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.
Communion on the hand, though permitted by an indult in most places, is appalling and a major factor in the statistically confirmed plummet in belief by Catholics in the Church’s teachings on the Eucharist. As soon as possible, Communion on the hand should be eliminated, especially by persuasion and teaching.
From 
From a reader…
