https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2017/09/civility-and-church-life From Cardinal Chaput of Philadelphia: 9.21.2017 As I write these words I’m looking at an untitled cartoon from the National Catholic Reporter in the Wojtyla-era 1980s. It’s an image of an elaborate canopy with praying angels draped over a Chair of Peter—in this case, a toilet with the papal insignia. It’s tied to a column that argues, among other things, that the “Catholic church is uncomfortable with two things. Sex and bowel movements.” The humor is childish. It’s lightweight snarkiness compared to much of the Reporter’s caustic fare for the past few decades. It pales next to the savage anti-Roman woodcuts of early Lutheran polemics. But the cartoon’s message is nonetheless—how to say it?—not one of filial esteem. Or even Christian civility. I remembered the cartoon, and its source, while reading Massimo Faggioli’s recent (Sept. 18) thoughts in La Croix’s online international edition. In “Catholic Cyber-Militias and the New Censorship,” Faggioli rightly worries about the river of vitriol now “profoundly changing the communion of the Catholic Church.” He also generously mentions my own public repudiation of the tactics of groups like the Lepanto Institute and Church Militant during our 2015 ramp-up for the World Meeting of Families in Philadelphia and the visit of Pope Francis. But Dr. Faggioli’s main focus is Fr. James Martin, S.J. And for good reason. Some of the recent attacks on Martin, sparked by his book Building a Bridge, have been inexcusably ugly. Fr. Martin is a man of intellect and skill whose work I often admire. Like all of us as fellow Christians, he deserves to be treated with fraternal good will. It’s one thing to criticize respectfully an author’s ideas and their implications. It’s quite another to engage in ad hominem trashing. In Dr. Faggioli’s view, Fr. Martin is yet another victim brought low by a mob of conservative cyber-militias. And these militias have allegedly been fostered by a generation of John Paul II and Benedict XVI bishops, who reshaped “the U.S. episcopate in the image of the ‘culture warrior.’” That last line is worth a pause. As someone appointed as a bishop by the late John Paul, I’ll offer just two brief thoughts. First, all of us who claim to be Christians, wherever we locate ourselves on the ecclesial spectrum, have the duty to speak the truth with love. Culture warriors come in all shapes and shades of opinion. The bitterness directed at the person of Fr. Martin is not just unwarranted and unjust; it’s a destructive counter-witness to the Gospel. But it’s also hardly new. It has a perfect mirror-image in the poisonous sarcasm, contempt, and systematic cultivation of skepticism and dissent that has marked some self-described “progressive” Catholic scholars, authors, columnists and publications for decades. It would be false—one is tempted to say “deceitful”—to suggest that today’s internal Church divisions are mainly the work of right-wing cyber-militias, when so many other culprits readily spring to mind. Second, before we prematurely enter another name on our list of Catholic martyrs, we should remember that Fr. Martin’s book is not above legitimate, serious criticism that has nothing to do with ad hominem rancor. Some might suggest that disputes over Building a Bridge, given its call for closer dialogue with the LGBT community, are really about whether we’re willing to eliminate judgmentalism from Church life. But that’s simply wrong. Clear judgment, tempered by mercy but faithful to Scripture and constant Church teaching, is an obligation of Catholic discipleship—especially on moral issues, and especially in Catholic scholarship. The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book. There’s nothing vindictive in respectfully but firmly challenging those inadequacies. Doing less would violate both justice and charity. We live at a time when civility is universally longed for and just as universally (and too often gleefully) violated. In many ways, our time resembles the widespread unrest on the brink of the Reformation, a kind of “Reformation 2.0” moment. The details of our moral and ecclesial disputes are very different from those of five centuries ago—none of the Reformers, Protestant or Catholic, could have imagined what they would loose or where it would lead—but the gravity of our arguments is just as real, and the results will be just as far-reaching. Cyber-militias, like culture warriors, come in all shapes and shades of opinion. The lesson of history is simple. If we’ve learned anything over the past five hundred years, we might at least stop demonizing each other. On matters of substance, bad-mouthing the other guy only makes things worse.
Here are some of Fr Martin's theological reflections made on public forums so this is not made up. We are focusing on Fr Martin because he is clearly a modernist priest who does not believe what the Church teaches. He is a sign of the contradiction within the church and a sign of the present direction of the Church is heading under this pontificate. He has been given free reign to pedal his novel ideas to the media and confuse many, many souls. The fact that this priest was appointed by Pope Francis to the Vatican's Secretariat for Communications (runs the pope's official Twitter account, Vatican radio and TV, and the Holy See's website) is a scandal of the highest order. Martin told America magazine he's "very happy to serve the church in this new way," and that he learned the news via Twitter. I am sure he is delighted to be able to be given an extra voice and continue to lead poor souls astray. It was the Pharisees who led souls astray in the time of our Lord today it is the modern Pharisees who preach their own gospel unopposed by the hierarchy of the church. The sin of scandal CCC 2284 Respect for the souls of others: scandal Scandal is an attitude or behaviour which leads another to do evil , the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor's tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offence if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offence. Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: 'Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for his to have a great depth in the sea. Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and pharisees on this account; he likens them as wolves in sheeps clothing. Fr Martin's radical views on homosexuality: 1. Church teaching on homosexuality is not authoritative: --------I mean and I’m no theologian, but, you know, for a teaching to be really, um, authoritative it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something, like, say, the Assumption...people accept that. They go to the Feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption. It’s received. From what I can tell, in the LGBT community, the teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives – not just before marriage as it is for most people but their entire lives – has not been received. Now, I say this and people go crazy. And this is simply based on LGBT people that I speak to. Now there are some that believe that – I would say it’s a very small percentage of people, right – but that’s a simple fact. You can say that they don’t agree with it. I would say the teaching therefore has not been received by the community to which it was largely directed. And so the question is, you know, what do we do with that? Now that’s the kind of question to circle back to your original question – that reflection, you know, what do we do with a teaching that has seemingly not been received by the community to which it was directed – is a theological question that bishops and LGBT people need to think about. 2. There is no difference between attending a 'gay' wedding or a Jewish wedding: -------Why is it so terrible to go to a gay wedding, but it is not terrible to go to a Jewish wedding? You know, let’s say – seriously – if your daughter, let’s say if you decided to convert to Judaism and you married Andy who was Jewish, right, your parents would probably be disappointed, I would assume, you know, or confused, or whatever. But the idea that they couldn’t go or would refuse to go um, it’s very surprising to me. So I think Catholics need to see it in light of that, that it is a different tradition...different belief system than most Catholics are used to...but it’s supporting the person that you love. So it’s very sad to me that people still agonize over this. 3. Gays should be allow to kiss at Mass at the sign of the peace: When an openly gay man said that he and his partner don't kiss during the Sign of Peace during Mass, Fr. Martin said he hopes that "in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband." I always say that LGBT people have more faith than, I think, straight people because of that. I mean imagine you – what you have just described is really interesting, Brandon. You have internalized rejection already. You don’t need to even be told that you’re rejected in the Church, you’ve internalized it and that’s very sad… A lot of the people that Jesus came into contact with did the same thing. Think of like the woman with the hemorrhage, right, who doesn’t even feel worthy to kind of stand up and greet him, she reaches down and touches the hem of the garment; or the Samaritan women, right, who comes to the well at noon in the heat of the day because… we think, she’s been married five times and she’s probably embarrassed. Maybe people didn’t know enough to tell her you’re not welcome to come out at the regular time when other women come; she comes because she is embarrassed and she kinda internalized that and that’s sad. So I hope in ten years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband. Why not? What’s the terrible thing? And think of all the people in Church who have all sorts of other things on their conscience…it’s up to the institutional Church I think to make you feel welcome. 4. Opposing same sex marriage is homophobic: I would tend to agree with you because I would say that there – you could have some uh, hard and fast, and legitimate and reasonable theological objections [to same-sex marriage] in terms of the sacramentality, in terms of uh Biblical...and even though we shouldn’t read the Bible literally – Catholics don’t read the Bible literally – um...but I also think that, for the most part, I do find that there is a very high correlation between people who are against that [same-sex marriage] and people who are in fact homophobic. And so it’s that whole ‘hate the sin, love the sinner’ argument, I know it’s not exactly the same, but it reminds me of that in a sense – people say, well I can be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. But then when you hear a lot of people, they sound pretty damn homophobic. And I can say, ‘hate the sin and love the sinner,’ but when you listen to them, there’s no sense of love at all. 5. Opposing same sex marriage is like being racist Let’s say somebody in your office...if someone in an office said to you, well, you know, I hear you’re marrying that person from West Africa and I just cannot bring myself to go to the wedding. You would feel angry and probably insulted – you probably also would feel sorry for that person. Like, wow, in this day and age, that person is still racist? Where is that coming from? So, I think pity is probably a – Jesus, when he meets people who don’t understand things, he says his heart was moved with pity. And also to always be open to those people changing. Because I think that happens a lot, actually. 6. Most people are bisexual and many who oppose homosexuality are former gays: Regarding the “rage” Fr. Martin says he experiences online: “I said to this psychiatrist friend of mine, ‘where does that come from?’ ...the sort of turning red in the face and screaming at me, and this psychiatrist, not, you know, alone, said, ‘it’s their own complicated sexuality’...and psychiatrist will tell us, and psychologists, that we’re all on a continuum. We’re all on a spectrum, right? You know, there’s bisexuality in most people.”Fr. Martin says his LGBT advocacy is “terribly threatening” for people who fear their own “complex sexuality.”“Rather than directing the anger internally they direct it out,” he said. “I know just for the record that a lot of people who are critiquing me online are self-professed...they will say this on their websites, former gays.” “There’s a lot of conflict going on,” he said. “It’s sad because what happens is their own junk inside gets focused outwards on people who are actually trying to live a more integrated life. Celibacy is supposed to be a gift. Or it’s something that you choose. For the LGBT person, it’s uh you know, in terms of the Catechism and in terms of many Catholic thinkers and Catholic leaders...it is seen by many LGBT people as an imposition, which is what it sounds like you feel it is.” 7. Preaches that Catholic teaching is cruel and hurtful to 'gays'. During his speech to the gay activists at the New Ways Ministry event, Martin said the Church should embrace homosexuality’s "special gifts," praised a 17-year-old for “coming out” on a retreat, and equated sexual proclivities with race and age. He said the Church should "lay to rest" its language about the “objectively disordered” nature of homosexual inclinations and acts. The Catechism’s language is “needlessly cruel” and “needlessly hurtful,” he claimed, because it says “that one of the deepest parts of a person — the part that gives and receives love — is ‘disordered’ in itself.”
Thank you, Jarg, for having the fairness and honesty to post this article. For me, it is an answer to a prayer because I have felt totally unable to respond properly to the criticisms of Fr Martin. His critics are unlikely to take any notice of the Archbishop but what he says needed to be said!
This is undoubtedly a time of sifting. When the harvest is reaped will we be found worthy to be taken into the Master's barn or will we be tossed aside to be burned as chaff? Choose wisely is my advice. To be in the former category one would be best advised not to play fast and loose with God's Law and His Word. Clever sounding sophistry, half truths and omissions just will not cut it. Christ Jesus was actually pretty straightforward in His teaching. We are told clearly who will and will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Any pastor who waters down the gospel or preaches a gospel other than that of Christ will have to answer for all those souls who are misled. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. Jesus was also very clear about what awaits those who cause His little ones to sin. If I were to preach anything other than the clear teachings of Our Lord I would not sleep easy at night. It may seem that those who preach the anti-gospel currently have a fair wind and the applause of the world. But ultimately none of this matters because all that matters is the judgement of Christ Jesus. God is surely patient and full of mercy and love and waits tirelessly for His errant children to come back to the straight and narrow path. But even His patience comes to an end. God will most assuredly not be mocked. Christ Jesus is the way, the truth and the life and His gospel is the roadmap to eternal life. The Apostle told us to ignore any other gospel even if it be preached by an angel. In the clever arguments, the twisting of truth we can hear the hissing of the serpent again as he says "you surely will not die". Shame on anyone, priest or layperson who preaches a gospel other than Christ's. Priests of Jesus Christ are especially culpable as they bear a grave responsibility. They have been given great privileges and rewards and much fruit will be expected of them. Whose priest are they? Some lobby group? The world's? Or Our Lord's?
David this a beautiful post. Filled with truth. The readings from Mass today included Paul's letter to Timothy and it says in essence much of what you speak here. Sobering. I had a "flash" for a moment at the Consecration of Our Lord on the cross and the sense that these grievous offenses against him--all our grievous offenses against Him--require whole hearted repentance from our deepest hearts and penance and mortification to comfort Him. He Needs to be consoled. Now more than ever. Now more than ever generous souls must be more generous. I tell this to myself right now as drive back the ten miles to make an Hour of Adoration. To my shame I am "anxious and worried about many things" and don't want to take the time but I am going to do it by God's grace. I guess being generous this way is--like love--an act of will.
In the 17th chapter of Luke’s Gospel, Jesus explains to His disciples: “In the days when the Son of Man comes, all will be as it was in the days of Noe; they ate, they drank, they married and were given in marriage, until the day when Noe went into the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all. So it was, too, in the days of Lot; they ate, they drank, they bought and sold, they planted and built; but on the day when Lot went out of Sodom, a rain of fire and brimstone came from heaven and destroyed them all. And so it will be, in the day when the Son of Man is revealed.” Luke 17:26-30 It’s rather curious that Jesus would tie in the flood of Noah with the destruction of Sodom. Even more curious is that He would mention marriage. St. Matthew gives a similar account, and while some of the details are different, he also mentions what Jesus said about marriage in relation to the flood of Noah and the return of the Son of Man: “When the Son of Man comes, all will be as it was in the days of Noe; in those days before the flood, they went on eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the time when Noe entered the ark, and they were taken unawares, when the flood came and drowned them all; so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man.” Matthew 24:37-39 On the face of it, it seems that Jesus is simply saying that people will just be carrying on about their business as usual when disaster strikes. But the connection of the destruction of the world by flood to the destruction of Sodom by fire is a theme repeated by the Miracle at Fatima, and again (as you will see) at Akita, Japan. Because of this theme, Our Blessed Lord’s mention of “marrying and giving in marriage” seems to be more euphemistic, and the understanding of the ancient Jews with regard to the Flood of Noah may provide a clue. The Jewish commentary on Genesis known as the Midrash says that God sent the flood to destroy the world because perverse marriages (male to male and man to beast) had been legalized. “The generation of the Flood were not blotted out from the world until they composed nuptial songs (until they wrote marriage deeds for males and beasts — i.e. they fully legalized such practices) in honor of pederasty and bestiality.” – Midrash, GENESIS (BERESHITH) [XXVI. 4-5] p. 213 In addition to the Midrash is the apocryphal Book of Enoch. The Book of Enoch is believed to have been composed sometime between the second and first century BC, and was regarded as authentic by Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, and St. Augustine. While the text is not considered to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit, it is worth noting that the Book of Enoch also affirms the idea that the reason God sent a flood to wipe out the earth for wide-spread practice of sodomy: “For I know the wickedness of mankind, how [they have rejected my commandments and] they will not carry the yoke which I have placed on them. But they will cast off my yoke, and they will accept a different yoke. And they will sow worthless seed, not fearing God and not worshiping me, but they began to worship vain gods, and they renounced my uniqueness. And all the world will be reduced to confusion by iniquities and wicked- nesses and [abominable] fornications that is, friend with friend in the anus, and every other kind of wicked uncleanness which it is disgusting to report, and the worship of (the) evil (one). And that is why I shall bring down the flood onto the earth, and I shall destroy everything, and the earth itself will collapse in great darkness.” It should also be noted that Emperor Nero, largely regarded by the Church Fathers as a prefigurement of the Anti-Christ, is the first ruler of the Western World to have legitimized same-sex ‘marriages,’ participating in at least two himself. In light of this, it would appear that the cause of the Flood may have been the legalization of perverse marriages. So when Our Lord recalls “the days of Noah,” mentions “marriage and giving in marriage”, and then also recalls the destruction of Sodom, it would appear that the punishments for such crimes against nature are quite severe. It is also interesting that the miracle of Fatima appears to recall the deluge with heavy rains dissipated by a brilliant display of the colors of the rainbow, followed by the sun threatening to burn up the world.
Spot on analysis Josephite. I have read this also and actually some time ago received the insight while meditating on the days of Noah that these were perverse marriages that Jesus mentions. A warning of the gravest kind.
David it doesn’t end there. In 1973, Our Lady spoke to a deaf nun in Akita Japan. On the anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun, October 13, 1973, Our Lady said: “My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior. As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never seen before. Fire will fall from the skyand will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and priests.” “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. “The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them” “With courage, speak to your superior. He will know how to encourage each one of you to pray and to accomplish works of reparation.” These are incredibly sobering words if we take them in the context presented above. Again, our Lady recalls the deluge, and then speaks of fire falling from the sky, which harkens to the destruction of Sodom. If legalising homosexual acts were the spiritual cause of both cataclysms, then the recollection of them in regard to our time bears a striking significance. Even more disturbing is how a Catholic Priest [Father Martin] continues to ignore Gods law and the above?
To me this is proof we are in prophetic times. Former Christian nations have for the most part--minus the remnant--embraced sodomy and now have codified it into law. Churchmen of much influence have arisen to support this position. Terrifying that the Church who alone stands against the filthy flood of the dragon has suddenly realigned herself with the world. I speak of the institutional church not the Bride of Christ. We are in for BAD times---but-- glorious times too for "where sin abounds does grace much more abound. "
I'm a bit puzzled by your replies, here Josephite. I'm a great believer in the Akita messages but the apostasy and confusion within the Church has been taking place for decades at an ever increasing pace. What we are seeing now is more open and visible than in the past but it is not new. I simply don't know what the relevance is to my comment in support of Archbishop Chaput's article. Did you disagree with the Archbishop?
Much much need for prayer and witness to turn things around... https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/t...n-vatican-never-been-worse-than-under-francis Top Vatican official: Gay sex in Vatican ‘never been worse’ than under Francis ROME, July 11, 2017 (LifeSiteNews) -- Not only are gay-orgies happening in the Vatican, but the extent of homosexual activity in the Vatican under Pope Francis’ watch has “never been worse,” a reliable senior member of the Curia told National Catholic Register’s Ed Pentin. Pentin wrote earlier this week that this Vatican Curia member confirmed to him that “multiple sources” within the Vatican, including another senior curial figure, say that the report of a drug-fueled gay orgy right next to St. Peter’s is true. “He said the extent of homosexual practice in the Vatican has ‘never been worse,’ despite efforts begun by Benedict XVI to root out sexual deviancy from the curia after the Vatileaks scandal of 2012,” Pentin wrote in his report. News recently broke of a high-ranking monsignor, Luigi Capozzi, who was allegedly arrested some two months ago in the act of hosting a cocaine-fueled homosexual orgy in an apartment of the Holy Office, the same building in which the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith operates. At the same time of the 2012 Vatileaks scandal — where leaked confidential Vatican correspondence allegedly revealed power struggles and intrigue at the highest levels of the Catholic church — a Polish priest released a paper in which he highlighted his discovery of what he called a “huge homosexual underground in the Church.” Fr. Dariusz Oko said he first began to do research about external threats to Christianity, but then gradually discovered that the “enemy is not only outside the Church, but within it, as well.” Oko said he uncovered homosexual cliques of clergy, even at the highest levels, that are formed by fear of exposure, lust for power, and money. “They know well, however, that they may be exposed and embarrassed, so they shield one another by offering mutual support. They build informal relationships reminding [one] of a ‘clique’ or even ‘mafia,’ [and] aim at holding particularly those positions which offer power and money,” he wrote. “When they achieve a decision-making position, they try to promote and advance mostly those whose nature is similar to theirs, or at least who are known to be too weak to oppose them. This way, leading positions in the Church may be held by people suffering from deep internal wounds,” he added. Oko said that once homosexual clergy achieve a “dominating position” in the Church’s hierarchy, they become a “backroom elite” with “tremendous power in deciding about important nominations and the whole life of the Church.” Among the rumors put forward at the time of Pope Benedict’s decision to resign in 2013 was the revelation of the existence of an entrenched “gay network” that orchestrated “sexual encounters” and shady financial machinations within the Vatican. The Pope reportedly decided to resign the day he received a 300-page dossier compiled by three cardinals detailing the workings and sexual activities of a network of homosexual curial officials. During his first Mass as Pope in April 2005, Benedict asked Catholics to pray for him that he would not flee from his office in the face of betrayal and persecution. “Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves,” he said at that time. Benedict’s choice of animal was also used by the Lord in the Gospel of Matthew for describing how Christians, “as sheep in the midst of wolves,” will be persecuted, hated, and even betrayed (Matt. 10:16-22). Christine de Marcellus Vollmer, a founding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life and president of the Latin American Alliance for the Family, told LifeSiteNews that such “disgusting behavior going on in the Vatican” indicates that the Barque of Peter with Pope Francis as steersman has gone off course. “Evidently Paul VI was right, noticing that ‘the smoke of Satan has infiltrated the Church.’ This was obvious in 1968 when so many prelates rejected Humanae Vitae, whose logic was so evidently correct about what would happen if contraception were to be accepted,” she said. “St. John Paul II also knew it would take a modern-day Hercules to clean out the ‘stables,’ but he knew his charism was to teach, and to inspire a new generation with a fresh and comprehensible way to see the human person and the beauty of virtue. Cardinal Ratzinger was aware of much of the vice in the Vatican and, as Benedict XVI, undertook a proper investigation, the product of which was the 300-page report,” she added. Benedict stated in his February 2013 announcement to step down as pope that his “strength” was “no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry,” adding that “in order to govern the barque of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary.” Vollmer said that with Benedict’s resignation, high-ranking Church leaders who were bent on “fostering heretical sexual behavior and its acceptance by the Church — otherwise known as the St. Gallen ‘Mafia,’ a group of extremely powerful old Cardinals of the 1970's generation of liberals — saw that their outworn and immoral sexual relativism was soon to be exposed as false and the cause of so much social mayhem.” “They were also likely afraid that their own depraved private lives and questionable finances were soon to be investigated. And so they turned the tables, managing the election of one of their own, who is fast ridding the Vatican of any who represent the ways and teaching of the popes who came before and [faithfully conveyed] Church moral Doctrine,” she said. During Pope Francis’ watch, some of the Catholic Church’s most orthodox prelates have in one way or another been conveniently swept out of the way. Among these include Cardinal Raymond Burke, Cardinal Gerhard Muller, and now Cardinal George Pell. Vollmer said that the time has come for “young Prelates, young priests, and young laity” formed in the true teachings of the Church as faithfully expressed by previous popes to “take steps to get the Barque of Peter back on its proper course.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=9a-VR7rvkuU
This post appeared as I posted my post about the current problems in the Church, so I thought I would just comment that if any of the behaviour being reported is true then it is indeed scandalous, but not new. Whether it is increasing or not, the slant or spin put on it by lifesitenews that this is somehow connected with Pope Francis is just so typical of the website's paranoid hatred of Francis.
David, I have read the above and concur with the good archbishop. I've never advocated for name-calling and I'm always open to dialogue. But we need to be clear concerning Fr. Martin. His intent goes well beyond advocating for dialogue. I will present one clear example that is obviously at odds with Church teaching. Fr. Martin has expressed the conviction that CCC 2357 be revised. However, for the sake of dialogue, I will initially post CCC2358: 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. It can be construed from the second highlighted portion that those with deep-seated homosexual tendencies must not be shunned, but accepted with respect. This concurs with and may even inspire Fr. Martin's call to build a bridge between these brothers and sisters and those of us who have no such tendencies. But in reference to CCC 2357, Fr. Martin has stated that the word "disordered" (which also appears above) should be changed to "different". 2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. The Church declares that both the deep-seated inclination and any sexual acts proceeding from such inclination are disordered. Why? The argument has always been rooted in natural law: They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Therefore, when Fr. Martin advocates for such a re-wording he is attacking natural law which is a pillar of sexual ethics. He is, in effect repudiating a clear teaching of the Church, and has embarked on a mission to conform the Church to the norms of secular society. Simply put, this is a morally degenerate proposal. Safe in the Barque of Peter!
I don't believe it is "hatred of Francis", it is hatred for what he is supporting ie, gay lifestyle, something Jesus never advocated for and warned against many times in scripture.
This is for davidtlig Has anybody read CS Lewis's third novel in his space trilogy? That Hideous Strength. There is a character who is allied with all the good guys a Scotsman who doesn't believe and questions everything but the Pendragon character relies on him to ground everything in facts. Now I realize this is a far fetched analogy but David you remind me of the Scotsman. You painstakingly Stand apart from the growing discomfort and dismay with the Vatican and PF and charitably look for the best interpretation. You can be relied on to do this and I think it is a good thing to have Loyal Opposition. I know many of us get exasperated but I think it helps us refine our arguements and put a check on over zealous assumptions. I know your heart is in the right place because you posted a you tube talk by Marino Restrepo and anyone who would do that is a staunch Catholic (It must be you right? There can't be two davidtlig out there)
