Fr. Martin – Pouring Gas on the Bridge and Lighting it on Fire!

Oh my ever-loving goodness!  More honesty than usual!  Hat tip to Joseph Sciambra for posting this one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfbYRJN-jWE

Fr. James Martin has become emboldened by his new-found (and maybe just in the plan of the Holy Spirit’s plan) appointment hat we’re not backing down despite his best efforts to tell us we really suffer from same-sex attraction and that we’re insecure in our sexuality.  Um, 20-something years and a bunch of kids later, Fr. Martin, I can assure you that isn’t true. Oh wait, honey, sorry to tell you….  The idea that people who disagree with you must be paranoid that they are SSA is ridiculous.  Nice try though. Classic move.  Reality is, we just think you kind of stink. (I’m hoping I get time off of purgatory for not using the crass version of what I really think!)

First, he can’t really decide whether or not he’s a theologian. Every other day he’s saying he is or he’s saying he know something about it.  Sorry, Father Martin, who it is and who it is not accepted by is irrelevant.  Might read a little on the Reformation.

At the 3:53 minute he’s actually admitting something he’s not before. He’s admitting that he thinks “gay marriage” will become a reality.  Praise the Lord!  Can we now silence him?  Pope Francis!  Did you catch that one?  This is your mouthpiece and heresy is kind of a no-no.

And somewhere around 5:31 he says we shouldn’t take the bible literally.  I could agree with that in some areas where the Church gives its interpretation but, hello!  How any time have we heard this guy and his buds spew “Judge not lest ye be judged????”  Only about a million.

And, of course around 5:41 he states the majority of us are homophobic.  There’s a shocker.  Let me clue people in as I have so many times before.  I do not fear people suffering from same-sex attraction.  I fear the “gay lifestyle”, “gay activities” and what it’s doing to society, to the Church and too many friends!  Listen, unless we all get on board with struggling with our personal temptations, we are all doomed as a society.  Deal.  I’m not going to candy coat it.  Of course, God wins in the end but it can be hell on earth until that happens.

Around 6 minutes in, he basically says he can say “Love the sinner, hate the sin!” but if we say it, there’s no love.  Let me clue you in, Fr. Martin. We are angry and justly so because you’ve led people to believe the Church is going to change i’s stance on marriage because some don’t receive it.  Is there love? You betcha!  If we didn’t love the person suffering from SSA we wouldn’t care less about them or you.  This is why we counter your crud at most turns.  It has little do with us and everything to do with those we care about.

Around 6:16 he says most of those opposed to his book think we know no “gays” or we only know “former gays.”  Really, Fr. Martin? Get a stinking grip.  While a minority, you don’t have to join the “Fr. Martin Fan Club” to know someone suffering with same-sex attraction.  Yeah, we’re not “snide” as people are referred to.  Although, quite frankly, I’m probably a huge eye-roller when it comes to people mentioning because it makes me so angry that you cause so much division and that you lead so many souls astray.  I can only reassure my friends, relatives, co-workers, etc. that I have no ill will towards you and that I wish you join me in the struggle against Satan that I’m waging where my temptations lie.  Fr. Martin?  He wants your accolades and couldn’t give a darn what whether or not you’re in a SSA relationship and get hit by a bus tomorrow.

At 7:10 Fr. Martin, once again, promotes the fear idea.  This, as usual, is his way of saying we are great big meanies and we’re only it if for ourselves.  How about you build a bridge my way Fr. Martin.  Maybe you should spend a whole lot more time with people who worry about their immortal soul and those of others before you bother to write a book.  How about that idea?  I’d surmise that we’ve spent a whole lot more time with those suffering from SSA than you have spent with those whose primary focus is the everlasting life with God!

And new?  Please! There were people struggling with SSA when I was in high school (and quite frankly, probably earlier).  While I’m not as old of you, it has been a part of my life for many, many a year.  Get over yourself.

Around 7:35 he talks of those who bring in the hopes and desire of their “LGBT” family members.  Let’s just stop for a second and thin about why that’s happening.  Oh yeah, it’s you, Fr. Martin.  While you should be encouraging people to struggle, you’re encouraging them to dream that their wishes will someday become true.  How totally and utterly sad.  How about you teach them to take up their cross like the rest of us, no matter what it is, and join us in seeking everlasting life?  I guess you’d have to buy into Truth before that happens.

8:35,  Fr. Martin tells us that if we knew “gay couples” we wouldn’t be able to deny that people reached out to people in the margins to which we give a hearty “Duh!” to Fr. Martin.  That said, Christ did what he refuses to do.  Christ told them to “Go and sin not more!”  You don’t even mention sin, Fr. Martin, unless it’s the false sin of judging actions.  And, let me be blunt, we don’t see Jesus in sodomy and masturbation. Another “Duh!”

At 9:35, commentator tells us we’re against “all things homosexual.”  Again, please.  We are not against homosexuals.  In fact, apparently, they’re the reason I blog as of late. We are against the ACTIVITIES of any person engaging in activities that are harmful to their souls.  So, think about this people suffering from SSA.  Either Fr. Martin doesn’t believe in the teaching of the Church or he does and he’s willing to throw you under the bus in hopes that they are changed by consensus (which cannot happen).

At 10:03 interviewer tells us that theological teaching “does have to come into contact with the state of things on the ground.  And, in the U.S., the shape of things on the ground, is such that a lot of Catholics do support gay marriage.”  Fr. Martin then goes out to say that in sub-Saharan Africa you’d be run out of town.  Then he goes onto allude that theologians (which he always says he is not) would agree with him and that “Church leaders” would not despite that the people of God are being led by the Holy Spirit. The Church leaders resist that and then he goes back to the “reception of teaching” which he never actually gives Church teaching on.  (Did we really expect him to?) Hmmmm…Why would that be?  Oh, maybe it’s because the Deposit of Faith doesn’t lie with us!

Near 11:35 he brings up Humanae Vitae.  How nice of him to admit it’s still in effect.  Gee thanks.  I’m not sure what “Made their piece” with it means as far as the majority of the laity.  You can’t really have piece when you are thwarting God’s laws but, whatever.  He then goes on to talk of the divide between the “theological world and the Episcopacy.”  Uh, translation:  The divide between Fr. Martin and cronies and the Church.

At 12:31 Fr. Martin asks why it is so terrible to go to a “gay wedding” but it is not terrible to go to a Jewish wedding.  Well, Fr. Martin, if you’d have a clue, you’d know that A) a “gay wedding” is never considered valid in the eyes of the Church and that a b) Jewish wedding would be considered valid in the eyes of the Church as long as one of the parties was not Catholic and that the Jewish religion considered it valid.  If someone was an apostate (converted to Judaism) they are not longer bound by the Catholic law.  I would think that a priest in the Catholic Church would kind of know that, and I’m rather sure he does.  These are two TOTALLY different scenarios.  Of course, Fr. Martin then goes on to tug at the heartstrings and talk about “people that you love.” Fr. Martin, if I loved a person I wouldn’t want their temporal happiness in lieu of their everlasting happiness.  Wanting the latter is TRUE LOVE!

And, as he’s done before, he tugs at the heartstrings at 13:25 in regards to people losing their jobs after posting pictures of their weddings  Hello!!!!! How about people losing their immortal souls????  A little more important than people losing their livelihoods, wouldn’t you say?

Then he asks at 13:35 how it’s worse to go to a civil wedding than a Jewish wedding?  Uh, one condones sodomy/masturbation and the other does not?  How’s that for starters?  Then he puts for the premise that “it’s worse to be a Christian and gay than to reject Jesus.”  Uh, you aren’t really practicing the Christian faith if you are an active homosexual.  At least being an apostate is a little more honest.  Neither or good but when you are an apostate, you are not bound to the Canon Law.

At 14:45 Fr. Martin thinks it’s a beautiful story that the interviewer’s parents are walking him down the isle at her non-Catholic, “gay wedding.”  How ridiculously sad is this?  They keep talking about them “coming around.”  Coming around to what? Had a conversion to what?  A union full of sodomy and masturbation?  How beautiful.  And then the biggie.  Fr. Martin states “This is what Jesus does.” Isn’t it interesting how the Fr. Martins of this world never use “Go and sin no more” woman but the women at the well.  Reality is that the scenario is rather the same but they just can’t see it that way. Christ holds us accountable for our sins.  The Fr. Martins of this world would like you to miss that.

15:29 Fr. Martin talks about how beautiful it is that this guy’s parents can celebrate his love with his same-sex partner.  Really?  Maybe I should clue Fr. Martin in.  You do understand that it means she will be engaging in masturbation and/or sodomy, right?  I mean, I’m pretty sure he does but I just have to ask so he can obfuscate a bit more. It’s fun watching him twist pretzels.

15:45 Martin then has the utter audacity at ask “how could God not rejoice in that kind of reconciliation and bridge building?”  You know, the kind where you jump off a spiritual cliff and reject the teachings of Christ’s Church?  Yeah, that reconciliation.  Honestly, I kind of want to vomit about the lack of Truth going on in this conversation.  I swear, when they were handing out millstones, Fr. Martin shoved people out of the way to claim his.  Here’s hoping he truly figures out those aren’t diamonds.

At 16:20 Fr. Martin suggests that those who can’t come to this guy’s wedding have more of a clue than you, Fr. Martin.  Then, of course, he goes onto compare it to those that refuse to come to a wedding based on race.  Just when you think he can’t get any more stupid. Sigh.

Advertisements

The Vilification of the Dastardly Distorters

I really have no time this week but I can tell when a blog post is just going to write itself, and this one will!

First off, I really thought Fr. James Martin, SJ was doing a stellar job managing his own martyr complex.  I mean, seriously, he really had no need for help on this front.  He’s got that locked up.  Now, maybe Bishop McElroy is sad everyone’s pretty much ignoring him, except those who can’t.  (Sorry, San Diego faithful!)  This was a probably a frantic attention grab.  “Look at me!  I’m over here and I’m a cool Catholic too!”

That said, it’s been a really bad few weeks for Fr. Martin.  Maybe the troops are just trying to re-inflate his ego after Cardinal Sarah, revoked invitations here and here, a smack-down of the “canonical approval” of his book idea– and who could forget his own misstep at Fordham where the entire panel, including him, admitted he wasn’t being candid because being a priest and Jesuit precluded him from being so.  (How stupid I felt after all of these years thinking that’s what a priest/Jesuit was supposed to do!)

Here’s Bishop McElroy’s public shaming of the meanies: 

Father James Martin is a distinguished Jesuit author who has spent his life building bridges within the Catholic Church and between the church and the wider world.

When did “notorious” and “distinguished” become synonymous?  And, wait!  “Building bridges WITHIN the Catholic Church?!?!”  I can only remotely see that being said if “building” includes a complete demolition of the Church first.

He has been particularly effective in bringing the Gospel message to the millennial generation.

Oh, he’s bringing a message to the millennial generation, alright, but it’s not quite from the Gospels unless we’re going with some sort of Gnostic Gospel.

 When we survey the vast gulf that exists between young adults and the church in the United States, it is clear that there could be no more compelling missionary outreach for the future of Catholicism than the terrain that Father Martin has passionately and eloquently pursued over the past two decades. There are few evangelizers who have engaged that terrain with more heart and skill and devotion.

I think I must have missed Fr. James Martin, SJ becoming a millennial rockstar who’s packing the churches full of millennials.  Please.  Can we be just a little honest here?  Fr. Martin, SJ reaches those who believe in an active homosexual lifestyle and those who sympathize with active homosexual lifestyles.  Now, apparently, Bishop McElroy thinks that all or most millennials are concerned with the Catholic Church and her attitude toward homosexuality.  Yeah, not so much.  Most are just worried about their lifestyle choices being accepted by whoever.  To say that millennials at large are screaming like Beatles fans over Fr. Martin, SJ is to be suffering from SJW (social justice warrior, for those not up with the current shorthand) delusions of grandeur. How about you walk up to the nearest millennial and ask them if they even know who Fr. James Martin, SJ is? 

Last year Father Martin undertook a particularly perilous project in this work of evangelization: building bridges between the church and the L.G.B.T. community in the United States. He entered it knowing that the theological issues pertaining to homosexuality constituted perhaps the most volatile element of ecclesial life in U.S. culture.

And here’s where I think Bishop McElroy is totally out of touch.  He actually thinks that this is the be all and end of all of Catholic life.  “If only we could span this active homosexual/Church doctrine divide with a bridge, our churches would be full again!”   Sorry.  You want to see THE “most volatile element of ecclesial life in the U.S. culture?”  Try birth control. Try IVF.  Try cohabitating.  Try sex outside of marriage.   Take your pick.  Bishop McElroy, Fr. Martin, and their little club don’t realize that the rest of the Church is focused on other things.

It was this very volatility that spurred Father Martin to write his new book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the L.G.B.T. Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion and Sensitivity. Using a methodology that is fully consonant with Catholic teaching, employing Scripture, the rich pastoral heritage of the church and an unadulterated realism that makes clear both the difficulty and the imperative for establishing deeper dialogue, Father Martin opens a door for proclaiming that Jesus Christ and his church seek to embrace fully and immediately men and women in the L.G.B.T. community.

Wow!  I thought that the Church’s teaching was constant with Catholic teaching but, hey, whatever.  Why is it that Fr. Martin, SJ feels the need to open a door for any of us?  Who are all of these people saying anything different than “Jesus Christ and his church seek to embrace fully and immediately men and women in the L.G.B.T. community?”  Please don’t fall for the “If I say it enough it’ll be true!” tactic of Martin, Cupich, McElroy, and club.  They know quite well we’re begging those suffering from SSA to embrace the Church because we love them  In short, while we tell them the Church loves them, we also tell them what the Church teaches and how the Church has helped us to struggle with our own sins.  Fr. Martin and fan club don’t want that to get out, so they’ll try to convince as many others as they can to join in the martyr complex.

Building a Bridge is a serious book, and any such work invites substantive criticism and dialogue.

If I had been drinking, my keyboard would be toast.  How did he type that one with a straight face?  I believe Cardinal Sarah just gave you plenty of substantive criticism and dialogue, along with MANY others.  It apparently fell on rather deaf ears so let me just remind you, Bishop McElroy: http://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/01/cardinal-sarah-critiques-fr-james-martin-on-homosexuality/

This is particularly true with a complex subject like the relationship of the L.G.B.T. community and the church. Many analyses of Father Martin’s arguments have pointed to important problems that do not have easy answers and to the reality that dialogue must always proceed both in respect and in truth.

Wouldn’t this be quite similar with any group struggling with sin?  Hey, here’s an idea: how about some generic homilies on overcoming temptation and sin?  Oh wait.  I think you’d actually have to use the words temptation, sin, struggle, etc. and those words are so judge-y.  Silly me.

But alongside this legitimate and substantive criticism of Father Martin’s book, there has arisen both in Catholic journals and on social media a campaign to vilify Father Martin, to distort his work, to label him heterodox, to assassinate his personal character and to annihilate both the ideas and the dialogue that he has initiated.

How can you distort something that’s already distorted?  That was on Fr. Martin.  While there are some people out there with evil intent, there are many out there with VERY just anger!  We have friends who suffer.  We have friends whose kids suffer, etc.  We don’t live in the SJW ivory tower.  We live in the real world.  We get to live with the very real effects of a world that gives up its struggle against sin.  So, please, drop the proxy martyr complex.  And, by the way, Fr. Martin assassinated his character a long time ago.

This campaign of distortion must be challenged and exposed for what it is—not primarily for Father Martin’s sake but because this cancer of vilification is seeping into the institutional life of the church. 

I can hear the violins now.  Let’s break out a little honest, shall we?  The cancer in the Church is not those of us angry with sin, it’s those who placate sin.  That kind of means you, Bishop McElroy.  You speak of distortion but you don’t even bother to offer evidence.  So who is really the one distorting what’s going on here?  Is it you or, say, Cardinal Sarah? Let me guess.  Your position as a priest and bishop limits you to ambiguous accusations, right?

Already, several major institutions have canceled Father Martin as a speaker. Faced with intense external pressures, these institutions have bought peace, but in doing so they have acceded to and reinforced a tactic and objectives that are deeply injurious to Catholic culture in the United States and to the church’s pastoral care for members of the L.G.B.T. communities.

Bravo “major institutions!”  Your stance for clear, concise Catholic teaching in the case of Fr. Martin is laudable!  Your aid to those of us who struggle with sin, and in this case particularly those struggling with same-sex attraction, is appreciated.  Go Catholics!

The concerted attack on Father Martin’s work has been driven by three impulses: homophobia, a distortion of fundamental Catholic moral theology and a veiled attack on Pope Francis and his campaign against judgmentalism in the church.

Oh, ho!  Not good enough to be a proxy martyr for Fr. Martin, now it’s Pope Francis?  And judgmentalism?  Uh, hello!  Judge away, as far as sin goes, people!   Here’s a nice little section of the catechism on judgement.  Not shockingly, it’s in the conscience section and, also not shockingly, Bishop McElroy and pals seem to hope to keep you hopelessly in the dark to its existence with their nice little vilification (a word Bishop McElroy is fond of) of judging.

1795 “Conscience is man’s most secret core, and his sanctuary.  There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths” (GS 16).

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

1797 For the man who has committed evil, the verdict of his conscience remains a pledge of conversion and of hope.

1798 A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful.  It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator.  Everyone must avail himself of the means to form his conscience.

1799 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1800 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments.  Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1802 The Word of God is a light for our path.  We must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice.  This is how moral conscience is formed.

 

The attacks on Building a Bridge tap into long-standing bigotry within the church and U.S. culture against members of the L.G.B.T. community.

Or it’s a load of hooey.  I vote that.

The persons launching these attacks portray the reconciliation of the church and the L.G.B.T. community not as a worthy goal but as a grave cultural, religious and familial threat. Gay sexual activity is seen not as one sin among others but as uniquely debased to the point that L.G.B.T. persons are to be effectively excluded from the family of the church. Pejorative language and labels are deployed regularly and strategically. The complex issues of sexual orientation and its discernment in the life of the individual are dismissed and ridiculed.

 Prove your case, Bishop McElroy, and stop with all of the ambiguous accusations.  I realize it’s just easier to say “There’s a boogeyman under your bed!” but wouldn’t it be nice to treat people like they have half a brain?

Now, Bishop, I know you’re hoping that people are just going to take your word for it but I am going to actually put the link to the teaching: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

Yeah, I know many have seen this before but I see a whole lot of other “offenses” against chastity listed there.  I see some for married folk, single folk, and same-sex attracted folk.  What I always find a bit ironic is that, while you seem to think same-sex attracted people deserves special treatment when it comes to their sins, you also claim offense that the Church has a special section right before the special section for married folks.    Also, did anyone see the part of Church teaching which dismisses or ridicules the complex situation of sexual orientation?  Yeah, me neither.

The coordinated attack on Building a Bridge must be a wake-up call for the Catholic community to look inward and purge itself of bigotry against the L.G.B.T. community. If we do not, we will build a gulf between the church and L.G.B.T. men and women and their families. Even more important, we will build an increasing gulf between the church and our God.

Well, that IS funny.  I so wish we could have a coordinated attack against anyone leading those suffering from SSA into sin but, sadly, we have a lot of fronts we’re fighting. Wait!  Did I just not get the call?  Come on guys!  I know I’m small time but could you just clue me in everyone once in a while????

  The second corrosive impulse of the campaign against Building a Bridge flows from a distortion of Catholic moral theology.

Oh my.  He is a bit paranoid, no?  Honestly, Bishop, there is no campaign. There’s just a whole lot of us who think the book stinks and will further lead people to ditch the struggle in hope that Truth conforms to their will.  No big conspiracy, although I’m totally going to be bummed if I found out there is one and nobody let me in on the secret handshake!

I think this is the third time or so I’m going to call you on your accusation, Bishop.  I mean, I, as well as many others, have happily quoted Fr. Martin, SJ as our evidence time and again.  Might you do the same in regards to the grand conspirators?

The goal of the Catholic moral life is to pattern our lives after that of Jesus Christ. We must model our interior and exterior selves on the virtues of faith, love, hope, mercy, compassion, integrity, sacrifice, prayerfulness, humility, prudence and more. One of these virtues is chastity. Chastity is a very important virtue of the Christian moral life. The disciple is obligated to confine genital sexual activity to marriage.

But chastity is not the central virtue in the Christian moral life. Our central call is to love the Lord our God with all our heart and to love our neighbor as ourselves. Many times, our discussions in the life of the church suggest that chastity has a singularly powerful role in determining our moral character or our relationship with God. It does not.

What the what???  Nice try, Bishop McElroy.  Are you purposely trying to confuse people?  Why are you mixing commandments and virtues?  Chastity falls under the CARDINAL virtue of temperance.  Again – READ. THE. CATECHISM.  Do not take anything at face value.  I will happily link to avoid “distortion:” http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

By the way, if you gander at this link, you will find chastity a vocation to all.  Meh. Small potatoes.  (Sarcasm alert!)

Now, what is a Cardinal Virtue, you might ask (or at least Bishop McElroy should)?  “The four principal virtues upon which the rest of the moral virtues turn or are hinged. http://www.newadvent.com/cathen/03343a.htm

No biggie.  Oh, by the way again, it’s mighty hard to achieve the commandments of Christ you so confusingly stated without these virtues.  But yeah, chastity isn’t central at all.  It’s just a little itty-bitty footnote under the Cardinal Virtue of temperance.

This distortion of our faith cripples many of our discussions of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular.

Oh, I totally agree on this.  Too bad you are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

The overwhelming prism through which we should look at our moral lives is that we are all called to live out the virtues of Christ; we all succeed magnificently at some and fail at others. Those who emphasize the incompatibility of gay men or lesbian women living meaningfully within the church are ignoring the multidimensional nature of the Christian life of virtue or the sinfulness of us all or both.

OOOhhhh!  This is actually kind of a good analogy you stumbled upon, Bishop McElroy.  The geeky, science-loving girl is going to point out that when you look through a prism, it refracts or distorts!  Maybe that’s your problem.  Get a good pair of glasses and stop looking through prisms!  You’re the one who supposedly hates distortions.

Go Gracia!

Listen, I’m really late to the game due to life flying at me a hundred miles an hour so, sorry.  The film Because of Gracia has special previews Thursday, September 14^th and opens in a limited release on September 15^th.   See here for a theater near you.

In the era of Game of Thrones, I like to wholeheartedly support an attempt at goodness.  I don’t share the “boycott all media” mentality of some.    I’ve been thrilled at some of the more recent releases in the Christian genre.  Bella, For Greater Glory, Gimme Shelter and Little Boy are my favorites thus far and I’m hearing good things about Because of Gracia.  Heck, I’d support this one just because of Moriah Peters and the way that the American Idol judges were offended at her attempt to remain chaste.  I think she deserves a buck or ten simply for that one.  I’m a mom.  You don’t get to tell a talented kid trying to live the chaste life to toddle off and get some “life experience.”  Please.

I’m one of those moms who doesn’t hesitate to drag her kids to things that make them pause. I don’t really ask if they want to go. Actually, my kids know resistance is futile so they might as well sit back, enjoy and contemplate. They usually end up appreciating quite a bit because they are amazing kids and, when it comes down to it, they want their lives and goodness mainstreamed instead of porn.  I think this looks like one of those types of movies.

So, in this 100^th anniversary year of Fatima where we we’ve been told that many people will wind up in hell due to sins of the flesh might it be nice to choose something wholesome for a change and tell the mainstream media to buzz off?!  Personally, I’d like to get back to the days of wholesome entertainment.  If we don’t support these types of things, how can we ever expect them to become mainstream again?  We simply going to be stuck with movies and TV shows which show chastity as a farce.  We know that “Our Lady has already crushed its head” but we must still fight the good fight and promoting wholesome entertainment is one very small way to do this.  We need to change the culture.  The Mass, prayer (especially the Rosary), fasting and sacrifices are the best to do this but we should use all of the weapons in our arsenal and the media is the newest weapon.  When it’s used for good, we should support it.

Actions Speak Way Louder Than Words, Fr. Jenkins!

https://news.nd.edu/news/letter-from-rev-john-i-jenkins-csc-to-us-sen-dianne-feinstein/

On its face, it’s a good letter. Then I realized who wrote it and I cracked up.  I’d love to think that, as Fr. Jenkins said, he is “one in whose heart ‘dogma lives loudly’”, but then I remember his ridiculous moves over the last 8 years.  Let’s relive them, shall we?

In 2009, Notre Dame invited pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, pro-contraception, pro-transgender President Obama to be the commencement speaker.  A mere three years later, the institution had to sue the Obama administration for First Amendment violations.

As if that isn’t enough, just last year Notre Dame’s Laetare medal was given to then-Vice President Joe Biden (and somewhat less obnoxious John Boehner), and then Fr. Jenkins had the audacity to say this:

“One of our great challenges today is that people who disagree often will vilify, will attack, will demean the opposition, and then they can’t work with the opposition,” Father Jenkins said. “So we come to this impasse of acrimony, of intransigence, and it doesn’t serve society.”

Uh, Fr. Jenkins, might I remind you that you had to sue the opposition?  They should be vilified, demeaned, and you shouldn’t work with them, invite them, or GIVE THEM AN AWARD! So says the Church, the USCCB and  your local bishop.

Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the current bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend, said on March 14, “I believe it is wrong for Notre Dame to honor any ‘pro-choice’ public official with the Laetare Medal, even if he/she has other positive accomplishments in public service, since direct abortion is gravely contrary to the natural law and violates a very fundamental principle of Catholic moral and social teaching.” In the 2004 document “Catholics in Political Life,” the U.S. bishops said that “failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin against justice.” The document also prohibited Catholic institutions from honoring those “who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles” with “awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.”

No brainer to the faithful Catholic and yet this is what we get from Fr. Jenkins:  “Gee, Mr. Biden, your administration tried to require us to violate our doctrine and cooperate with evil, but here’s an award for you anyway!”  Give me a break!

Personally, I’m happy to be considered intransigent in matters of toeing the line when it comes to Catholic identity and doctrine.  You betcha I’m not going to roll over and cheer Joe Biden. You betcha I’m going to complain, as did a HUGE group of your alumni.  Please tell us, Fr. Jenkins, how honoring both Obama and Biden is working out for us.  Did they suddenly stop advocating their agenda in opposition to the Catholic Faith?  No, they didn’t.  Your actions only served to further confuse people and make the Church look just a wee bit, well, stupid.  Thanks.

So, what are we to think of this little letter to Di?  My opinion?  He couldn’t care less about the Faith.  In fact, he really didn’t mention the Catholic Faith, truth, etc., in this statement.  It had nothing to do with defending the Faith. It was just a response to an attack on an employee and alumnus of his precious institution, Amy Coney Barrett, and thereby himself.  If the nominee had no ties to Notre Dame, I’m reasonably sure we could see Dianne Feinstein as a future commencement speaker or Laetare Medal recipient.  So, I guess if “dogma” means “Notre Dame” this makes perfect sense.  Otherwise, he has no problem honoring a parade of people who trounced Catholic dogma at every turn.

So, again, good letter.  I just wish it had been penned by someone with some credibility.  And, congratulation to Amy Coney Barrett. If you annoy Di, that’s good enough for me.

Pot Meet Kettle

http://cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/2017/08/disgusting-pardon-of-former-sheriff.html

DISGUSTING: PARDON of FORMER SHERIFF ARPAIO

Are you kidding me, Cardinal Mahony?!? Do you really want to go there? I guess you already did and your groupies must be thrilled.  With all the havoc you have caused, I’m a bit shocked you still have a following, but liberals are always willing to forget if you’ll be their mouthpiece, I suppose. 

Some, Cardinal Mahony, would consider your entire reign as disgusting.  You probably shouldn’t try to be the moral authority on disgusting behavior, although I would say you’re an expert in the area.

Before we go on, let’s look at a few of your awesome moves in your career:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/22/us/files-show-cardinal-roger-mahony-covered-up-sex-abuse.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/01/local/la-me-0201-mahony-curry-20130201

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mahonys-cathedral-guards-remove-and-threaten-pro-life-youth-during

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/cardinal-mahony-honors-pro-abortion-catholic-clinton-campaign-manager

Of course, then there’s the Taj Mahony. Can’t forget that tribute to, well, yourself.

Finally, there’s the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress.  There are simply too many articles to post on that ”train REC”.  Just use the little search box to the right.

The list could go on and on, but I think people are more than aware of the harm you have caused to children and the faithful at large.

Back to your holier than thou statement…

STATEMENT by CARDINAL ROGER MAHONY

PARDON OF FORMER SHERIFF ARPAIO

I am deeply troubled and disgusted by President Trump’s pardon of Joe Arapaio, former sheriff of Maricopa County in Arizona.  The former sheriff’s tenure was marked by racial profiling, harassment of our Latino brothers and sisters, and the disruption of immigrant communities.  He created fear and terror among so many immigrants, and not just in Arizona.  Children here in California were afraid to go to school because of what they heard from Phoenix.  He defied a court order to discontinue to round up immigrants and to detain them in inhumane conditions. 

And you helped to create an atmosphere where several minors were abused.  Children here, I’m sure documented and undocumented, were afraid to go to CHURCH thanks to you and your cronies.  How many people have lost their faith because of you, between the abuse, the LA REC and your glorification of pro-abortion politicians???  But, please, blather on about Arpaio.

Rather than upholding it, President Trump’s pardon flouts and undermines the rule of law. It also sends a dangerous signal to law enforcement throughout the country that they, too, can ignore due process and profile and harass persons of color, especially Latinos.  This pardon rekindles the fear and terror so rampant among our immigrant peoples.  The police need good relationships with immigrants, and our immigrants need an understanding and helpful police force to protect them.

Anyone else think this is Mahony’s “Please look at anyone but me!” speech.  “Let’s just forget about all of that soul crushing abuse stuff!  I’m a friend of the immigrants!”  Look, people can have their opinions about Arpaio.  However, you, Cardinal Mahony, undermined far more than the rule of law.  You led souls astray. You most certainly might want to spend your time contemplating Matt 18:6 instead of flapping your gums as if you are some sort of moral authority.  Did you care about Latinos when you were covering up the Aguilar-Rivera tragedy? http://www.dailynews.com/general-news/20140219/roger-mahony-other-officials-tried-to-cover-up-church-sex-abuse-according-to-new-docs 

It is clear that the President and his administration is intent on deporting as many immigrants as possible, regardless of their due process rights and the equities they have built in our country.  In line with this goal, I am also troubled that the president may remove protections from young immigrants who qualify for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.  I urge him to find the moral courage to preserve the DACA program and to defend it rigorously in federal court.

Wow!  Urging someone else to have moral courage, that’s rich. I can’t say that I care much for Trump, but, my gosh, he’s displayed way more moral courage than you’ve ever shown, which amazes me when I think about it.  I mean, I would hope that a prince of my Church would have more moral authority than Donald Trump, but you’re not even close. That’s totally and utterly disgusting.   Please, do us all a favor and let Archbishop Gomez, the guy who has a bit more moral standing than you, handle the situation while you just spend a little time thanking God for your freedom which you probably don’t deserve.  I know that it’s hard for you to be out of the limelight, but maybe you could offer that up for the suffering of the many victims you helped to create.

 

 

Evangelicals More Catholic Than Fr. James Martin, SJ

Oh my gosh!  The protestants have made James Martin, SJ come unglued!  To our “separated brethren,” a good deal of Catholics thank you!  There’s a thing here or there I might have changed but I’m not going to quibble on those since that has nothing to do with Fr. James Martin, SJ’s twitter rant, which of course, was kind of giant red-herring because it had little or nothing to do with the “Nashville Statement.”

So, let’s look at the statement:

https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

Preamble

Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God.

This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin?

We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes gladhearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us to be.

We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials.

Article 1

WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.

WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.

Article 2

WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.

WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality.

Article 3

WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female.

WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal in dignity or worth.

Article 4

WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.

WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.

Article 5

WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.

WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.

Article 6

WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.

WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.

Article 7

WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.

WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption.

Article 8

WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life.

WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.

Article 9

WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality— a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.

WE DENY that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior.

Article 10

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.

Article 11

WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female.

WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his imagebearers as male and female.

Article 12

WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.

WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.

Article 13

WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender selfconceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female.

WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will.

Article 14

WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure.

WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.

Before I move on, Fr. Martin.  What above do YOU disagree with?  Let’s be specific and stop all your usual ambiguity, shall we?  Come on.  Pick it apart!  We know you can’t which is why you take to twitter with the ridiculous responses.

And now let’s look at the twitter rant of Fr. James Martin, SJ (Clearly he’s feeling the 140 character limit. I’m not even going to try to screen capture this one since it’s SEVERAL tweets long.) My comments inserted in bold:

http://northcountydailynews.com/seven-simple-ways-to-respond-to-the-nashville-statement-on-sexuality/

Re #Nashville Statement: I affirm: That God loves all LGBT people. I deny: That Jesus wants us to insult, judge or further marginalize them. Nice red-herring, Fr. Martin.  Can you point to the part of the statement that was anything but loving?

I affirm: That all of us are in need of conversion. I deny: That LGBT people should be in any way singled out as the chief or only sinners. Well, you single them out at the group that needs special privileges and acceptances. If you don’t want them singled out, stop doing it.

I affirm: That when Jesus encountered people on the margins he led with welcome not condemnation. I deny: That Jesus wants any more judging.  I’ll link in a minute to a nice mic drop on your muddling of Jesus’ teachings but, for now, who is condemning?

I affirm: That LGBT people are, by virtue of baptism, full members of the church. I deny: That God wants them to feel that they don’t belong Poppycock.  It has nothing to do with people not feeling welcome and everything to do with you wanting their sin accepted as moral.  Can we stop with the charade?

I affirm: That LGBT people have been made to feel like dirt by many churches. Well that’s what you keep telling them.  How about you point out where that’s happened in the Nashville Statement?   I deny: That Jesus wants us to add to their immense suffering.  Christ wants them to take up their cross and follow him.  You want everyone get a pass in this life with no thought to the immense and EVERLASTING suffering of sinners who don’t repent.  Thank God the Church calls ALL to repentance.   That’s a little fact you’d like to overlook in your little “I’m OK, you’re OK!” scenario.    

I affirm: That LGBT people are some of the holiest people I know. OK, let’s make some distinctions.  I actually know a few who have embraced the heavy cross and who are amazing and I know some who have embraced sodomy and are not.  I’ll happily make the distinction.  Will you?  I deny: That Jesus wants us to judge others, when he clearly forbade it.  Stop the stupidity, Fr. Martin. You and I both know that there is quite a bit of difference between judging someone’s immortal soul and judging sinful actions.  Where did Christ ever condemn the latter?  Like I said, mic drop coming.  You know the answer very well.  You just prefer to confound and confuse.  I will say again with no regret that you are a predator of souls.  Your “come into my parlor said the spider to the fly” methods are disgusting.

I affirm that the Father loves LGBT people, the Son calls them and the Holy Spirit guides them. I deny nothing about God’s love for them.  At this point I have to ask if you actually read the Nashville statement.  I posted it above.  Give it a looksie.

Really – did you expect him to actually address the statement?  Of course not, he simply takes the tactics he always takes.  Let’s just tell people what was said and hope they believe it.  Facts?  Irrelevant!

Now for the very eloquent tongue lashing.  It’s incredibly sad that the Presbyterian grasps more of Catholicism than you do, Fr. Martin:

 

https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Frobert.a.gagnon.56%2Fposts%2F10159417456825045

It is not surprising that Francis’s communication adviser, James Martin, has decided to attack the Nashville Statement, and even less surprising that the WashPost has published his tweets about it. Beware of doing the bidding of the WashPost. Martin’s tweets confirm the by-now widely held perception, reinforced repeatedly by Martin himself, that his raison d’etre involves undermining the Catholic Church’s upholding of Jesus’ teaching on a male-female foundation for sexual ethics, upon which Jesus’ teaching about the binary character of marriage is based. Martin is more brazen than ever.

Contrary to Martin’s repeated claims, the Nashville Statement (NS) does not deny God’s love for persons who gratify sinful same-sex desires or sinful denials of one’s birth sex. Rather, consistent with the witness of Jesus and Scripture generally, it manifests love by calling such persons away from intrinsically self-dishonoring and God-abhorring desires to an authentic self in keeping with their creation in God’s image.

Contrary to Martin’s claims, Jesus’ statement about not judging was never intended by Jesus to be a denial of all judgment, particularly since 40-50% of all of Jesus’ sayings are accompanied by some motif of warning about a coming judgment. Martin himself makes a judgment of those who signed off on the NS, though he appears to be unaware of the inconsistency. Presumably even Martin holds the line on some moral standards, which means that he himself doesn’t construe Jesus “don’t judge” statement absolutely.

Indeed, in the context of Jesus’ ministry “don’t judge” has to do with not majoring in minors, with not being introspective about one’s own sins, and not reaching out in love to reclaim the lost by leading them gently out of sin. According to both Luke 17:3-4 and Matthew 18 Jesus urged rebuke of those engaged in egregious sin, with communal discipline of those who fail to repent. The warning about cutting off offending members that could get one thrown into hell appears in Matthew 5 in the midst of warnings about the importance of sexual purity.

Jesus clearly based his view of marital monogamy and longevity on God’s creation of two and only two complementary sexes, “male and female,” as established in Gen 1:27; reiterated in Gen 2:24 as the foundation for marital joining of two halves into a single sexual whole. This is a “judgement” made by our own Lord: an inviolate standard that the Church must hold at all costs.

Like many who seek to promote homosexual unions and gender identity confusion, Martin wants to make the “don’t judge” statement a canon within the canon, falsely treating it as an absolute injunction while applying it selectively.

Jesus did challenge those he encountered who were engaged in egregious sin. When Jesus encountered the woman caught in adultery he did tell her to “no longer be sinning” with the inference that otherwise something worse would happen to her, not merely a capital sentence in this life but loss of eternal life.

Yes, we are all in need of conversion but Martin doesn’t want to convert people out of a homosexual or transgender life. He wants the Church to affirm the sin or to cease to take a stand against it.

The issue all along is the attempt in the broader culture and in sectors of the church from people like Martin to promote acceptance of behavior abhorrent to God and self-dishonoring to the people who practice it. It is people like Martin who are singling out homosexual and transgender behavior for exemption from the commands of God. He is not truly welcoming the sinner but rather affirming the sin. He wants the lost son to remain lost in the deepest sense, for one is “found” only when one returns in repentance.

Moreover, Scripture does treat homosexual practice as a particularly grave sexual offense precisely because of its intrinsically unnatural character and violation of God’s starting point for marriage as a union between “male and female” or “man” being “joined” to a “woman.” It is not the “chief” of sins but it is a grave sexual offense nonetheless.

Infant baptism does not innoculate an individual against the judgment of God for failing to lead a transformed life. There is no sin transfer to Christ without self-transfer; no living without dying to self and denying oneself. Paul’s warning of the Corinthian community’s tolerance of an adult-consensual union between a man and his stepmother is a case in point. Is it not those inside the church that you are to judge, Paul asked rhetorically. The answer to that question is not “no” (as Martin seems to think) but “yes.”

The Nashville Statement does not claim that persons who engage in homosexual practice are complete moral werewolves. We all compartmentalize our lives. But the areas we are good in do not validate the areas we are bad in.

Bottom line: Martin is using his office to undermine what for Jesus was a foundational standard for sexual ethics. He has to go.

BOOM!  Sir, we assuredly have our differences but our abhorrence of Fr. Martin’s dastardly deeds is not one of them.  I’ve said the same thing on many occasion but I thank you for the extremely eloquent echo of those sentiments.  

Anyone else think many of the signers will embrace the teachings of the Church in their fullness long before Fr. Martin?  Yeah, me too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total Eclipse of the Doctrine

As many, many, MANY people did this past week, my family and I headed toward totality in Oregon.  It was a grand geekfest that homeschoolers revel in without a doubt.

Now, when we hit the road for vacation each year, it’s a veritable crap shoot what kind of Mass we’re going to get.  We step out of our comfort zone and just hope for the best.  It’s a 50/50 shot at best.  This year was no different.  We’re used to the usual happy-clappy sort of thing but it does get a wee bit annoying when it’s just out-and-out heresy.  I mean, who wants to go to Mass and feel like you’d like to give the priest a good tongue lashing.  So what did we get?  We got the Fr. James Martin, SJ wannabe.  (Insert exasperated sigh.)  I guess the priest just wanted to take the opportunity he had with his congregation doubled in size by eclipse watchers to go for broke.

Not all of the priest’s comments were heretical. Some were just ridiculous but let’s just look at them shall we.

• It was the gospel on the Canaanite woman.  This priest’s big take away was that Christ had to learn to deal with people who thought differently than them instead of marginalizing them.  (As if Christ didn’t know his messianic mission and who that extended to.)
• Next, the priest said that the Church is going through this today with, for example, women. He said that the Church didn’t know what to do with us.  Accept us, reject us or “SEND US TO THE BACK OF THE BUS.”  No joke, he said it.  What was totally ironic is that the church was named after Mary.  Uhhhhhhhhh….
• Then, of course, the prayers of the faithful basically went on to allude to ALL of the other marginalized that the Church has forgotten. Gag!  That was his homage to all of those in sin who want to keep sinning.
• And then there was something about him being shocked to find out, as a newly ordained priest, that he was expected to be obedient to his bishop.  The horrors!

I quickly leaned over to my husband and pointed to the side door.  “That’s our exit after Mass, honey!”  Again, I’m on vacation.  We loaded into the car and quizzed all the kids who sat through the Mass with a confused look on their face because, well, even they know lunacy when they hear it.  I’m sure my older children were probably just praying we didn’t have to hang out too long after while mom gave father what for.  We had fun to get to, after all.  Yeah, the kids were able to zero in on the heresy right away.

We had friends with us and I mentioned to one of them that I was relatively sure that this priest must own the whole Fr. James Martin, SJ library.  I was not off in any way on assumption because the very next day Fr. James Martin, SJ broke Catholic Twitter with this one:

What?!?!  Is there a part of the Dark Web from which they all get their talking points?!  Were they all in the same class?   Brothers from another mother, perhaps?  Really, the cultish ways are kind of scary.

And…

Gotta find this rather hysterical that Father “Look how mean and judge-y people are to me!”  and who claims not to be a theologian would throw out the heresy accusation.  Oops.  I mean, that’s right up there with him calling people “haters” awhile back.  Let’s stop to pause and think about the fact Fr. Martin almost weekly gives a “mean tweets” reading and he goes and calls those who follow the Catechism heretics.  I don’t think the hypocrisy gets any better than this.

It seems that some rather faithful priests/people decided to call him on his heretical views (and came to the same conclusion as the kids camping with us). What a riot!  https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/priests-scold-celebrity-jesuit-fr.-james-martin-for-ignorance-arrogance (Hysterical list of responses not to miss!) and here’s another rebuttal by ChurchPOP.  https://churchpop.com/2017/08/21/no-jesus-did-not-learn-to-overcome-prejudice-from-the-canaanite-woman/

Ironically, Fr. Martin likes to say WE do not see Christ as truly human and truly divine but he’s the one who denies the divinity thing.  Let me let you in on a not so secretive idea.  God doesn’t contradict himself,  Fr. Martin.  While, yes, God placed Himself on the human timeline in the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, this didn’t lead Him to ever be contrary to His divine nature.  In other words, Christ understood His messianic mission while He needed to learn how to walk as a toddler as pointed out by the Catechism and many a good priest.  Fr. Martin, SJ.?  Well, he’s, oh, so fond of the fully human side (a la’ the Last Temptation of Christ type of human) but he is the one who seems to buy into Nestorianism on the fully divine issue.  I’m sure he’s fully aware and understands the doctrine on the matter.  I think he just prefers to lead people astray.

Now, why does Fr. Martin and his ilk persist putting forth this silly notion?  Well, this was shown quite clearly in the “homily” I had to endure.  It’s to put forth their social agenda.  If they get people to think Christ didn’t know how to deal with the marginalized but learned that he was wrong, shouldn’t we have to achieve that to be Christ-like?  (Can you even believe they are trying to float this? It’s simply a narcissistic play to the rest of the congregation.) Problem. This isn’t what Christ did.  Does he believe people are that gullible?  Well, I guess they are or he wouldn’t have a following.

Nice try Fr. Martin and cult.  Nice try.