Sunday, May 30, 2010

Jesuit Says of Pope Benedict, "Oddly Discordant"

The Boston decision also stands in contrast to the increasingly heated language coming from church leaders on the topic of same-sex marriage.  Pope Benedict XVI's comments last week in Fatima, Portugal, in which he stated that abortion and same-sex marriage were "some of today's most insidious and dangerous threats" to the common good seemed oddly discordant.  
The equation of abortion, something that clearly is about a threat to life, with same-sex marriage, which no matter how you look at it, does not mean that anyone is going to die, is bizarre.  A good friend of mine, who is g@y, recently resigned from a position at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, 
where he said, with great dismay, that “abortionsamesexmarriage” had become one polysyllabic word among some of his bosses.

Link (here) to America magazine, the entire article entitled, "Hinghman, Same-S@x Marriage and Life Issues" written by Fr. James Martin, S.J.

Fr. James Martin, S.J. follows up on the subject with this post (here). his post is entitled, Cardinal  O'Malley on Hingham.

Ignatius Insight's Carl E. Olsen on the subject (here) 
Catholic News Agency on the subject (here)
Catholic World News on the subject (here)  
Fr. Thomas Euteneuer, president of Human Life International in a follow up piece on Fr. Martin's article (here)
Matt C. Abbott at Renew America and Fr. Martin go it (here)

Blogger Note: The original post by Fr. Martin has been edited slightly from it's original form. 


Anonymous said...

Fr. Martin has no credence as a knowledgeable, faithful Catholic commentator. He has completely sold out to the dissident left.

Anonymous said...

While the first part of his essay is cogently argued, James Martin S.J. loses his foothold when he addresses Pope Benedict XVI´s comments. Somehow it seems that for him, if the pope speaks against gay marriage and abortion but omits, on this occasion, to mention war, poverty, etc. he is somehow condoning or being indifferent to unjust wars or the suffering of the poor. That of course does not follow. The pope was merely focusing on new threats to life and the soul. Institutionally legitimized gay marriage and abortion are a new phenomenon.

Furthermore, while attacking the Pope, Fr. Martin S.J. does not take a stand with regard to his good friend´s gayness. Does he consider it sinful or not?

Nor does he mention the impact
of having kids with gay parents in Catholic Schools. For example, will parents be allowed to attend school events. What if they kiss each other hello and good bye, in front of the student body? Will it be tolerated?

Apparently for Fr Martin it´s all so simple. He even quotes the gospel anecdote where Jesus tells others that a man was born blind for no one´s sin´s, but rather so that the glory of God might manifest.

No one however was born with a genetic illness in the real story in question here, the one which Fr. Martin implies is analogous. In this real story 2 people made a decision to sin, that´s all. Their child, the victim, is not genetically both of theirs. The gospel is very clear about what sinners are supposed to do, even if Fr. Martin fails to mention it.

Indeed, one of his main concerns seems to be that his gay friend has resigned from the Catholic Bishops´conference, not that he is gay and perhaps actively so. Or is his friend not actively gay for some moral reason? If so, why doesn´t he mention that? Or does Fr. Martin not believe that gay marriage or active homosexuality are grave sins?

It would have helped us understand Fr. Martin if he had clarified his position before attempting to evaluate the pope´s. As it is, it´s not clear if he´s just defending the sinner (as he should, and as the Church does) or the sin.

Enrique Alonso

Anonymous said...

Always keep in mind that Jim Martin is more than gay-friendly...

Maria said...

Fr. Martin S.J. does not take a stand

No. He does not. He throws the grenades and then leaves the battlefield...

WHERE ARE OUR BISHOPS?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Maria said...

1 Galatians 8:9

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!

As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed"!

Maria said...

The homosexual Jesuits at America Magazine, along with every other homosexual, understand that the acceptance of sodomy is thwarted by those who subscribe to a religious world view, and in particular, Christianity. So, what must be the line of attack in the effort to normalize homosexuality? We must get religion, and in particular, Christianity, to perceive homosexuality as normative. How is this best achieved. Well, in the case of homosexual Jesuits, the modus operandi is to exploit the faithful and confirm others in their sin. How else? Exploit children in the media for their own ends. To wit, the examples that come to mind include the children of "lesbian couples" who wished to enroll their children in Catholic schools. Focus on children in intended to place at a remove the sin of homosexuality. See,homosexualiy as a sin is not the problem,it is our cruelty in not exercising charity toward the CHILDREN against whom is being exercised the most unforgivable discrimination.
What I find more heartbreaking is that America Magazine is permitted to scandalize the faithful with impunity. Is there no single Bishop in Ameica willing or able to call them out? No single Jesuit in the Socity who is OUTRAGED by the defamation of our Faith???????

I post a comment that was deleted @ AMERICA MAGAZINE, and bears repeating, as we ponder Fr. Martin's concern about the Pope's coupling of "abortion and same sexmarriage"--


The relationship between contraception and homosexuality is seldom adverted to and, in homosexual circles, openly denied. Yet they are connected by the most basic laws of human society.

Contraception contradicts the most fundamental desire of the human heart: to give oneself in total generosity to another human being. Marital relations are meant by God to satisfy this desire between the married spouses. But if women selfishly withhold this generosity from men, men will-tragically look for such generosity in other men. And women will look for it in other women.

As you read some of the homosexual and lesbian literature, you are moved to tears at seeing how a contraceptive society has begotten a homosexual society. In their desperate search for love, men will turn to other men and women to other women. To say they are being deceived is only to emphasize the pity of a sodomistic culture that is starving for love. Contraception deprives married people of the love that they expect to find in a marriage between two people of opposite and complementary gender.


I have saved abortion as the last of the seven deadly consequences of contraception. This, too, is a law of human behavior. Abortion follows contraception like the law of gravity.

This is obvious. As people come to equate sexual pleasure with the self-gratification, there is no limit to their lustful pride. Contraception has taught them to have their own way. They will stop at nothing to have their way, not even murder of their unborn offspring.

Respect for human life requires selfless love of human beings. As a nation is nurtured on contraceptive self-indulgence, it becomes a nation that kills innocent children – if they are an obstacle to the self-gratification of those who brought them into existence.

It has been correctly said that Humanae Vitae divides the Catholic Church into two periods of history. The Church will survive only among those who believe that contraception is deadly to both Christianity and the promise of a heavenly reward. Normally thirty years is a short time. But in this case it has been long enough to prove who are still truly Catholics. They are those who believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ. "If you love me," Jesus said, "keep my commandments." The single most tested commandment of the Savior today is that contraception is fatal to the true faith and to eternal life."

Maria said...

America Magazine will go to great lengths to keep the Truth from the faithful, at any cost. See, it is not that homosexuality is a sin against any particular commadment, it is our small mindedness...It is our provincial minds that prevent us from understanding that homosexuality is no longer a sin.
I have never forgotten the impact of a statement Fr. John Hardon made: any one in a state of mortal sin is an agent of the Enemy. Anyone reading America Magazine would do well to remember this: note well those with whom you are dealing...

Anonymous said...

I want to expand on my previous comment after re-reading and rethinking Fr. Martin´s. First, following are excerpts from what Fr. Martin wrote at the end of his commentary:

¨Singling out children of same-sex couples smacks of targeting one particular group...¨

¨Catholics equating abortion, something that is clearly about a threat to life, with same-sex marriage, which no matter how you look at it, does not mean that anyone is going to die, is unhelpful at best...¨

¨Why has same-sex marriage been equated with abortion? Are the two really equivalent "threats" to life?¨

¨Why aren't “abortion and war” the most "insidious and dangerous" threats to the common good? Or “war and the death penalty”? Or “war and poverty?”

¨The great danger is that this increasingly popular equation--of abortion and same-sex marriage--will seem to many as having less to do with moral equivalency and more to do with a simple dislike, or even a hatred, of gays and lesbians.¨


Fr. Marin is apparently contending that homosexual marriage is less wrong than killing. He´s not anywhere contending that it´s not a sin. He is in good company for Jesus also may have implied that killing was a graver sin than sexual impurity. Otherwise, why did he stop the stoning of he adulterous woman or told Peter to put away his sword?

Fr. Martin S.J. is also contending that the singling out of gays ¨smacks of targeting one particular group¨ of sinners. That seems pretty evident even here. Consider, for example, that second anonymous comment.

As followers of Christ we are obliged to be there for sinners as well as for victims, as Jesus was.

Obviously being there for a sinner (including homosexuals), or defending one from being abused, does not mean being one or condoning sin.

Enrique Alonso

Maria said...

Au contraire mon frere--

It is those who subscribe to the teachings of Christ who are *targeted*. The 6th and 9th commandments, not withstanding disregard for both by Fr. Martin SJ, still obtain for faithful Catholics.

"Homosexual activity is the result of voluntarily giving in to the tendency or attraction. It is gravely sinful and has been explicitly condemned in Sacred Scripture. St. Paul describes the pagans of his day as having refused to honor God:

That is why God has abandoned them to degrading passions: why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion (Romans 1:26-27).
Historians of the Roman Empire in St. Paul’s day testify to the fact that homosexual vice had sunk into a state of extreme laxity. In the apostle’s words, “since they refused to see it as rational to acknowledge God, God has left them to their own irrational ideas and to their monstrous behavior” (Romans 1:28).

There is a tragic logic in the relation between indifference to God and sexual immorality. Those who refuse to bend their minds in the humble worship of God do not receive the grace to keep their passions under rational control.
Hardon SJ

NB-Pride feeds lust...

Anonymous said...

Maria -- I don´t see how you can definitively conclude from what he has written that Fr. Martin disregards the 6th and 9th commandments, just like I can´t understand how he contends that Pope Benedict XVI disregards the 4th. Yet perhaps I have overlooked something and you can provide exact quotes from what he wrote.

Peace of Christ,