I wouldn’t mind a seminary inviting Fr. James Martin S.J. to speak, if they also invited Joseph Sciambra as a counterpoint.
It doesn’t sound like he was disinvited because of worry over the content of his talk. It sounds more like he was disinvited because someone in authority was afraid of severe online criticism or a protest over this man, unrelated to the content of his talk. I am not in favor of excluding controversial, but clearly learned, credible, and interesting speakers from a University environment because some group howls in protest.
What is a “homosexualist”?
That is a good question. It is (or was) an alternate for of homosexual. I believe from the context I heard it in, it was supposed to be just someone who supports homosexuality in some way or another. It is vague. More to the point it is rhetoric. Any time we start coming across such words we need to be wary of the ones using it. It is not informative speaking and writing, but persuasive speaking and writing. I am especially wary when persuasive rhetoric is under the guise of either news or teaching. It is a good sign for me to disregard any points made, valid or not. Such a one I do not trust.
I guess that is possible, but while I would be skeptical of the people who have been attacking Fr. Martin, I would be surprise if they were considered a security threat. Their harm is done with blogging, not physically face-to-face.
He wasn’t going to speak on that topic. He was giving a talk on Jesus Christ.
Good. His ideas should not be rewarded or given a platform.
I’ve read several of Father Martin’s books and I really enjoyed them. I’m shocked at his new approach towards homosexuals because it seems to be at odds with Church teaching. Father Z and others have commented on the situation and label Fr Martin a ‘homosexulist.’ I’m not sure this is helpful but I agree with the criticisms; any priest that criticises the Church should be publicly admonished.
I am waiting for a definitive, unified word from rome…schisms are born from every mid grade putting out his own opinion…
Does rather make one wonder why a Priest, who holds and promotes a position contrary to Church teaching, would be invited to present to priests undergoing formation at a seminary.
My thoughts exactly. I love Father Martin’s earlier books because he seemed very orthodox. I’m truly shocked by his comments regarding the Church and homosexuality. Homosexuality is becoming more widespread in society and it seems like Father Martin wants to conform to the world rather than convert the world. The seminaries should form the future priests so that they can boldly proclaim the truth and help save the souls of practicing homosexuals.
Would this include any bishop that has been criticizing the Church? It seems like there are two standards based on whether the one doing the criticism is more conservative or progressive. I guess I am of the opinion that criticism seems to come a little too easy from the American laity especially, where everyone feels entitled not only to their opinion, but compelled to express it and attempt to impose it on others.
For example, I think we should not criticize Cardinal Burke or others who have been criticizing what the Church is doing. He is following his conscience and doing what is best for the Church. He answers only to the Holy Father. If you note above, Fr. Martin’s superior is supportive of him.
Forgive me, my meaning isn’t clear. It should read ‘any priest who criticises Church teaching should be publicly admonished.’ As for conservative or progressive I don’t now about that.
Is anyone following him on Twitter? A number of his peers have beed asking him to detract what he’s been writing.
Actually, he’s become a bit of a meme.
Yes. It is Fr. James Martin. The author of “Heal Me with Your Mouth” or some such nonsense.
He has written much, but not that.
The book by Fr Martin touching on homosexuality is: “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity.”
I’m not aware that he writes anything in there contradicting Church teaching - rather the criticism I have seen seems more to point to omissions eg. not setting out Church teaching.
"At the same time, Fr. Martin’s book has its critics. They say the book avoids Church teaching on marriage, celibacy and chastity and shows an apparent reluctance to recognize Catholics who experience same-sex attraction and seek to follow Catholic teaching."
Report of WSJ Op-Ed by Cardinal Sarah
It is a shame. I liked his books. He had a solid reputation for orthodoxy. It seems like he’s destroying his own reputation. I hope he retracts his comments.
i have never understood why some people want to publicly discuss their temptations to engage in mortal sins. i have always believed that such matters are best kept between one’s spiritual adviser or confessor. perhaps it can be appropriate to discuss them with trusted friends whom you believe will keep your confidences.
If you will look at this thread, you will see where he was confused with another person writing a book about kissing. The post is still visible, though the retraction is now hidden. The point is, please consider how easily misinformation spreads. If reading him he seems solid and orthodox, that direct fact should matter more than all the “he said that he said that he said” that passes on the internet today. There is a real reason why gossip is considered such a dangerous sin.
Living through the hey day of the MSM in its most liberal form, I guess I am just more skeptical than most about what I read. The internet has made this same problem of gossip and groupthink easier and universal to all ideologies.