Concerning @JamesMartinSJ talking at Vatican @LaityFamilyLife sponsored @WMOF2018

I am astonished.  And I am not astonished.

At the site of the UK’s best Catholic weekly, the Catholic Herald, we learn that Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin has been asked to speak at the upcoming World Meeting of Families.

This meeting takes place every three years.  Since 1994 it has been organized by what is now the Holy See’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life. The last meeting was in Philadelphia. The 2018 meeting will be in August 2018.

Pope Francis will travel to Ireland for the meeting.

The official site is HERE.

I have to ask this.

When the family is under attack from every direction, is it a good idea to have a homosexualist activist speak at a Vatican sponsored meeting concerning the family?

Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn’t.

I can think of arguments both ways depending, of course, on the speaker.

In earlier preparations for this meeting, there had been some materials with images of same-sex “couples”. That drew some predictable resistance and the images were removed. Jesuit run Amerika Magazine has Martin lament this with a false lamentation, a straw man:

“Why wouldn’t we want to help baptized Catholics feel included in their own church? And the argument that they’re ‘sinful’ is beside the point because we’re all sinful. We need to see L.G.B.T. people as full members of the church, by virtue of their baptism. They need to know that God loves them and their church accepts them.”

Straw man, right?  Who doesn’t want to “help baptized Catholics feel included in their own church”?   The answer is clear: NOBODY.

But there’s more.

They need to know that God loves them and their church accepts them.

Okay!  Great!  But… accepts them as… what?  Fellow sinners?  Sinners with a past who are amending their lives?  Sinners who are sinning now and who don’t repent and amend?

Amerika goes on:

As to what organizers were trying to say by inviting a priest who has called on church leaders to be more welcoming to L.G.B.T. people, Father Martin said it is clear.

“The message to L.G.B.T. Catholics seems straightforward: you’re an important part of the church,” he said.

Whatever else it is, the “message” to homosexual Catholics is NOT straightforward.  And, once again, this is slippery: every Catholic is an “important part of the Church”.

It is never made clear by Martin whether homosexual Catholics are to be welcomed and valued etc etc etc because they are human beings and Catholics, or because of their homosexuality.  Put another way, is it their humanity and Catholicity that is being exalted and defended, or their same-sex attraction?

I have the strongest sense that, behind the rhetoric – and you can see how elusive it is – the real agenda is to normalize homosexual inclinations and, thereafter, acts.

He could, of course, clear that up pretty quickly.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but he hasn’t done so yet even though others also raise this question.

We can and should have focused outreach and concern and apostolates for specific types of sinners.  For example, we can have a special concern for alcoholics as alcoholics.  Do we condone abuse of alcohol?  No.  We understand that there is a lot of evidence about genetic tendencies to alcoholism.  Do we say that inclination is good?  No.

Alcohol and human sexuality are gifts from God.  Do we condone the abuse of alcohol and also the abuse of human sexuality?  Of course not.  Homosexual persons are inclined to desire to do things that are intrinsically evil.  Having a drink isn’t a sin (for most people).  Having way too much all the time is a sin, not because drinking alcohol is evil, but because too much is immoderate.  Too much of a good thing is too much.  Moving to sex, because too much of a good thing is too much, married couples having too much sex would be sinful.  Mirabile dictu.

However, same sex people having sex even once is sinful for more than one reason, which you ought to be able to rehearse.

God foresees and permits that some people will be sinfully inclined to A, B or C.  He doesn’t make them that way.  He offers them graces.  The inclinations can, in a mysterious turn and by God’s plan, wind up being the thorny path, rocky and steep, by which people get to heaven.  However, those who have whatever inclination to some sort of sin must persevere to resist the inclination.  They will, in doing so, suffer.  Their reward in heaven will be great.

Who will attempt to deny that some homosexuals – once their homosexuality was known – have been badly treated by some clergy?

Martin would have you believe that priests far and wide have be harsh toward homosexuals because they are homosexuals.  Somewhere some priests have been uncharitable towards some chaste, continent homosexuals trying to live holy lives.  That sort of priest fully qualifies as a jerk and SOB. But we must also ask the question, make a distinction.  Is it the person that priests have been harsh towards or the sins they have committed?  Were the sinners abounding or lacking in resolve to amend their lives?  That doesn’t justify being a jerk, of course, but the distinction is important.  Furthermore, there are, in fact, times when sternness is charity and pastoral.  Yes, you read that right.

Hence, I circle back to my previous questions. Will homosexualist activists like Martin explain more clearly what it is that we are supposed to welcome: the people as people, or the people as homosexuals, or … the homosexuality?

If his agenda is really to help us to be charitable toward fellow sinners who are struggling with grace and elbow grease towards heaven, GREAT! I am 1000% on board. If his point is that all people are made in God’s image and have dignity and they should be treated as such, then HECK YAH! I’ll help!  If he is going to stand up at the World Meeting and say that all people have dignity and must be treated with charity and that homosexuals must resist their inclinations and live continent, chaste lives and that they should avoid scandal, then… great!

If his agenda is really to shift people to think that homosexual inclinations and same-sex attraction is not any different from opposite-sex attraction, and that same-sex acts are not different from opposite sex acts, then, no, I am not on board. If his point is the main-streaming of same-sex sexuality and the legitimation of homosexual sex, then HECK NO! I’ll oppose it!

BTW… I know of another group of people who, in both the past and in the present, “often feel ignored, marginalized, excluded, insulted and even persecuted by their Church”. They have been treated like dirt by a lot of clergy because of how they self-identify and because of their “inclinations”.  All they want to be is “Catholic” and to be able to realize their “legitimate aspirations”, as Pope St. John Paul called them. All they want is something legitimate and sacred, part of the warp and weft of the Church for centuries.  All they want is to be welcomed and treated well.  They just want to be an active part of the Church.   More often than not, they are ignored and belittled.

But I digress.

In the case of the upcoming World Meeting of Families, I’m just asking if this it is a good idea to have Fr. Martin as a speaker, given that he will not provide clarifications for my points above.

If I have missed something, I sure would like to be corrected.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in I'm just askin'..., One Man & One Woman, Our Catholic Identity, Sin That Cries To Heaven, The Drill and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. Andrew says:

    “Because too much of a good thing is too much, married couples having too much sex would be sinful. Mirabile dictu.”

    St. Jerome puts it this way:

    Xystus in sententiis: “Adulter est”, inquit, “in suam uxorem amator ardentior”. In aliena quippe uxore, omnis amor turpis est, in sua, nimius. Sapiens vir judicio debet amare conjugem, non affectu. Regat impetus voluptatis, nec praeceps feretur in libidinem. (Adv. Jovinianum)

    [As Xystus writes in his Sentences: “An excessive lover of his own wife is an adulterer”. Because any kind of love (amor) of a woman who is not one’s wife is corrupt, whereas towards one’s wife, love is warped when it is excessive. A wise man should measure his love towards his wife with reason, not with affection. He should moderate the impulse of pleasure and avoid being carried headlong into gratification.]

  2. SanSan says:

    This is so upsetting. How can this be allowed at the World Meeting of Families? Fr. Martin needs to stop referring to those who oppose the sin of sodomy as homophobes. He needs to help these poor souls out of this tragic lifestyle. Where is the love? You can’t be Catholic and support abortion, homosexuality (lifestyle), same-sex marriages, or any sin against God.

  3. teomatteo says:

    I am sure that Fr. Martin will speak about the Catholic organization, Courage International. He will be its most ardent supporter.

  4. Benedict Joseph says:


  5. erick says:

    Is it possible that part of the problem with Fr. Martin’s perspective is that he views it precisely as “their church” and “our church,” rather than THE church whose possession is that of God, paid for at the price of his own blood? But then, perhaps I’ve got it wrong. Someone smarter than me might set us straight on this point.

  6. robtbrown says:

    Fr Martin is giving an (yet another) demonstration of why the Jesuits have become The Incredible Shrinking Religious Order.

    No better (and sadder) example is the Shrine of the North American Martyrs in Auriesville, NY. Their greatest shrine in the US, the site of the martyrdom of Jesuits Isaac Jogues, Rene’ Goupil, and John Lalande, is also the birthplace of Kateri Tekakwitha. In the Jesuit cemetery there is buried Cardinal Dulles.

    The Jesuits have now pulled out because they lack the personnel to staff it. The retreat house was closed long ago, turned over to Buddhists.

  7. Joy65 says:

    PRAYING that his talk does NOT take a really downward spiral and promote or even condone homosexual relationships and that lifestyle. SURE those with SSA are VERY MUCH WELCOME in the Catholic Church as ANYBODY is welcome in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is not a shrine for Saints but a place of healing for sinners. I hope it is brought out that as WELCOME as anybody with SSA is in the Catholic Church along with that goes the MUST that they cannot actively live a homosexual lifestyle. This is NOT discriminatory. It would be the same exact thing told to those heterosexual couples living together without the benefit of a Sacramental marriage in the Church. Or for those single unmarried that they MUST live chaste lives.

    Nobody is being “picked on or being punished” by the Catholic Church.
    It’s NOT hard to understand:
    ALL single people MUST live chaste lives!

    ALL clergy and Consecrated religious in the Catholic Church (except for those already married converts who become Catholic Priests and already married men who become deacons) MUST live celibate lives.

    All married couples MUST live chaste lives in their marriage and keep their marriage vows.

  8. Sawyer says:

    Nothing good will come of it. By now everyone knows about Fr. Martin’s deliberate ambiguity and studied equivocation and coded language, all in the service of promoting normalization of same-sex unions within the Church. No ecclesiastical bigwig can plead ignorance. To invite him to speak is to support his homosexualist aims. They know it, we know it, everyone knows it.

    In the article linked to at the beginning of the post, the archbishop, when asked whether gay couples could attend the meeting, said, “Everyone is welcome,” but then added, “we don’t make apologies for the clear teaching of the Church on marriage and family.” More coded language and equivocation: gay couples are welcome, but we have clear teaching, but they’re welcome anyway. The archbishop has no courage or else is one with Fr. Martin in objective and is just playing the game.

    The game-playing in the Church makes me sick.

  9. Toan says:

    Perhaps, lest alcoholics feel unwelcome, they should also include an advertisement with a picture of a smiling man, holding a bottle of whiskey, wearing an “I’m an alcoholic” shirt.

  10. pbnelson says:

    CCC 1935: “Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design”

    So, racism is a sin, we are all agreed. And we all agree that homosexual acts are sinful, but homo-sexually active people are just sinful persons, like the rest of us, right?

    Ergo, when it comes to inclusive language and acceptance, I like to apply the “racist” test. Does your parish recognize that racist acts are sinful, but racist people are just sinners like the rest of us? Does your parish accept racists? Do racists feel included at your parish? Do racists know that God loves them and their church accepts them? Is your church’s message to racists a straightforward: “you’re an important part of the church?” What has your parish done to reach out to the racist community?

    If your answer is “heck no, and nothing”, you need to act, now. Else explain why you are continuing to support an unwelcoming, hostile, bigoted, hateful, Pharisaical abomination of Christ’s church.

  11. JKnott says:

    This needs a great motto for the clergy to teach from:
    Alcuin (ca. 730-804) “Stand manfully, fight bravely, defend the camp of God”
    What’s wrong with the topics of virtue – purity, humility, charity, obedience.
    Prayer – prayer – prayer

    Ditch the pop psychology of the perpetually offended and politically “correct” cry baby catechism.

    And lastly have a table of reading materials packed with the lives of the saints.

    Keep it to other books by Dietrich Von Hildebrand on “In Defense of Purity” and ” Sign of Contradiction” or “Transformation in Christ”
    How about Father Faber’s “Growth in Holiness”

  12. scotus says:

    Fr Martin says: “the argument that they’re ‘sinful’ is beside the point because we’re all sinful.” I take it that Father Martin is aware of the difference between a mortal sin and a venial sin. Or does he think that the Church should be equally ‘welcoming’ (in whatever sense he uses that word) to serial abortionists, serial adulterers, serial fornicators, serial robbers and the like?

  13. Malta says:

    Satan will not prevail against the gates of heaven, that is not to say they won’t get a good scorching. This is pure evil, and that the Vatican is allowing it speaks volumes about some of the prelates allowing it.

  14. bobbird says:

    “Straw man, right? Who doesn’t want to help baptized Catholics feel included in their own church”? The answer is clear”: the priests in our area … who oust every single orthodox RCIA sponsor or FF teacher — because “The catechism of the Catholic Church is but one opinion among many.” Teaching from it would contradict their liturgical abuses, tolerance of sin and heretical sermons. Scratch these cooey and gooey homosexualist/Modernist “victims” and you will find a startling and snarling beast when they have a clear track ahead of them.

  15. Peter Stuart says:

    So much for us SSA Catholics struggling to do the right thing. As far as I’m concerned the Vatican is our enemy.

  16. Kathleen10 says:

    They have made their intentions perfectly clear. Any doubts were dispelled around 2016 or so.
    They have the buildings and all the rest.
    But thank you, Fr. Z. Thank you so much for all the great topics and encouragement and teaching. Thank you for your faithfulness. If we had a church full of you, we’d be all set.

  17. Charles E Flynn says:

    I cannot help but imagine a guppy in the space between Rev. Martin’s outstretched hands.

  18. PostCatholic says:

    My astonishment is at the choice of venue of Ireland.

  19. bibi1003 says:

    I’m so disgusted by this. The homosexual agenda is being pushed on us from every side and now it’s coming from the Church. Fr. Martin isn’t going to speak the truth at this event. He’d lose his fan base and his superstar status. Pope Francis talks one way and acts the other on this issue. I’m tired of giving him the benefit of the doubt. I don’t trust him or his flying monkeys. Maybe he and Fr. Martin would like to finally show their true colors and attend the upcoming “pride” festival in my hometown, which offers such sickening events as a drag queen fashion show, drag queen storytelling and childrens’ activities. (???!!!) On their way they could swing by the Cathedral and pick up our bishop, who supports New Ways Ministry wholeheartedly.

    “The Coming Storm” isn’t coming. It’s already here.

  20. frjim4321 says:

    “I am sure that Fr. Martin will speak about the Catholic organization, Courage International. He will be its most ardent supporter.” – teomatteo

    I’m pretty sure, if Fr. Martin were to speak about “Courage,” (sic) he wouldn’t refer to it as being genuinely Catholic, and he would most likely call them out for endorsing “reparative therapy,” which is tacitly promoted by that organization yet is condemned by virtually every authoritative psychological organization.

    I can’t speak for him, but those are my best guesses.

  21. Antonin says:

    James Martin’s positions with respect to these issues are well known and not at all a secret. He has been open, transparent, and candid. And, given all this (or maybe because of it) Pope Francis promoted him to consultor to the Vatcian’s Secretariat for Communication. So, at least the Vatican, and Pope Francis are comfortable with his messaging. There is the real problem.

  22. AndyMo says:

    frjim4321 says:

    “if Fr. Martin were to speak about “Courage,” (sic) he wouldn’t refer to it as being genuinely Catholic, and he would most likely call them out for endorsing “reparative therapy,” which is tacitly promoted by that organization yet is condemned by virtually every authoritative psychological organization.”

    This is a blatant lie, which you would know from even a cursory search of Courage’s own website.

  23. frjim4321 says:


    I’m quite familiar with their website, and even more familiar with how they do, in fact, operate.


  24. comedyeye says:

    It is never a good idea to have James Martin, SJ speak anywhere. He evades clarity and sidesteps Truth. The laity will continue to get him disinvited from speaking in this country.

  25. Il Ratzingeriano says:

    How fitting that this is taking place in Ireland, the once deeply Catholic country that has so zestfully embraced legalized abortion and gay marriage. You reap what you sow.

  26. JamesA says:

    Father, as a person in recovery from alcoholism, I find your comparison of homosexuality and dipsomania to be dead on. I have thought this for many years. Is it genetic ? Probably, at least in part. That doesn’t make it ok or acceptable, and does not give people the right to say “God made me this way so I get a free pass.” It is a cross to be born with courage and Divine help, not something to be celebrated or normalized.

    I also think your assessment of Fr. Martin’s motives is correct. As with another famous churchman who will not be named, he’s had plenty of opportunity to clarify his position and refuses to do so.

  27. Imrahil says:

    Only, dear JamesA, as far as I see our reverend host didn’t parallel homosexuality and dipsomania.

    He paralleled alcoholism and abuse of human sexuality (in general), and he is quite right there. If, however, we’d directly compare an alcoholic to a homosexual, we’d have to say that the alcoholic indulges too much in what is in itself good; while the homosexual does not indulge too much in a good thing (as a hypothetic married couple with too much sex would, or arguably the fornicator), but indulges in an abominable thing.

    At least in the way homosexuality is nowadays defined. There is, of course, nothing sinful in itself (only, in this age, something very dangerous) in having more emotional and also “touchy” same-sex friendships than the majority of people, as long as no sodomy is part of the idea – maybe it’s a loss to blame on the homosexualists that this thing is no longer imaginable without thought of a sin crying to Heaven for vengeance, and that maturing boys of today can no longer read either 1 Sam 18-20 nor LotR Book IV without having to actively suppress the “wow, that’s risqué” thought – and here of course there would be room again for an overindulgence in a good thing.

  28. JamesA says:

    Ibrahim, I think the parallel holds. Homosexual behavior is the ultimate perversion of the good and proper conjugal act, the context sexual love was created for. Well, one serious perversion. In this day and age it has competition galore.

  29. Pingback: TVESDAY MORNING EDITION – Big Pulpit

Comments are closed.