The slipperiness of Jesuit homosexualist activist @JamesMartinSJ

Geryon

At Complict Clergy there is a recording of Jesuit homosexualist activist James Martin speaking almost candidly at the perennially insane, infamous, renegade parish St. Joan of Arc in my native Minneapolis.   That place is crazy weird.  Just the venue for the slippery Jesuit and his relentless campaign of distortion of Catholic teaching by innuendo and omission, thus endangering souls.

Martin spent a good deal of the recorded section, at least, talking about how popular he is, and how much support he has from church figures and the Pope.  He also suggests that people who don’t agree with him are angry and fearful, have “complicated” sexuality and are even ex-gays.

During his talk (also covered by LifeSite), Martin made a spectacularly deceptive argument.

First, however, here is a knee slapper.

“I think that the group that feels the most marginalized in the Church are LGBT people. They are insulted, excluded, persecuted, singled out, targeted [unintelligible], and can really feel like it’s not even their Church.  Many of them have never felt even welcomed in the Church.  Many of LGBT people have never heard the words lesbian gay bisexual transgender mentioned in any way other than negatively. Imagine that in your own Church!”

He knows this isn’t true, especially in an era when it seems that nearly everyone is bending over – backward – to accommodate and play nice.

I respond that the single most excluded and trampled on group in the Church are not homosexuals, as he would have you believe, but rather people who want to practice their Catholic Faith in a traditional way. They are not just shoved to the back of the bus, they are often not even allow to board the bus after buying the ticket.

He also says that tradition-inclined Catholics must be “resisted” and he is worried that seminarians and seminary formation are not adequately up-to-date.  (Read: modernist)

But let’s leave the “I’m such a victim!” Game to the homosexualists.

Martin states that, in over 70 countries, someone can even be killed for engaging in same-sex acts.  Let’s admit that that is true and acknowledge that, now that we have moved beyond Old Testament laws, that’s dreadful.  Martin, argues that LGBT issues are therefore “pro-life” issues.

See?

If you can be killed for engaging in same-sex acts, then, because we are “pro-life”, we have to defend, apparently, engaging in same-sex acts.

He doesn’t say that same-sex acts are sinful.  He doesn’t say that people shouldn’t be engaging in them in the first place.

Frankly, we have to admit that people are sinners, and that we have weaknesses, and that we often fail and fall.  It is not a surprise that that people who have strong temptations to steal things or to lie will, occasionally, fall and commit those sins.  Think of other sins as well, especially alluring sins of the flesh.  People fall.  So, we acknowledge that homosexuals, like heterosexuals, will also fail and fall.  That’s life. It’s wrong and bad, but it is life.

But that’s not what Martin is about.

Implicit in his lack of candor about the sinfulness of same-sex acts, is his approval of those acts.   Doubt that?   Remember how he lifted the sheet a little when he said that homosexual couples should be able to feel free to kiss each other in church.  And, please please please, correct me if I am wrong: Has Martin ever acknowledged – without hedging – that same-sex acts are intrinsically sinful?  Sinful?  Ever?

Has Martin ever made clear appeals to homosexuals not to sin by committing same-sex acts?  Ever?  Please let me know if he has and I will henceforth mention it when I bring Martin up.

On that note, I recall that last October 2019 Martin did say publicly in a tweet that the Bible says that homosexuals acts are wrong.  BUT!  BUT!  But then Martin called into question the veracity of the Bible! “Where the Bible mentions [same-sex sexual] behavior at all, it clearly condemns it. I freely grant that. The issue is precisely whether the biblical judgment is correct.”

He goes on in that tweet to raise the issue of the Church’s position regarding slavery.

He also brought the slavery angle up in his talk at wacky St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis.  He was recorded, saying:

“The Bible, the Old Testament and even St. Paul, speaks approvingly about slaves, right? I mean, that is accepted in the Old Testament, and St. Paul talks about slaves being obedient to their masters.

He says that,

“Unfortunately, a lot of people use biblical texts to kind of support their homophobia. You know, Leviticus and St. Paul. The problem with looking at the texts in that way is that we don’t look at every text in that way like Leviticus.  I mean, look, the Bible, the Old Testament, and even St. Paul, speaks approvingly about slaves, right? Enslaving.  I mean, that is accepted in the Old Testament, and St. Paul talks about slaves being obedient to their masters.  Now, no one, I hope, in this room or in this church would ever condone that.  Why is that?  Well, why not just point to the Old Testament passage that talks about slave or the passage from St. Paul? Because we understand things in a different way. And when it comes to LGBT matters, suddenly we become fundamentalists. We become literalists.  And so what happens is that they cherry pick these verses out of Leviticus and out of St. Paul which meant…. By the way, homosexuality at the time (was) much different that the way we understand what’s going on right now, let’s just say it that way.  But the point is this.  We have to understand those readings in their historical context.  That’s not to say that you ignore them.  But you have to understand them in their historical context.  And frankly, any reading that leads us to be hateful, or to hate people, right?, I mean is something that should be looked at carefully and discerned.”

Think about that for a moment.

Martin proposes that Scriptures and the Church condoned slavery.  He implicitly suggests that, based on Scripture, the Church held once, but no longer holds, that slavery is a good thing.

Now the Church doesn’t hold that slavery is good.  Therefore, if the Church can change teaching regarding slavery, then the Church can change regarding homosexuality.

Now, the Church teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered.   But wait!  That’s historically conditioned!  A day will come when the Church changes her stance and says that homosexual inclinations are perfectly okay!

The problem here is that the Church didn’t think that slavery was good.  The Church acknowledged, just as Christ did, that slavery was a social reality.  Paul, in talking about slaves and their masters, wasn’t condoning the institution of slavery.  Paul was convinced that Christ would return quickly and that everything, even being a slave, is subordinate to spreading the Gospel.

Paul, in 1 Cor 7, is instructing the flock about marriage and sexual relations and divorce and doing what is necessary, even if difficult, to be saved.  In this context he brings up also conversion.  Were you circumcised when you converted?  Don’t try to reverse circumcision just because now you are Christian.  Were you a slave when you converted?  Sure, try to get free, but it is far more important to be a slave to Christ, who bought us at a great price.  “So, brethren, in whatever state each was called, there let him remain with God.” (1 Cor 7:24).  Furthermore, don’t seek marriage if you are unmarried.  Why?  The time is short!  Live as if you were not married.  Stop mourning if you are mourning.  Don’t live in this world because it is passing away.

Note well: Paul explicitly says, “Were you a slave when called? Never mind. But if you can gain your freedom, avail yourself of the opportunity.” (1 Cor 7:21).  The Greek says, “If you are able to become free, fine, do that.”  Paul doesn’t think that being a slave is okay.  It is better to be free.  Besides, our state here isn’t lasting.  When Paul advocates in other places slaves being obedient to masters, he isn’t condoning slavery.  The underlying reality for Paul is that being free or being a slave is inconsequential in this life compared to our relationship with Christ.   Moreover, Paul tells Onesimus to look at his slave as his brother in Christ (Philemon 16).

But Martin, falling into the Protestant trap – ironic, since he is a Jesuit – ignores the fact that the Church’s teachings are not based on Scripture alone.  We also have Tradition and the Magisterium.  The Church interprets Scripture authoritatively and is the final authority.  Martin thinks that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and homosexual acts can flip because of changes in historical conditions.  As if to say, “We know more now today than those poor benighted yokels of the early centuries of the Church.  They were culturally conditioned and not as advanced as we are now.  We know better.   Therefore, the Church shouldn’t just repeat culturally conditioned things of the past.  We have to move on.  We don’t condone slavery now and we must come to condone once-condemned, in the bad old days, homosexuality.”

So, Paul didn’t challenge the institution of slavery, but taught that it was superseded in Christ, who was to return soon.

What about homosexuality?  After all, that was a reality, too, in Paul’s time.  Paul, however, roundly condemns homosexuality.

Just before Paul get’s into slavery, in 1 Cor 6: 9-10, he get’s into homosexual acts.

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [arsenokoítes], nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)

There is no way around the fact that Paul is talking about homosexual acts.  Greek arsenokoítes, from arsen (male) and koite (bed), means “one who lies with a male as if with a female, sodomite” (cf. also 1 Timothy 1:10, where Paul says that homosexual acts are contrary to “sound doctrine”).   The LSJ simply gives “sodomite” for arsenokoítes.  Beyond any doubt, the highly educated Paul would have known the Levitical condemnation of male with male sex acts: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” (Lev 18:22).  How bad are homosexual acts?  The previous verse forbids throwing your babies into the fire of Moloch and the next verse concerns bestiality and women being serviced by animals. 

Sorry about the cherry picking here, James, but GOD sandwiched homosexual acts between sacrificing babies and humping critters. 

What’s God’s view?

For whoever shall do any of these abominations, the persons that do them shall be cut off from among their people. So keep my charge never to practice any of these abominable customs which were practiced before you, and never to defile yourselves by them: I am the LORD your God.” (Lev 18:29-30)

Let’s get sophisticated now and remember that Leviticus, whether Mosaic or post-Mosaic, is really old. Therefore, Leviticus is easily discounted as historico-culturally conditioned … though we can’t just ignore it!  No, never ignore.  Read it and then dismiss it condescendingly because “We know more than they did!  Our way of performing homosexual acts is more sophisticated than their way.  Thus, we can put Paul and Leviticus aside”.

The slippery Jesuit homosexualist activist makes a brief claim.  Then I and others wind up having to spend a good share of the morning writing posts like this.

Martin’s work, veiled in good intention and some positive points, for all of its ambiguity and innuendo, is pernicious and diabolical.

I say “diabolical” for good reason.

I, for one, believe in the “unseen” cosmos, the invisible realm of the angels, holy and fallen.  I really do believe in the Devil, the Enemy, and demons.   I firmly hold that certain kinds of sins and curses allow demons, who are legalistic, to claim the right to attach to places, things and people and oppress them.  Yes, I really believe that.  I also believe that shaking off those demons, breaking their hold, can in many cases be very hard and require the intervention of exorcists using the Church’s perennial rites.

Last Sunday we heard Satan tempt Christ by quoting Psalms 90/91.  As it turns out, ancient Jews also had exorcism rites and they used that same psalm.  How sly of the Enemy to quote that one to the Lord.  The Church still uses that psalm in the exorcism rites in the Rituale Romanum.

I think that James Martin is purposely, systematically, providing cover – excuses – for people with homosexual to engage in same-sex acts.  He is trying to convince enough people that these acts are not sinful so that they can create a large enough lobby to force weak-minded and probably morally compromised Church leaders to push for changes, first, to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.  What would follow would be calls for unqualified positive statements about homosexual acts.  After that, they will advocate for elimination of age restrictions.

Martin could put an end to all this dreadful speculation by making a few clear and unambiguous statements about the intrinsic sinfulness of homosexual acts and acknowledge the veracity of Scripture and Tradition.

Why should that be hard for a Jesuit and a priest who had to swear oaths with his hand on the Bible that he embraced what Scripture says and what the Church teaches?  Before I was ordained, in front of witnesses, I had to copy and read, with my hand on the Bible, an oath that ended this way:

Denique sincera fide spondeo iugiter me fore, ad normam ss. Canonum, obtemperaturum obsequentissime iis omnibus quae mei praecipient Praepositi, et Ecclesiae disciplina exiget, paratum virtutum exempla praebere, sive opere sive sermone, adeo ut de tanti officii susceptione remunerare a Deo merear.  Sic spondeo, sic voveo, sic iuro, sic me Deus adiuvet et haec Sancta Dei Evangelia, quae manibus meis tango.

Sive opere sive sermone.

I fail in charity at times, I sadly admit.  I try to make amends and go to confession.  But I wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of the Day of Judgment, for misguiding souls into carnal sins that could result in eternal damnation.  Remember that priests are priests forever.  They remain so, even in Hell.

Consider the lot of a priest in Hell.

If sometimes it seems that the Church and some priests give great focus to sexual sins, it not because they are obsessed with sex.  They are worried about the souls of their flocks.  If sexual sins are not as horrific as those terrible sins of the spirit, they are nevertheless mortal sins.  As Mercutio quips, “‘Tis enough, ’twill serve.” They are mortal sins that can lead to worse sins of the spirit.  Those serious sins of the spirit are relatively rare, but those of the flesh are quite common.  Therefore, the charitable priest will, in fact, put a good deal of effort into helping people avoid them, for they are mortally sinful.

Sometimes we have to preach hard messages.  Sometimes people won’t want to hear what we have to say.  However, as priests we are obliged to do so anyway.  Why?  Because we really believe that Hell exists, it is possible to wind up there, and that it is irrevocable.  We also believe in Christ’s promises to His Church and the possibility of Heaven which He won back for us. Priests also must strive with grace to save our own souls, even if others are not concerned for their own souls.  With Augustine I can say earnestly, even as I try to avoid my own damnation, “Nolo salus esse sine vobis!… I don’t want to be saved without you!”  I want as many of you as possible to enjoy the bliss of heaven.

Lastly, as I wrote above, if Martin has truly and unambiguously and without hedging, affirmed the Church’s teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically sinful, I really do want to know.  I will happily correct myself and give him his due.  Furthermore, if he would begin to teach and uphold without reserve the Church’s teachings about homosexuality while still trying to improve the lot of those with homosexual inclinations, I would salute his effort and gladly offer an olive branch or mend a bride (an image he might appreciate).

Until then, he doesn’t get a pass, just because he’s in with a few powerful figures and in a position to make trouble for the likes of me and others who resist his agenda.

Please share this post!
Share

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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

25 Responses to The slipperiness of Jesuit homosexualist activist @JamesMartinSJ

  1. tho says:

    Poor St. Joan of Arc, we have a church named in her honor where the exaltation of sodomy, an affront against natural law, is espoused by double speak. Who are these people who think they can overturn the 2020 years of teaching, and try to make us believe that a perverted sexual practice should be normalized. It is difficult for me not to hate an arsonist who burns down my house, and by the same token it is hard for me to feel compassion for those who want to tear down my church.
    St. Peter Damien spoke forcefully about this dirty practice in his critique against homosexuality in the 11th century, an even more troubled time than this century.
    Latin Mass Magazine has an excellent CD by Father Anthony J. Mastroeni on this subject.

  2. Peter Stuart says:

    I appreciate your message, Father, and God bless you for it. You don’t care if you’re swimming against the tide. But it’s more like a tidal wave, and my old struggling SSA self can no longer try to buy into a Church establishment that gives free rein to a character like James Martin. I think they know what they’re doing and I think they do it on purpose. That’s why I go to the SSPX.

  3. rhig090v says:

    Father,
    Thank you for your clear, detailed analysis, and commentary. On Father Martin, one hears so many of the tricks that the Prince of this World uses.

    Here’s to praying for a radical conversion of Father Martin in a similar way that St. Paul was. One has to wonder if he is sincerely a fool or if he is a savage beast devouring souls. I suppose charity demands us presuming on the former.

    St. Paul, pray for us, pray for him!

  4. Charles E Flynn says:

    At least part of the problem with condemning something as an abomination is that the word is seldom used by speakers of English outside of bible-related discussions. According to this article, three different Hebrew words get translated as “abomination” in our bibles:

    Abomination

  5. Gaetano says:

    If Fr. Martin wants to see “the most marginalized in the Church,” he should take a look at Catholic whistleblowers & abuse survivors. That’s a group that doesn’t get special masses, L.A. REC seminar rooms, or meetings with the Pope.

    Doubly so if the accusation is against a Jesuit. I’ve seen it first-hand.

  6. Fallibilissimo says:

    Fr Martin affirms Church teaching on same sex acts, as well as on the nature of the “orientation” as a disorder. He does a decent enough job at explaining Church teaching actually. It’s in his April 30, 2018 article in America Magazine:
    “What is the official church teaching on homosexuality? Responding to a commonly asked question“

  7. JabbaPapa says:

    Martin, in his Lenten “message”, suggesting that Jesus does not want homosexuals “to heal their proclivities or find God-given strength to master their same-sex inclinations” proclaims the exact antithesis of Lent, the exact antithesis of the teaching of our Lord the Christ and of Holy Church, and it might even be understood as objectively a teaching of an anti-Christ.

  8. Actually, it seems to me that the priests who are most obsessed with sex are the ones who promote or enable sexual sins. In fact, the agenda of much of the hierarchy right now appears to be to make it easier to commit sexual sins.

  9. Fallibilissimo says:

    In addition, Fr Martin has insisted several times that he does not challenge nor does he wish to change Church teaching.
    I believe he has crafted his mission in such a way that we are to assume he is orthodox. I think he knows this. I think Fr Martin knows Catholicism quite well, and I also believe he is quite intelligent.

    His positions on kissing etc, are about pastoral issues regarding the treatment that gays get. I think he is right that the whole same sex topic does show a degree of hypocrisy in the Church where anything gay gets so much negative attention, but contraception (among other issues he brings up) are rarely admonished. Again, I think he has crafted his work intelligently.

    I say all this, because in my fallible opinion, I think his approach is wrong headed and dangerous. (I mean nothing personal against him, I’m talking about the work). I also find many of our reactions underestimate his knowledge, and I have seen the issue get the best of well intentioned people. I think the same is true about the whole same sex topic I’m general; it’s a distraction while we’ve been living under the yoke of so many other sins and disorders that have lost our attention as a Church. It’s interesting to see how so many people say they leave the Church (polls have suggested this, but just look at Michael Coren) because of the gay issue. Not because of contraception? Not because of impure acts? extra marital relations? Porn? Divorce? Am I to think that the reason gay marriage is a scandal to them is because these other issues involving chastity are not “hard teachings” to so many Catholics of the 21sr century?

  10. LeeGilbert says:

    A person has to wonder if the “deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13) is a diagnostic quote for his entire “apostolate.” How bad is it? It is so bad that Scripture says it is shameful even to speak of such things, yet he has made doing so his life’s mission.

    About seventeen years ago I together with about seven other men in the western burbs of Chicago set about opposing the homosexual juggernaut with articles and letters to the editor. We were very successful in getting published, yet after a time I felt as if I had personally verified the scripture, “He who touches pitch blackens his hand.” We were making raids on the unspeakable. After several efforts to discover exactly what we were opposing by mining their own literature for damning quotes and information, I remember saying to my fellow conspirators, “If only I could give my brain a bath in silver nitrate.” And one of my fellows who had been doing the same said, “I know exactly what you mean.” This unspeakable perversion is not somehow the pleasant flip side of heterosexuality. It is unbelievably filthy, perverse, dark, destructive, demonic. The best antidote is simple obedience to the Scriptural exhortation to leave the unspeakable unspoken, as in some good man rising at Fr. Martin’s presentations and saying, “Fr. Martin, we are Catholics and don’t talk about such things, for doing so is forbidden.” In other words, no one should be giving him the time of day, least of all a parish hall in which to make a defense of mortal sin.

  11. Pingback: Escape from the flames | Catholicism Pure & Simple

  12. BrionyB says:

    It seems clear that St Paul’s comments on slavery (and marriage to an unbeliever) are about the grace to be found in abiding patiently and trying to live as a good Christian in the state of life in which we find ourselves, however difficult or unsatisfactory it may be. It doesn’t follow that he thinks being a slave (or being ‘unequally yoked’ in marriage) is a good thing in itself.

    For myself I have found those words among the most comforting and encouraging in all the scriptures and think about them often in relation to my life. I’m sure many of us find ourselves thinking: if only I wasn’t… stuck in this difficult marriage, trapped in this demeaning job, forced to live in this hostile society, disabled by this horrible illness, plagued by these temptations, etc…. then I could be a good person. But no, we can choose to “abide with God” right where we are. Practical, realistic, and very comforting advice.

  13. teomatteo says:

    “The slipperiness of…”
    I think that a more accurate word would be, ‘perversity’. but, I agree FrZ with everything you so clearly wrote for us (him). His superiors are even worse.

  14. Mike says:

    Every now and then when the conversation tailspins into “obsession with sex,” I am reminded of an article that appeared in First Things several years ago that reset my thinking on the problem. We are indeed immersed in a society obsessed with sex, and it’s the fault neither of orthodox preaching nor (entirely) of Jesuits with a queer monomania.

  15. JabbaPapa says:

    LeeGilbert :

    A person has to wonder if the “deceitfulness of sin” (Heb 3:13) is a diagnostic quote for his entire “apostolate.” How bad is it?

    Sounds a lot like a “catholic” version of Islam’s “taqqiya” — i.e. deliberate lying to outsiders.

  16. SanSan says:

    Martin needs to be muzzled.

  17. I think the phrase we’re all looking for is “jesuitical”.

    Jesuitical (or Jes·u·it·ic) [ jezh-oo-it-i-kuh?l or jezh-oo-it-ik; jez-oo-, jez-yoo- ] adjective
    -of or relating to Jesuits or Jesuitism.
    -(often lowercase) practicing casuistry or equivocation; using subtle or oversubtle reasoning; crafty; sly; intriguing.

    No, Martin’s photo was not next to the definition as an illustration.

  18. Pingback: In the wake of my Holy Land Pilgrimage: in come the slippery Jesuit with aging hippies | Fr. Z's Blog

  19. veritas vincit says:

    The assertion that Fr Martin does not challenge the teaching of the Church on homosexuality/same-sex acts may be true, in the sense he does not challenge it when pressed. But he does everything he can to undermine that teaching, by advocating for the LGBT to be “accepted” while not urging them to live chastely as the Church requires (really, as the Church requires of us all after our state in life).

    And he is frequently deceptive, as in calling LGBT issues “pro-life” issues, or his dissembling about how homosexuality meant something different in biblical times, as opposed to today (without saying how).

    All in all, his talk was a piece of work — a bit diabolical at that.

  20. erick says:

    This is an honest question, if politically incorrect. Aren’t there certain forms of slavery that are morally justified? Certainly NOT the kind practiced in the American south. I am thinking of the example of temporary servitude for the satisfaction of unpaid debt. Didn’t the Jewish people have such a form? Don’t we? When I forget my wallet at the restaurant and have to do the dishes?

    Is so, slavery could not be categorically denounced. And St. Paul rightly urges obedience.

  21. Pingback: Canon212 Update: The Pope of Lies Reigns In His Headlines – The Stumbling Block

  22. veritas vincit says:

    Erick: I think you have hit on a key distinction, between servitude — owing service to a master — and chattel slavery as we think of slavery in the American South. The latter, where the slave has no rights whatsoever, legally on a level with livestock or property, is offensive and wrong. The former might not be, if the service were voluntarily entered into (like the indentured servitude in early America) and the servant properly cared for, etc.

    But Fr Martin is not interested in making careful distinctions, in promoting his LGBT agenda. it helps him to cast aspersions on the authority of the Church and Scripture.

  23. Filip Sobieski says:

    I see from searching the blog you have spoken of Joseph Sciambra a couple times before, but I ran into an article about him on Fr. Longenecker’s blog that seems quite relevant.

    It says he reserved his greatest ire not for the creeps he worked with in his homosexual days, but for enablers like Fr. James Martin. https://dwightlongenecker.com/solzhenitsyn-and-sciambra/

    The other funny thing to me about the question “how serious is sodomy?” is that it’s the only thing in the Bible that God actually sent fire from the sky to destroy a town for. Nineveh might have gotten close, but it was Sodom and Gomorrah that got it. So pretty serious.

  24. robtbrown says:

    Come along with Fr James Martin SJ on a Gay Romp through the 1970sl

    In ancient Rome at the time of St Paul there was a distinction made between domestic and industrial slavery.

    Domestic slaves were often treated as members of the family and lived in the same area. Some of them taught the children. They had a pretty good life, and in many cases the social status of domestic slaves was higher than that of freedmen. In In many instances they accompanied their masters, and some would also have been present if St Paul was speaking.

    Industrial slaves did the back breaking work of unskilled laborers. They were not treated well, and their lives were considered worthless. It was much like the slaves in America who picked cotton: Better to have not been born at all than to be a slave on a big cotton plantation.

  25. Pingback: RECENT POSTS and THANKS | Fr. Z's Blog