@austinruse on “Slippery Jim” @JamesMartinSJ and his non-explanation explanation

Over at the excellent Crisis I see that Austin Ruse (President of the Center for Family and Human Rights – C-Fam) has caught up.

He penned a piece about Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin’s wobbly affirmation of “official” Catholic teaching about homosexuality and homosexual acts.   Ruse made pretty much the same point I made several days ago.  HERE

However, Ruse always writes well.  I liked this bit in particular along with the great title.

James Martin S.J. vs James Martin S.J.

Donald Trump might refer to James Martin S.J. as “Slippery Jim.” He is certainly slippery. His latest act of slipperiness is a column he published this week at America wherein he claims to support the teaching of the Church on homosexuality.


He goes on to quote my good friend Fr. Gerald Murray, who is always worth paying attention to.

Father Gerald Murray points out that for Martin “…a disordered inclination or tendency is ‘one of the deepest parts of a person.’ He refers to ‘the part that gives and receives love.’ It is our heart and soul that constitute our innermost being, the center of love. An inclination toward unnatural sexual activity is not the heart and soul of a person. True love is expressed in virtuous deeds. Evil inclinations or tendencies to sin must be seen by the Christian for what they are and resisted.”

What he prefers is that the homosexual inclination is merely “differently ordered.” You are right handed, and I am left and that is just different. As Father Murray writes, such a change to differently ordered “…would mean that God created two different orders of sexual behavior that are both good and right according to his will: Some people are homosexual by God’s express design and some are heterosexual by God’s express design.” Murray says if the inclination is merely different, then the act—sodomy—is too, and therefore would be “simply natural” and not disordered.

But we know that that is not the case.  More on that HERE.

Also, Austin adds:

For some, this column settles the question. On Twitter, Elizabeth Scalia of Aleteia called the column “elegant.” My friend Maggie Gallagher says we need to take a yes for a yes. But, I do not believe this is a yes.

No.  This is not a “yes” and it wasn’t “elegant”.  It was a ruse, as Ruse and I point okay.

Martin’s piece is so filled with hedges and evasions that it cannot be taken for anything other than a signal to his followers to dig in their heels, defy the Church and continue on their merry way towards the cliff edge.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. Traductora says:

    The fact that Martin archly refers to it throughout as the “official teaching” of the Church – implying that there is some other, equally valid “teaching” – tells us all we need to know about what he really means.

  2. Carrie says:

    “Donald Trump might refer to James Martin S.J. as “Slippery Jim.‘“

    Curious comment for this piece! (At this point, would anyone put stock in anything Trump thought or said? Poor man.)

    [Your anti-Trump comment made Ruse’s reference all that much more satisfying. Thanks!]

  3. Sawyer says:

    I thought Ruse’s closing statement nailed it: “Even more revealing, though, if he [Fr. Martin] really does support Church teaching in all its most difficult parts about homosexuality, why hasn’t there been an uproar among his followers? I suspect it is because they are able, like I am, to see the nods and winks and understand what he really believes.”

    Fr. Martin is fooling nobody: not his followers and supporters, nor his opponents. Everybody knows what he’s really about, what he really believes, and what his aim is. So the big question in my mind is why keep up the charade? The emperor has no clothes and everybody knows it. What is gained by continuing to pretend? Who is he pretending for at this point? Everybody knows. He doesn’t appear shrewd, just dishonest about who he really is. How can anyone admire him?

  4. ChrisP says:

    Those taken in by Martin’s column should contemplate how Britain felt when Chamberlain came back from Bertechsgadan in 1938. This latest scribble is not peace in our time; something is coming, soon. Pray, confess and be ready.

  5. bibi1003 says:

    I wonder how Fr. Martin would try to wriggle his way out of Leviticus 18:22.

    “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.”

    Could that be any more clear?

  6. Sawyer says:

    I think it would be interesting for a journalist to interview or survey supporters of Fr. Martin to see what THEY think about Fr. Martin’s views. Would they be as coy as Fr. Martin, or would they spill the beans and say, “Yeah, we know he’s just being careful about what he says but we know what he really means and that’s why we like him so much.” Someone should be at Fr. Martin’s next public speaking engagement and ask questions of those attending such as: Why do you support Fr. Martin? Why did you come to listen to him today? What do you think his message is? Butter them up with general questions like that, and then be more specific: Do you think Fr. Martin is trying to push for a change in Church teaching/doctrine about homosexuality and marriage? What do you think Fr. Martin hopes to accomplish by speaking about LGBT issues in the Church, like he’s doing tonight? Do you believe Fr. Martin supports gay marriage? I think that would be very interesting.

  7. majuscule says:

    Sawyer is on to something!

    Asking his supporters what they are…um…receiving…from his talks and writing is a brilliant idea!

  8. maternalView says:

    I know SSA individuals and they post Fr. Martin’s comments on their blogs as support of their “lifestyle”. They do think the Catholic Church would be better if it followed his “teachings”.

Comments are closed.