
    I like the organization “Courage” which builds bridges to Christ for those who have the cross of same-sex attraction. Not only for them, but for those that do not have that particular cross: the stories at Courage provide bridges for me to understand that here are people who have much heavier burdens than I so that I should pick up my Cross more readily and make a difference. More bridge-building and encounters.
    But you know, people who are in the business of bridge-building, often get accused and labelled. Benedict was mistreated and called all kinds of nasty things for his efforts. Courage is “called-out” by the SPLC for being “anti-gay” and all the implicit connotations of hate that follows such labelling. It seems lots of folks still like to dismantle bridges…
    Now that such fresh divide has been made between Fr Martin and others in the Church, it would be good if someone helped build yet another bridge and foster another encounter! Seems to me, Robert P George’s opening to Fr Martin was a good opportunity to do so in a spirit of “parrhesia”. I hope it isn’t lost.
    Don’t be afraid Fr Martin, to walk on the cobblestone of a bridge not built or controlled by you.

  30. Fallibilissimo says:

    I forgot to mention. The exchange between RPG and Fr M was on Twitter (the modern world’s source of great wonders and profound philosophical enrichment)

  31. Lurker 59 says:

    Jesuit and Franciscan educated myself. Converted to the Faith during my Jesuit education. I am not sure what this “street cred.” does for my previous and following argument, probably some logical fallacy.

    The Jesuits have a theology of hospitality, and it is perhaps from this that Fr. Martin s.j. finds justification for himself to do what he is doing. The practice of hospitality as virtue extends back to the earliest monastic communities and draws from both the cultural wells of Jewish hospitality and pagan hospitality.

    It is, though, a rather truncated view of hospitality to think that hospitality is just accepting one’s neighbor, his condition, and lot in life. True hospitality is the inviting of one’s neighbor into one’s home to share with one’s neighbor what one has, even if very little. The hospital man brings out the best from his storehouses and reserves nothing for himself. Be warned if visiting a truly hospitable man for he very might well be serving you what he had planned on having for dinner!

    Here we can see Fr. Martin s.j.’s mistake: He wishes to be welcoming to the homosexual who he finds to be his neighbor. Yet he refuses to share with him the treasures of his storehouses. He hides Christ from his neighbor in his desire to appear before men as welcoming and accepting. To be hospitable to one’s neighbor, one must bring them into their house, wash their feet if they are clothed in the mud of sin, and set before them the life-giving bread and saving cup.

    I don’t need to read Fr. Martin s.j.’s book to know that nowhere in there does he say that truly hospitable thing to the homosexual — that is the Lord Jesus forgives you, come and enter into His rest.

  32. StephenB12 says:

    ResMiranda said this: ‘Praying, Fr. Z. Also, interesting aside: In the Amazon ads with related content at the bottom of this page is “Building a Bridge”

    Amazon uses ‘cookies’ from an individual user’s browser history and determines what ads to display. Yikes!! :-)

  33. JabbaPapa says:

    My father was educated by the Jesuits, and I think they confused him greatly in their time — though Grace be to God, lapsed as he was, he was given the Grace of Confession and Last Rites on his death bed, and the presence of his good Catholic mother, and in his life, the education they gave him served him well indeed, materially anyway.

    Our current PP is a Jesuit, and yet he is of the sort who seek to provide deep fidelity to the worship of God in Holy Mass, in a very traditional manner, Latinate, with Communion in both Essences on the tongue, doctrinally sound, never forgetting at least some measure of ad Orientem, preaching frequently on even the more difficult essentials of the Faith, a good, true, holy priest of the Lord.

    His Jesuit predecessor in the Parish, the dear Père Guillaume, quite apart from being a supporter and provider of the Traditional Latin Mass is now our Vicar General and, given his youth and position, is very possibly our next Bishop. His institution of beautiful Gregorian Chant at our Parish in the Novus Ordo was simple, pure delight.

    Please refrain from attacking all Jesuit priests.

  34. KAS says:

    Perhaps they confused you with Church Militant TV?

    Saw nothing in what you wrote that fits with what they said you wrote. I’m guessing they are fairly certain none of their readers will fact check them.

    On the other hand, I have seen calls for Martin to be dropped as a speaker in other places.

    [They are going for me with a certain amount of energy because they think that they can hurt me more than they can hurt LifeSite or Church Militant. I am a conservative priest. Hence, they are cowards.]

  35. JesuitEducated says:

    @Fallibilissimo I love the twitter comment. So true in so many ways since main stream media does like to fill column inches or screen pixels with tweets as if the mean anything.

  36. Alanmac says:

    In “America”, Fr Martin’s Jesuit magazine is an article about victimology starring Fr Martin. I wrote a comment among all the crying supporters, as there is not much balance.

  37. The Masked Chicken says:

    Not to be too blunt, but the only way to get the LA Times and other such publications to back down is to get a lawyer and sue them for libel. As good case could be made, because the evidence is on public display. Any literate person who read the blog post with equanimity, would conclude that you were trouble by the speaking engagement (which is your right), but nowhere did you discourage the talk nor incite to riot. That the LA times drew the conclusion that you actively did either of those things puts untrue words in your mouth. They may have confused you with a Church Militant, perhaps? I don’t know, but in any case, it is irresponsible, in my opinion.
    The EFF provides free legal defense in Internet privacy cases. Is there a comparable foundation for clergy? If you win the case, it would make these cases of false accusation appear less often.

    The Chicken

  38. Uxixu says:

    The Jesuits really seem to be going all out in protecting him, too. Watching an editor of Amerikkka calumnating a good Dominican on Twitter…

  39. Kerry says:

    Upon hearing that Fr. Martin says ‘we don’t know what Jesus said, as there are no recordings’, she asked, “Why does he wear the collar?”

    [I think it was the Jesuit Superior General who said that.]

  40. TonyO says:

    JabbaPapa says:

    Please refrain from attacking all Jesuit priests.

    Absolutely correct: when I was in college (Thomas Aquinas College – totally 100% submissive to the Church and the Magisterium), I was taught by a fantastic Jesuit, Fr. Thomas Aquinas McGovern. He never failed to tie his homilies to St. Thomas Aquinas’s teachings, when possible.

    My wife was there when the chaplain was another Jesuit, Fr. Gerard Steckler. Another fantastic priest, he was “old school”, tough as nails, and tougher on himself than on anyone else. He preached at our wedding. Straight-shooter, he would never tolerate nonsense thinking about homosexuality.

    Both have gone on to their final reward, God bless them.

    Nevertheless, these men were practically speaking abandoned by the Society. Fr. McGovern, as far back as the mid-1970’s was effectively disowned, they wanted nothing to do with him. The less they had to see Fr. Steckler, the better they felt about it. While these priests didn’t (ever) disobey their superiors or bad-mouth them, nor did they pretend that all was fine with the order. (Remember, straight-shooter, he wouldn’t say that the order was in good shape when it wasn’t.) They themselves spoke about the evils present in the Society. So, while it is completely correct that we shouldn’t attack ALL Jesuits, we should not refrain from attacking what is evil in the order itself, which applies to “the Jesuits” because it is systemic and because it lives on in the superiors who hand-pick their successors and who regenerate their own likenesses in the next generation of priests in the order, who intentionally drive out seminarians who are sound, who publish magazines filled with junk theology, etc.

  41. Kerry says:

    Ah, yes. It was not Fr. Martin. My error.

  42. teomatteo says:

    Fr Z’s questions that have not been answered: Z-ubia

    [Good one.]

    Fr. Z's Gold Star Award

  43. NBW says:

    St. Ignatius must be pretty upset to see what the order has become. And as for Fr. Martin, he is not at peace, otherwise he’d FORGIVE his “persecutors”, like Jesus did. And that IS recorded in the Bible, unless the Jesuits don’t believe in the Bible anymore.

  44. Charles E Flynn says:

    I am really impressed that a chicken, masked or not, knows the difference between libel and slander.

  45. FrankWalshingham says:

    St. Robert Bellarmine, the great Doctor of the Church whose feast (in the new calendar) was yesterday, would be aghast at the apostacy being preached by Fr. Martin and some of his fellow black robes. Father Martin would do well to read some of Cardinal Bellarmine’s works, many of which are are being translated in to English by the Bellarmine Project at Mediatrix Press for the first time. And there is a 20% off sale the next 2 weeks:

  46. Grumpy Beggar says:

    george says: . . .
    3. If you haven’t purchased and read the book yourself, you can’t comment
    Not only is this a shameless plug to garner more book sales . . .

    Funny how it works out that way isn’t it ? It reminds me of my days playing music in several touring bands : It would be an understatement to say that several of the musicians we knew personally were quite notorious. This was their ploy to becoming famous : They didn’t care if people said good things or bad things about them – as long as they were talking about them.


    I wonder whether Father Martin ( if he ever succeeds in getting his head out of the sand) would consider putting his writing skills to good use by authoring a factual book on how the homosexual activists are indoctrinating all the young school children with the homosexual agenda and trampling over parents rights as first educators ?
    Here are a few links that would prove useful if he were ever to undertake such a project:

    UN LGBT Czar on Indoctrinating Children: “The Younger the Better”

    Homosexuals brainwashing our children in elementary schools

    Protect Kids Foundation ; The Radical Agenda for Public Schools

    Same-sex education ruling an ‘attack on parents’ rights’

    Christian dad fights for right to remove children from LGBT classes at appeals court


    QA couple of snippets from that article linked directly above:

    Katy Faust, Dawn Stefanowicz, B.N. Klein, and Robert Oscar Lopez, who were all raised by homosexual parents, each submitted briefs to the 5th Circuit opposing the legalization of same-sex “marriage.” Recounting childhood memories of households made deeply dysfunctional by their parents’ sexual appetites and the radical subculture that went along with their “gay” identities, all four argued that redefining marriage to include homosexual couples will likely lead to the exploitation and abuse of countless children for political and personal gain.

    “I grew up with a parent and her partner[s] in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” wrote B. N. Klein of her lesbian mother and her series of live-in lovers.

    Fr Martin should get his nose out of his book and take a good hard look at reality. . . instead of promoting fluff balls.

    And if we will recall guys, Fr Z also said in a post previous to when the intolerant whacked out liberals starting their media s**tstorm against him that homosexuals are not doing the damage – it’s the gay militants and homosexual activists – not that numerous, but they wield all the power.

    The only real campaign Fr. Z ever promotes is the one concerned with the salvation of souls . . . y’know . . . the one that has that familiar ring to it. . . goes something like this (only in CAPS) : “Go to confession.”

  47. frmh says:

    Give them something to really write about- demand immediate suspension and seclusion to Golgotha Monastery, Papa Stronsay, for an indefinitely period until he repents of his writings.


  48. Grumpy Beggar says:

    My apologies: Somehow the fourth link I posted in the previous post now leads to a subscription page for an Aussie publication. Sophie York at Australia’s Marriage Alliance cites that same piece in her article CANADA RULING IS AN ATTACK ON PARENTAL RIGHTS

    As reported by The Australian:

    The Superior Court upheld the decision of the local school board not to accommodate Mr Tourloukis’ request, noting it had supported the “values of inclusion and equality over individual religious accommodation.”

    Justice Reid deemed this to represent a correct balancing of the conflicting imperatives in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

    Sophie York called out the ruling for what it truly is: an attack on parents’ rights, and a clear example of the societal consequences of legalising same-sex marriage. Sophie shared her views with The Australian:

    “This ruling clearly shows the attack on parents’ rights and religious freedoms with parents of a student being told in no uncertain terms: ‘You have no place in public education if you do not agree’,” she told The Australian.

    She said that, despite claims made by LGBTI activists, the ruling sent a “clear and unambiguous statement by the courts” that the consequences of redefining marriage went directly to the classroom.

    “As the parents of Australia rightly raise concerns about what their children are being taught under the contentious Safe Schools program, we are seeing similar programs being made mandatory learning in education systems around the world where marriage has been redefined.”

    We need to keep praying – for everybody , including Fr. Martin – even if he thinks he doesn’t need it. We all fall short and God wants all of us to make it to Heaven – no exceptions. In some Catholic forums the other day, I was struck by a Catholic mother’s post – a Catholic mother who is trying to bring up her children in the Faith. She referred to our present time as ,“The Age of Distractions.”. I think she nailed it : Lots of distractions = very little time left for prayer.
    We need to make sure we keep praying.

  49. KateD says:

    There’s a scene in Legends of the Fall that reflects my sentiments regarding the purveyors of all this blowback, where the stroked out old patriarch of the family manages two poignant words of advice for his son.

Comments are closed.