Martin’s Cozy with Proximate Occasions of Sin

Let me say this, I am a mom of a multitude of kids and have spent their lives trying to ensure their safety and well-being.  I have THE biggest stake with what’s been going on in the Church for decades.  Fr. James Martin totally and utterly ignores my kids as well as yours in his quest to legitimize his pet proclivities.  It’s sickening and he needs to stop. I hope the mothers of the world will let him have it!

The witch hunt for gay priests

James Martin, S.J.

August 30, 2018

I object to the title in so many ways.  First of all, I don’t want to hear about “gay priests.”  I don’t want to hear about “straight priests.”  I don’t want to hear about any priests who spend time focusing on their “sexual identity.”  I want priests who focus on serving God and who focus on leading his people to Heaven.  Anyone doing less than that shouldn’t be a priest.  So, if your focus is on you and your sexual inclinations, please leave.

I’ve probably told this story before, but  under our old regime with one of Cardinal Mahony’s buddies, we once had a priest luncheon in our diocese to “support gay priests.”  A few faithful priests, befuddled, went just to see what it was all about.  One of them courageously stood up and asked, “Why in the world would you want to be known as a ‘gay priest?’  I just want to be known as a Catholic priest.”  Amen, Father!  Amen!  I have no idea if this priest would be attracted to men or attracted to women, because his focus was on God as it should be. 

This is the biggest problem with any priest who wants to be considered a “gay priest.”  The focus is on them.  The focus is on normalizing “gay.” The focus is on undermining Church teaching to normalize “gay.”  This is why they are so hostile to the catechism’s use of “disordered.”  Rather than helping people to deal with this particular disorder like they would any other – drug use, alcoholism, etc. – they want to simply call it something else.

I was just talking to a priest friend the other day about this.  I’m quite sure there are some priests, who if they sat around and focused on it, could conclude they were same-sex attracted.  But they don’t.  They focus on Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Holy Eucharist.  That’s their whole-hearted attraction.  They’re focus is quite vertical.  I have ZERO problem with them, because their world is about getting to Heaven and about getting others to Heaven. They are in love and attracted to God.  Who could have a problem with that?  These priests are usually infectious and help us overcome all of our disordered tendencies no matter what they are: SSA, infidelity, drug/alcohol use, etc., etc., etc.  They’re not same-sex attracted because their attraction is, again, completely vertical.  This is what I want in a priest. 

So, any priest who has slapped one of the “identity” titles on themselves has already failed their ordained mission.

The next thing I’d like to point out is purely practical.  We don’t house our priests with our sisters.  My gosh.  For this same reason, people who identify as same-sex attracted should not be in the priesthood for their own good as well as ours.  Talk about putting yourself in a near occasion of sin!  The sin with that lies not in acting on the attraction but in putting yourself in an occasion to act on it.  Again, why would I want a priest who is willing to put his hand on the hot stove??? Duh.  If they are doing it, how can they possibly tell their flock not to?  Do they tell the alcoholic to go hang out in a bar?  Do they tell the guy prone to watching porn to go play pool in a strip club?  I’m sure some these days too because they’re hardly ones to talk!  How is it that Fr. Martin is going to keep promoting the idea that this should be done???  It’s got to be one of the most uncharitable things I’ve seen.

It is not surprising that Catholics are furious about the latest sex abuse crisis, which began, most recently, with accusations of abuse and harassment against the former cardinal-archbishop of Washington, D.C., Theodore McCarrick; deepened with the Pennsylvania grand jury report detailing 70 years of abuse in the Commonwealth; and intensified with the former Vatican nuncio to the United States Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò’s 11-page “testimony” accusing many high-ranking clerics, including Pope Francis, with covering up the crimes.

Catholics have a right to be angry at abusive clergy, at bishops who covered up their crimes and at the sclerotic clerical system that allowed the crimes and cover-ups to go unpunished for decades.


Oh, gag, Father Martin.  Thank you SO MUCH for giving us your permission to be angry at abusive clergymen. It also seems like you realized the “shoot the messenger” tactic was a bust.  How about you now give us permission to be angry at the circumstances that got them there?  

But the intensity of hate and level of anger directed at gay priests are unprecedented in my memory.

What I mean by “gay priests” is ordained priests with a homosexual orientation who are living their promises of celibacy (and in religious orders, their vows of chastity). That it is necessary even to define the term “gay priest” points out the widespread misinformation about what has become perhaps the most incendiary topic in the current discussion. A few commentators have even declared that the term “gay” implies that a priest must be sexually active. As I use the term, a “gay priest” simply means an ordained priest who has a homosexual orientation.

This is about occasions of sin, Father.  I’m sure you’re aware that there are proximate and remote occasions of sin, even though, as you like to put it, you are not a theologian.  This is Catholic 101.

Theologians distinguish between the proximate and the remote occasion. They are not altogether at one as to the precise value to be attributed to the terms. De Lugo defines proximate occasion (De poenit. disp. 14, n. 149) as one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

Certainly a same-sex attracted man willfully putting himself in a living situation with other men is a proximate occasion of sin. And, in many of our seminaries today, they’re also very willfully putting themselves in living situations with other people with same-sex attractions.  Sounds like a grand plan for a chaste life! I’d think you’d be appalled at male and female religious being housed together.  Why are you so obstinate that anyone who has an attraction to men shouldn’t be housed with them? Can you say double-standard? This is one big duh! Do you use any form of the Act of Contrition, Father?  Geez.

The long-simmering rage against gay priests and the supposed “homosexual subculture” or “Lavender Mafia” has been fanned into a fire that threatens to engulf not only faithful gay priests but also, more broadly, L.G.B.T. people.

OK, let’s talk about a homosexual subculture. Does McCarrick ring a bell?!?!  You want to call it clericalism and some want to call it a homosexual problem.  I think I have the balanced name for it.  This shall henceforth be known as “Clericalism of priests trying to normalize the same-sex attraction.” These guys cannot admit their sacred cow is not so sacred and so they try to keep it under wraps.  They’re willing to protect their agendas more than the victims.  As you admit later with the “hundreds of gay priests you know” comment, that subculture is there.  I know priests who have been run out of their seminaries because they weren’t willing to condone the sexual depravity going on around them.  I mean, before it was reformed recently, everyone knew that you couldn’t go to our local seminary if you were a faithful Catholic.  You’d never make through without being thrown or driven out. Almost all those who bought into all the teachings of the Church, especially in the area of homosexuality, had to attend seminary out-of-state. Thankfully our seminary has been fast-tracked for rehabilitation.

While the contempt directed at gay clergy is coming from just a handful of cardinals, bishops and priests, as well as a subset of Catholic commentators, it is as intense as it is dangerous. “It is time to admit that there is a homosexual subculture within the hierarchy of the Catholic Church that is wreaking great devastation in the vineyard of the Lord,” wrote Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis. A Swiss bishop, Marian Eleganti, declared that the “networks” of gay priests in the church must be investigated before the “great purification” can begin. A bishop in Kazakhstan, Athanasius Schneider, listing remedies for clergy abuse, began with this: “cleanse uncompromisingly the Roman Curia and the episcopate from homosexual cliques and networks.” Cardinal Raymond Burke, the influential former archbishop of St. Louis, said, “There is a homosexual culture, not only among the clergy but even within the hierarchy, which needs to be purified at the root.”

This isn’t contempt.  It’s a reality.  It’s compassionate to the priests who consider themselves”gay” as well as to those who might be victims from abusing priests and many of those are people who simply couldn’t handle the proximate occasion of sin!  Homosexual abusers are 80% of the problem. Stop burying your head in the sand.

Michael Hichborn, president of the Lepanto Institute, takes this to its inevitable conclusion, telling the Associated Press that what is needed is “a complete and thoroughgoing removal of all homosexual clergymen in the church.”

I dare anyone to read the first 300-pages of the Pennsylvania grand jury report and tell me that it’s the best start we could make, but surely more needs to be done, because there are some heterosexual abusers, too.  That said, this first step would eliminate 80% of the problem as quickly as possible.

In the last few days I have seen more homophobic comments on my social media accounts than ever before. The rise in vitriol is not surprising, especially after such comments from church leaders and Catholic commentators or after headlines like these: “Pope Blames Sex Abuse on Clericalism, Leaves Out Homosexuality”; “Sex Abuse Crisis in Church is about Homosexuality Not Pedophilia”; “Homosexual Predators, not Pedophile Priests, Are Church’s Deadly Cancer. 

What’s vitriolic about any of these?  Pedophilia is an outlier in the grand scheme of numbers.  Homosexuality isn’t.  I’m wondering if you would say that a someone suffering from pedophilia should be allowed to continue on or enter into the priesthood as long as they remain celibate?  After all, a pedophile is one who’s attracted to children (pre-pubescent).  It doesn’t necessarily mean acting on it. I dare you to say that’s just peachy.  If you can’t, then you are a hypocrite.  Either way, you lose.

Archbishop Viganò’s “testimony” was also rife with this same kind of language: “These homosexual networks, which are now widespread in many dioceses, seminaries, religious orders, etc., act under the concealment of secrecy and lies with the power of octopus tentacles, and strangle innocent victims and priestly vocations, and are strangling the entire Church.” (Full disclosure: both Archbishop Viganò in his “testimony” and Cardinal Burke in a recent interview have mentioned me by name.) 

And there it is. It’s all about you. They mentioned you by name because, well, you are kind of a jerk.  You put aside all reality for your pet proclivities.  You lead souls astray and you encourage people to “be themselves” (i.e., to act on their proclivities).  You try to normalize the disordered.  Etc., etc., etc. You’re nothing new.  You are just another in a long list (and the most notable today) and look where it’s gotten us?

It is important to say that the majority (but not all) of the clerical abuse crimes were cases of priests preying on male adolescents and boys. Also, the majority (but not all) of the sexual harassment cases were men harassing other men or young men. Prescinding from the complex psychological questions of how much a person’s sexuality has to do with abuse, how much differentials in power do and how much proximity does, we should state clearly: Many priests abusers had a homosexual orientation. That is undeniable.

Funny you should mention proximity.  Sorry, Father, but putting oneself in a proximate occasion of sin goes against everything the Church teaches.  You remember Christ’s words in Matthew 18:8?

And if thy hand, or thy foot scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee to go into life maimed or lame, than having two hands or two feet, to be cast into everlasting fire. 9And if thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee. It is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Strange.  I don’t remember Christ saying “But if you’re homosexual, you get a pass on this. Go right ahead and move in with that near occasion of sin!”

But the next step is where the conversation can take a dangerous turn. That many abusers were gay priests does not mean that all or even most gay priests are abusers. It is a dangerous and unjust stereotype. Simply because a certain percentage of a group acts in a certain way does not mean the entire group or even most of the group acts in the same way.

Really?  You’re going to go with “The other guy did it too!”  Doesn’t fly with my kids and it doesn’t fly with you. TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT! If you were a victim of a homosexual predator, would you take comfort in knowing that some abusers weren’t homosexual???  You are completely deaf, Father Martin.  Yeah, let’s ignore 80% of the victims because 20% were victimized by a mix of heterosexual predators and pedophiles? 

Then why does it seem like so many gay priests are abusive?

Uh, because they’ve repeatedly put themselves in a proximate occasion of sin, perhaps?!

One reason is that there are no public examples of the healthy, celibate gay priests to counteract these stereotypes. Why not? Because gay priests are not willing to be as public about their identity as straight priests are. For example, in a community suffering from a spate of L.G.B.T. violence, there can be no references in a Sunday homily to knowing what it is like to be bullied for being gay. The presider cannot say, “As a boy, I was bullied, too, for being gay.”

As I’ve said before, Fr. Martin, you first. After that – no, no, no, and no!

My friends suffering from same-sex attraction and striving to live celibate lifestyles all say about the same thing.  They say their relationships with strong, heterosexual, chaste, God-oriented men are what help them to live a chaste lifestyle.

“Why do gay priests feel that they cannot be public? For several reasons. First, the fear of coming out in this increasingly poisonous environment. (Ask yourself if you would come out when even bishops are calling for a “cleansing” of men like you.) Second, bishops and religious order superiors fear that their men (again, celibate and chaste priests) could be targeted by the media or homophobic websites. Third, an underlying shame about their sexuality. Fourth, an innate desire for privacy about a personal aspect of one’s life. Fifth, the fear that in the absence of other “out” priests one might become the “poster boy” for the group.”

Or, here’s another few reasons.  They have a conscience that won’t let them do it. Or, maybe, just maybe, some of them are not obsessed with defining their sexuality and only want to be known as Catholic priests? I mean, this is ridiculous.  Nobody is complaining about the priests with vertical thinking here.  They are complaining about priests who obsess about their sexual identity.  The good ones sit around thinking about God and his Church, and that’s how they live every day.  They care about being fathers to all of us, homosexual or heterosexual (and anything else you want to throw in there).  They believe in living a life of self-mastery in their devotion to God, not out of some martyrdom complex. They admit they have struggles in life but they don’t have to wear their sins like a badge and they simply invite people to struggle along with them.

Such reasons mean that the example of the many hardworking, healthy and celibate gay priests (and chaste members of religious orders) is almost entirely absent from both the church’s consciousness and the public eye. There are exceptions, like the Rev. Gregory Greiten of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee and the Rev. Fred Daley of the Diocese of Syracuse, priests who have come out publicly as gay. But Fathers Greiten and Daley are two of only a handful of clergy like this. And until bishops and religious superiors support gay priests in their desires to be more public about who they are, and gay priests are willing to pay the price of honesty, the situation is unlikely to change.

You have failed to you why “I’m out and proud” is necessary to accomplish this.   Shouldn’t they simply be known as hardworking and healthy priests?  Or, how about devout priests instead of agenda driven?  Why is it that any priest who keeps his vows and helps everyone toward Heaven isn’t good enough for you, Father Martin? 

Consequently, the stereotype of the “gay priest abuser” now predominates. To use another example, imagine if the only stories aired about members of an ethnic, social or religious group were of those who had committed crimes. Further, imagine that no positive stories about their law-abiding members were made public. Eventually, the negative stereotype would dominate: “All members of this group are criminals.” (Sadly, this is not a hard scenario to imagine: Many ethnic groups face the same kinds of stereotypes.)

Because, Father Martin, “priestly abusers who are ‘gay’” cause  over 80% of the problem!!!   You’re repeatedly asking us to close our eyes to this fact.  I’m sorry it happened to anyone at all, but unlike you, I’m not gleeful to hear that abusers are one class or another.  I mean, I’m sure you breathe a sigh of relief every time a heterosexual deviant is found. Me on the other hand?  I’m just disgusted all the way around.  Why?  Because I have children who are around many in the priesthood all of the time.  Yes, I think it totally right to first remove the group that’s in a proximate occasion of sin and then try to figure out who the other 20% are.  I’m reasonably sure that many of the 80% of victims wished the Church had followed her rule, too.  How could they not? 

This fear leads to a cycle of secrecy: Fewer celibate gay priests in the public eye means more stereotyping. More stereotyping leads to more fear. More fear leads to more secrecy.

I fail to understand why a priest following and embracing the teachings of the Church fosters secrecy.  It would seem to foster authentic Catholicism.  I’m a married female and the celibate priest is always going to be an example to me.  In your line of thinking, though, if I’m attracted to men and they’re attracted to men, they’re somehow a better example of how to follow the Church teaching for me?  Please.  I don’t need to know the sexual attraction of a priest for them to be an example to me.  In fact, there’s nobody in the priesthood like me and I’m all the better for it.  Who really is the one stereotyping here?

Other malign stereotypes are also being peddled, for example, the idea that homosexuality inevitably leads to abuse. This is contradicted by almost every study, including the John Jay Report, an exhaustive study of sex abuse in the Catholic Church between 1950 and 2010. Most abuse happens in families. And no one, as far as I know, suggests that heterosexuality promotes abuse.

Red-herring.  We’re not talking about the rest of the world.  We’re talking about our priesthood. That said, not following the teachings and disciplines of the Church is where the entire world gets into trouble. That should start with the priesthood.  If we don’t expect it in our priesthood, not really sure how we’d expect more from society.

Beyond these reasons is a perhaps more important explanation: the intense homophobia that still exists in some quarters of the church. And this must be named for what it is: hate. A few days ago, a gay priest texted me this astute observation: “We are so used to gay people being mistreated in the church that we can internalize the homophobic bigotry that we are now seeing, and that Viganò expressed in his testimony, and fail to call it out. It’s deeply hateful. And if he were making similar attacks against another ethnic or religious group, there would be a far different reaction—probably even from within the church. But because gay priests have been so conditioned to play the scapegoat we are too ashamed to speak out.

Or maybe it’s totally hateful of you to put your pet proclivities ahead of the mountain of victims and future victims!!!  And, by the way, I totally and utterly resent you telling me I hate anyone.  Just like you, I have many friends, relatives, and countrymen who suffer from same-sex attraction.  No, it’s not just your little circle of friends.  You’re insinuating that if we speak the truth about the abuse scandal, about active homosexual lifestyles, etc., that we are somehow hateful.  You can call me hateful all you like, but I even love you.  Don’t agree with you, like you, or respect you, get angry with you, but I love you.  Your constant insinuation that we have to agree with every action or thought or to accept either from a person to love them is totally and utterly ridiculous.  There are alcoholics, cohabiters, active homosexuals, etc., etc., etc., in my little world of family and friends, just like almost everyone else, and to say that I hate any of them is you playing politics. Stop.

Is there a “gay subculture” in the church? I have never worked in the Vatican, so I cannot comment on that workplace. But in my 30 years as a Jesuit, I have seen that gay priests in U.S. dioceses, as well as in religious orders, work well with their straight counterparts—as well as with straight lay people: pastoral associates, parish council members, parishioners, as well as principals, administrators and teachers. In religious life, they live peaceably with their straight brothers.

Goodie for you. Yeah, you’re apparently the only person on the planet who can do that, because you are the only one who truly loves their fellow-man. (Insert super sarcastic roley eyes here.)  Pompous much? I think you’ve been in the ivory tower a little too long.  I guarantee my world is far more real than yours.

 

More to the point, I know hundreds of gay priests, and I can say with honesty that all of them strive to keep their promises of celibacy and vows of chastity, none of them conspire with other gay priests, and yet many of them are demoralized by this increasingly hate-fueled witch hunt.

Do they conspire to thwart any of the teachings and disciplines of the Church?  Hmmmmmm? Gotcha there. I’m sure that many enter not thinking about whether they are gay or straight, but did any of them enter knowing the Church’s rule on homosexuality and the priesthood and knowing their inclination???  What you’re saying is they didn’t like the rule but they did it anyway?  That alone is a poor example.  It’s definitely “the Church needs to get with my proclivities” instead of the other way around.  Like it or not, that has been the rule and you are openly defying it.

“Where does this extreme hatred of gay priests come from? It comes from fear. Fear of the “other.” Fear of the person who is different. Sometimes fear of one’s own complicated sexuality. In frightening times, it can also feel empowering to blame and scapegoat the “other.” As the philosopher René Girard consistently points out, scapegoating unites us around a common enemy and encourages us to believe, falsely, that we have solved the problem.”

“Oh, the humanity!!!” Seriously, dude.  Stop the rhetoric.  I don’t fear homosexuals.  I fear sin.  I fear putting oneself repeatedly in a close proximity to temptation. I fear satan winning souls.  I don’t fear you.  I don’t fear my homosexual friends, priests, and neighbors.  I fear FOR them in the same way I fear for anyone who puts their inclinations and attractions ahead of the Church.

This hatred currently being whipped up by a few influential church leaders and commentators will, if unchecked, lead us to a place of great darkness, characterized by an increased hatred for innocent individuals, the condemnation of an entire group of people and a distraction from the real issues underlying this crisis of sexual abuse.

The only person whipping up hatred is you.  The rest of us are whipping up the truth about the situation because we don’t fear the truth.  It’s only a problem for you.

There are many things that need to be addressed when it comes to clergy sex abuse: the improper screening of candidates; the prevalence of clerical culture that privileges the word of priests over lay people (and parents); the poor seminary and religious formation, especially in areas of sexuality; the need for regulations that punish bishops who have covered up abuse and many other factors.

What is not needed is the demonization of gay priests. What is not needed is more hate.

There’s more of your usual “bridge building.” What we need is a little more of the faithful being obedient and a little less of you trying to undermine the teachings and disciplines of the Church at most turns.

 

Advertisements

65 thoughts on “Martin’s Cozy with Proximate Occasions of Sin

  1. Is there no one who can tell Fr. James Martin to shut his mouth? If he cannot abide by the teachings of the Catholic Church, why doesn’t he leave – the Episcopal church would love to have him. But he likes to use the fact that he is a Catholic priest as street cred – if he left the Catholic church, he would be just one of the “guys” in any other church.
    It is difficult enough as it is to resist the temptations of the world without using insiders to help do the dirty work. Fr. James Martin and those of his ilk seem to have forgotten what St. Paul wrote in his letter to the Hebrews:
    Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. Do not be carried away by all kinds of strange teachings.

    Liked by 4 people

          1. BTW, Mom – this line by you is a classic:

            ‘This shall henceforth be known as “Clericalism of priests trying to normalize the same-sex attraction.”’

            Right on target~!

            Liked by 1 person

    1. Good for you!! I agree that Fr. Martin should find another church since he cannot conform to Jesus’s true teaching about chastity. He MUST be stopped from spreading his falsehoods.

      Like

    2. Agree that we need more priests totally
      singularly devoted to God, protecting the flock entrusted with them, boldly proclaiming the truth and compassionately while staunchly defending the sacraments! We are all meant to be Saints and Jesus urges us to “be perfect just as the Father is perfect”. While crying and lamenting during prayer about the glorification of homosexuality at the World of Families, 2Peter2:6-10 came to mind. 2Peter, chapters 2-3 and Gal5:16-24 make it clear that fornication is a mortal sin. This is not a matter of hating the sinner, it is hating the sin and taking steps to reverse the wrongs and ills. Our Priests (and laity) should not allow, encourage, or glorify any mortal sin! St Michael, send your legion of Angels to dash to pieces the veils of deception blinding and suffocating us! O Holy Spirit, may the truths be boldly spoken! Blessed Mother, please pray for us! Dear Jesus, have mercy on us. St Peter and St Paul, beg that the heresies expunged from the Church hierarchy. Let’s all pray the 7 sorrows on Sep 15, Fast and pray during Ember Week and the Rosary on Oct 8, for the sanctity and Holiness of the Church, the renunciation of heresy, true contrition for those who committed atrocities, healing of those exploited and God’ abundant mercy so that we all can carry on completing what Jesus started!

      Like

  2. Good piece, OMM. One thing that really confuses me is the distinction Martin makes between ‘celibacy’ and ‘chastity.’ From reading his comments, as well as commentary on his work from his critics, it’s my understanding that Martin defines ‘celibacy’ as not getting married and ‘chaste’ as not having sex. So when he talks about all the great ‘celibate gay priests’ he knows he simply means gay priests who aren’t married (big freakin’ deal, right?)/ He doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily abstaining from sexual acts. In any case, the last 5 years of Pope Francis have really brought this issue to the forefront, and it threatens to split the Church. Bottom line, there’s a group within the Church that approves of (and/or engages in) homosexual acts and there’s a group within the Church that is sticking to the catechism (and natural law) and will never approve of homosexual acts. The former group counts among it many very powerful cardinals and bishops as well as media priests like Martin and Rosica and probably a lot of liberal Catholic laity, too. The second group consists of conservative/traditionalist clergy and laity, and some old-line cardinals and bishops from the JP2/Benedict era. A house divided cannot stand. One side or the other will win this battle. I just can’t see any possibility of compromise. I’ve never seriously imagined leaving the Catholic Church, but I don’t think that I could stay if the Church formally or informally approves of homosexual acts among laity or clergy. I can’t just accept receiving the sacraments from a priest who is engaging in sexual acts with his boyfriend/husband/rentboy. Now of course I’ve probably already encountered homosexually-active priests at mass, confession, the communion line, etc, but the distinction is that it’s within the context of a Church that doesn’t approve of their activities. Thus, if they’re not following the rules, the responsibility is on them not on my conscience. Conversely, if it were in the context of a Church that approved of their activities, and I know about that and go along with it, then it is on me. And, I can’t in good conscience go along with that.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I am trusting that Truth always wins and that God’s promises to protect HIS Church keep the evil from winning. When I question why we got Pope Francis then, my husband asks did we get the Pope we wanted or the one we deserved?… we’ve had so much corruption inside the priesthood that maybe this is God’s plan to make it obvious who is actually doing HIS will and who needs to go! God uses all for His good, right?

      Liked by 4 people

  3. No amount of logic, appeals to truth, Church teaching, common or mystical sense will make a dent on this guy. He is like Saul/Paul before the Damascus experience…he really thinks he is right. So all the more important for us to stand up for the One True Faith …and pray. Thank you OMM

    Liked by 3 people

  4. The entire premise of Fr. Martin’s text is that sodomy is not wrong, that the actual physical act is not sinful. It’s the giant lacuna at the center of his argument, and all other arguments like it.

    Three years ago, they tried to get people focused on agreeing to admit abused and abandoned women to the sacraments, after divorce and remarriage and a period of discernment, for the sake of their children. Homosexuals would slip in too, hiding behind the skirts of abused and abandoned women with children. Everybody could discern that sacraments are medicine, are medically necessary.

    Now, these guys are directly trying to move the starting point of all arguing past the rightness or wrongness of men putting their member in other men. The idea being that if we just don’t look down, we won’t see that we’ve left the solid ground of Natural Law and are walking out onto thin air.

    I really, really appreciate your description and and agree with your embrace of priests who may experience disordered attractions, but deny them all in favor of the one vertical attraction, to God.

    Liked by 4 people

  5. Two things. First, homophobia is a disorder invented by homosexuals intended to make normal people seem sick so that sick people can pretend they are normal. Second, chastity is insufficient to make a good priest no matter what his proclivities. Full acceptance of the Church’s teaching on morals is also essential. The minute he thinks “See, I’m a good priest, and I’m gay, so the Church should change its teaching on homosexuality, he’s already proven he’s unfit. These boys and young men aren’t the only people who’ve been “groomed” We’ve all been “groomed”– to be silent, to accept “diversity” and “sensitivity training” and “safe space” instruction, with the entire government, judiciary, and corporate America compelling us under threat of ruination or termination for not complying. It’s time to say “enough!”, first in the Church, then in the culture, and I sincerely hope that this will be the beginning of a global purification, a great awakening to the genuine threat these people represent, not just to children, but all God-fearing, decent people. May God help and guide us.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. A thousand “likes” on this! We’ve been made to be silent while crazy men claim to be women for access to our girls’ bathrooms and watched our kids go through college and be bombarded by the liberal agenda and failed if they go against it. Now friends are telling me it’s in the elementary schools even in smaller towns where stronger values exist. Michael Rose researched this in 2002 and wrote Goodbye Good Men. He saw it in Cincinnati and Kentucky. It has been hell for the people who have tried to speak out. Who want the true Faith and conservative values. My family lived thru Nazi Germany… I guess I can get through this too.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Michael Rose has been vindicated in my estimation, Bethany.

        More than a few said there were “problems” with his research and conclusions in the book. He was right all along. It is an eye-opening book that was ignored.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. If you watch this: https://www.c-span.org/video/?172623-1/goodbye-good-men, Michael Rose addresses the fact that there were criticisms of his research… those criticisms were articles written by the subjects of his focus in the book!! Those corrupt professors and seminary leaders who were outed as being opposed to Church teachings and whose students gave facts as to what they were teaching there! We are so quick to believe the wolves because of their position!

          Like

    2. “Full acceptance of the Church’s teaching on morals is also essential.”

      Absolutely correct, Lorraine. :^)

      No amount of theological “nuancing” (aka “theological BS-ing”) by the Martins, Massingales, Radcliffes, etc. will ever change it!

      Here is a real man and real shepherd who would never say the scandalous things by the likes of Fr. James Martin:

      http://wdtprs.com/blog/2018/08/26-august-2018-sermon-of-fr-john-lankeit-in-phoenix-boom-mic-dropped/

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Have you read Goodbye Good Men by Michael Rose?

        They know who is who. They were actively screening out those who were not homosexuals. It’s was a real eye opener.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. Thank you for writing this.
    It is disheartening to see many of my catholic friends who are in the daily mass crowd take the position: the pope is perfect, he can do no wrong, any criticism of him is diabolical.
    This evil must be eliminated from the church. Anyone trying to protect the abusers is complicit.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Dear OMM

    I found your article very edifying and agree with much of it.

    But I do have a question – and it is only that – a question.

    How do you reconcile the following comment in your article with your view that a man with SSA should not be admitted to the seminary because it would involve a proximate occasion of sin?

    “I’m quite sure there are some priests, who if they sat around and focused on it, could conclude they were same-sex attracted. But they don’t. They focus on Our Lord, Our Lady, and the Holy Eucharist. That’s their whole-hearted attraction. They’re focus is quite vertical. I have ZERO problem with them, because their world is about getting to Heaven and about getting others to Heaven.”

    The priests with whom you have ZERO problem should not have become priests in the first place because they should not have been admitted to the seminary???

    Orak

    Like

    1. Oh, that’s easy. YOu assume they think or have ever thought of themselves as SSA. Like I said, I have some priest friends that may come to the conclusion that they were SSA if they were looking at who they are attracted to. They are so focused on God that they don’t focus on physical attraction. They would probably very honestly answer
      that no they are not SSA because they are God-attracted. Like I said, their focus is vertical (aka – on God) and not on their desires.

      Like

    2. I thought maybe an example is necessary. Let’s say a man has the alcoholic inclination but they don’t go the alcoholic route because their focus on their wife and children is far more of a focus for them. They don’t think of themselves as an alcoholic because, well, their focus is such that they don’t fall into focusing on their inclinations.

      Like

  8. “Notably, pro-gay American Jesuit Fr. James Martin gave a speech about how parishes should be more welcoming to members of the LGBT community” —

    Uh, ALL sinners are welcome in the CONFESSIONAL. Consider that sinners (per se) don’t go to Hell —it is UNREPENTANT sinners that will go to Hell! Big difference. Priests are ordained to TEACH THE FAITH … not use their time and the resources of the Church to accommodate sinful behavior … [ ie you don’t tell an anorexic she is fat … if you do and you continue to enable her distorted reality — she will die.] “Enabling” sinfulness will just as surely lead to a soul’s spiritual death and you are helping to put their foot on the banana peel to slide right into Hell if you are welcoming of their sin and “go along” — that’s not helping them, that’s not serving their best needs, and that is not “being pastoral”. Christ did not “accommodate” sinners, .. the formula he gave them and us was REPENTANCE ==> Forgiveness ==> Salvation — this is all pretty straightforward. It is our duty as Catholics to “instruct the uninstructed” and “admonish sinners” — we are not called to JUDGE them, mind you — but admonish them (2 of the 7 Spiritual Works of Mercy) — as only God can judge.

    Their “sin” is no different than any one else’s .. what’s next? MOMM (Mistresses of Married Men?) MOB? (Molesters of Boys?) MAR? (Murderers and Rapists) RSOTW? (Random Sex On The Weekend) etc. etc. — what IS different is the LGBT community that is feeling unwelcome (as described by Fr. J. Martin) is that they don’t appear to come to the Catholic Church to repent, rather —- they appear to demand the Church accommodate their sin and be accepting of their intended ongoing sinful behavior without the barest notion of repentance. There is no scripture that supports this made-up, make-believe theology (and I use the term loosely) .. Chutzpah, maybe… but not anything based in scripture. Please, there are est. 40,000 non-catholic religious communities that will agree to your terms of “welcome” — go there and be welcomed — and we, as Catholics, will continue to pray for you in our masses, rosaries, and daily prayers that you repent and TURN AROUND before it is too late — for all souls are precious to God.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. There is a kind of satanic ecumenism in the LGBTQ movement. Nearly all of the arguments Fr. Martin makes for promoting “conversation” in the Catholic Church are the same used in various protestant denominations such as TEC, ELCA, UMC, PCUSA. Be clear about one thing, its all about having a conversation until the LGBTQ lobby gets the upper hand. Then the conversation is over. in my denomination, we were told we could “live together despite our difference” and “journey together faithfully”. Up until the very moment the church approved the ordination of active homosexuals, it was all about getting along. Before the ink was dry the the rhetoric changed to “The church has decided. Get over it”. Don’t go down that road.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Jaaye and Lutheran make very good points. As a side note, there are countries, primarily but not exclusively, in Asia and Africa where priests are known to have mistresses, girlfriends, a few with concubines etc I lived in one of these countries for over a decade. Two important points; A certain amount of discretion was practiced in contrast to Fr. Martin. Also, their actions were natural from a biological view and a number had the hope, not very realistically, that Church rules might change at some point in the future to accommodate them. I do not know the direction in which the Church will go but I do know it would be a terrible mistake to legitimize in any fashion unnatural deviant practices. Even now, I am not at all comfortable with this attitude in some parishes of “super tolerance” with its same sex parent baptisms and other manifestations of deviant families.

    Like

  11. God bless you for your candor and heartfelt response to both Fr. Martin and the clergy scandal! The purification of Christ’s clergy that is sorely needed will not be able to progress if deacons, priests, bishops, cardinals, and even the Holy Father himself allow fellow clergy, such as Fr. Martin, poison the process.

    My prayer is that more of the lay faithful will actively become involved in the purification process as you have done, and that me and my fellow clergy “focus on serving God and…focus on leading his people to Heaven” as we remain vertically attracted, as you so succinctly put it.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. One Mad Mom .. I don’t want to be a comment-hog, but if you would allow me this last comment it has been bothering me for some time… thank you.

    Also, contrary to Fr. J. Martin’s assertions gay priests have felt “threatened and unwelcome” ….. based on what is starting to be revealed in the AG investigations and Bshp. Vigano’s testimony, I think you would be hard-pressed to find a more “welcoming and congenial” environment than the place the homosexualists have carved out for themselves within the Catholic Church. Food; lodging; education; travel; advanced degrees; a sure path to promotion based on your active homosexuality and not on merit; and the list goes on. And what happened?

    Did these men seek only to serve God? No, they habitually broke both their vows of celibacy and chastity, they did not seek-out like-minded men, but instead they preyed upon the vulnerable .. children or via the unbalanced power-dynamic – seminarians. They stalked, and groomed and black-mailed; they participated in pornography sharing; they mis-translated church documents; they’ve attempted to change Church doctrine and disciplines; they’ve “managed” information flows to their benefit; they’ve embezzled funds from the parishes (not uncommonly used to pay off gay prostitutes); protected abhorrent, predatory and malicious priests and moved them around; stone-walled investigations and actively engaged in a multi-diocesan cover-up.

    Hello.. this is not “normal” .. this is not “differently ordered” .. this is deceitful, despicable and well-documented. What we’re seeing in front of our faces is 40-60 year old case study in a controlled environment …. where left to their own devices in an accommodating environment the behavior was purposeful, abhorrent, destructive and aggressive. And now we’re “haters” if after having witnessed this carnage in an ecclesiastical environment, we object to modeling this behavior into society et al … calling it “normal”?? Is this how you want your school system? Colleges? Local, state and federal Government to operate??? NOT!

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Bethany / Kevirish01– thanks. I think we need to seriously stop looking at this as isolated incidents by individual “rogue” priests and start looking at it as a a 40-60 year case study in a controlled environment of the destructive carnage wrought by the homosexual lifestyle within a (congenial and accommodating) institution. These people were protected and rewarded, and look at the behaviors they chose to (repeatedly) model over the course of 50 years. Replicating this model among society’s institutions is NOT a good idea (schools, colleges, military, government, big business, etc).

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Not entirely.

          When Catholics accepted No Fault Divorce and the Birth Control Pill in droves, it changed the dynamic as to humans being divine creatures or simply sexual animals. Catholics set the example. When we dropped our guard, Satan simply took over and convinced everyone sex was our main pursuit.

          Bring back One Man One Woman For Life. If Catholics say anything else is ‘okay’ (however meekly) we’ve seal our fate and the fate of the world at large.

          It’s strange how no one gets this!

          Liked by 2 people

  13. Greetings OMM, Your blog is awesome and I love this “debate” with Martin (I cannot bring myself to call him Father). He is a disgrace to the priesthood and should resign immediately! Too bad he is too much of a coward to really debate with a true Catholic. In less than the first minute that old saw of “homophobia” or “hatefulness” would be trotted out. It is all about emotion with them. I keep asking myself who they think God is that He will not have His Justice. Have they no fear of God? What are your thoughts on the Church going into schism over this issue? Frankly, I think the authentic Faith would thrive with the few and the faithful.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. As far as schism goes…Our prayer and fasting can do a lot so I will worry when I have to worry and not before. I am more hopeful than I’ve been, well maybe, ever that reform is on the horizon! I believe some resignations are on the horizon. While I believe that at least one is the “sacrificial lamb” I believe more will be on the horizon should we keep up prayer, fasting and the quest for truth.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. Dear OneMadMom,

    Agreed!

    Clearly Satan has inserted himself into the minds of even Catholic priests so we are now so obsessed with our sexual identities than our divine identities.

    Scripture says it is better to remain single and devote oneself to God, or – for those who cannot be celibate – to get married and raise a family (to also love God) in a One Man One Woman For Life relationship. There are no other alternative lifestyles!

    We dilute The Word only to our everlasting detriment, and when we do we are helping others cut themselves off God too.

    We all need to stand up against these demonic trends, not pander to them.

    God have mercy on our souls!

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Well said. And very important. I said the same thing when the LGBTQ mob made a stink about homosexual teachers. My first grader does not need to know your sexual preferences in order to learn to read. Now look at the schools.

    I was attracted to the Catholic church because of the catechism – the actual teachings of the church. The teachings of the Catholic church are not ambiguous. I am shocked and disgusted that so many high level leaders are ambiguous.

    I pray daily that God purges the church, that of us purge whatever pet sins we have, and that families work together to purge common sin – cussing, drinking, dishonesty, etc. That is one response – from the bottom up. But because this is a top down problem, such purging must be done at the upper most echelons.

    Liked by 3 people

  16. While some of your comments are helpful to the ongoing debate within the church about gay men and who serve the church, I think many of us–including me, a straight mother of 3–are disheartened by the way you lean on the “disordered” label. Yes, it’s orthodoxy, but it was also Catholic orthodoxy to condone slavery for centuries, so the debate over homosexuality is not even close to finished. More dangerous is the concept that priest should just focus on God and ignore their sexuality. Most seminary and formation experts have agreed that owning who one is (sexual orientation) is important. It’s harder to do that if you have been shamed and discriminated against your whole life for your orientation, which is the case for those with same sex attraction. Naturally they will focus on it more because it has been a source of suffering for them. Thank you for your love for children and the church.

    Like

    1. Atthelab: Sorry to be rude and crude but reality is that same sex attraction, like kleptomania, necrophilia, etc., are disordered. The biologicals are simply not compatible. Whole different matter from duties, conduct, behavior, focus and the like. To conflate homosexual behavior with slavery is both a violation of the principles of logic, and an insult to all who were involuntarily enslaved. People are not discriminated against because of any orientation, they are judged by their behavior and if you have not noticed, it has become more in your face and demanding of approval which is quite childish and disordered in itself.

      Like

    2. Let me preface this by saying I whole heartedly condemn slavery or any kind. That said, to try to compare the issue of slavery and homosexuality, is like comparing rocks and oranges. The Bible is not nearly as clear about slavery as it is about homosexuality.

      While slavery was a cultural norm in Biblical times and came forward in the culture that way, biblical slavery was more about indentured servitude than the slave trade of Africans. Africans and were degraded as subhuman and were owned life and limb with no real hope of freedom. Thank God slavery was abolished in the west. Now, to abolish it in Africs and Asia.

      Homosexuality, in any form, has always been condemned by God. The bible is clear about that. Unambiguously clear.

      And as to the term disordered, homosexuality is not aligned with the order of human dignity authored by God.

      Too many spiritually confused people seek a malleable God they can make over in their own image and who will approve of their pet sins. That too is disordered.

      Sin is sin is sin. Gossip is a sin. Porn is a sin. Fornication is sin. Adultery, theft, murder, and lying are sins. Everyone bears the burden of sin and the burden of holding fast to God’s will, even when it is so uncomfortable.

      Homosexuality is not aligned with God’s will. Neither is lust, greed, and dishonesty. We dont excuse murderers, we don’t excuse adulterers. These things are disordered. We ask those committing such sins to repent and turn away from their sin. The same is true of homosexuals.

      Jesus forgives AND says, “go and sin no more.” NO MORE. The problem is, as long as we soften the truth and mollycoddle the sinner, we do nothing less than lull them into hell. Regardless of cultural era, social acceptability, conveniences, and familial relationship, we show no love by mollycoddling.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Regards “as long as we soften the truth and mollycoddle the sinner, we do nothing less than lull them into Hell”, this is SO true.

        And we, too, bring ourselves to Hell for doing that!

        The hardest part is that the secular world does not understand our Hate The Sin Love The Sinner stance re these evils.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Hi skris88, I disagree that the secular world does not understand “Hate the Sin, Love the Sinner”. I believe they absolutely understand it. It is a tactic of that terribly misguided soul, Saul Alinsky, to alter this very reasonable response to sin to appear to be a call instead to “hate the sinner”. It is in this way that the sinner can then perceive himself as a victim of hate and can remain in a perpetual state of dissatisfaction, never looking inward to confront his own sinfulness. This is how constant rebellion against order and the laws of God and man is fueled. Is it any wonder that Alinsky dedicated his “Rules for Radicals” to Lucifer….the first radical? Oh, the secular world gets it alright….at least their Alinskite leaders do!

          Liked by 2 people

        2. Doc and skriss,

          Following your trains of thought – I went to see Dr. Scott Hahn several years ago and he gave three conferences in one day. It was great.

          During one of those conferences he said, “Jesus came to forgive sins – not accept them.”

          That always stuck with me. :^)

          Kev

          Liked by 1 person

    3. First, most seminary and vocation “experts” over the decades have gotten us into the mess we’re in.

      Next, we don’t have to be afraid of the word “disordered.” We have to be afraid of ignoring the disorder and constantly putting ourselves in a situation where we are tempted to succumb to our disorders.

      Seriously, I’ve never understood why this is so hard to understand. Pedophilia is a disorder too. Would anyone suggest a pedophile immerse themselves in a world of temptation? Of course not! For the most part, up until recently, there was no push to normalize pedophilia (of course now there is because it worked so well with same-sex attraction.) Would anyone suggest and alcoholic hang out in a bar? Disorders are weaknesses and we’ve all got them somewhere. We need to help people fight their weaknesses toward sin. We don’t need to encourage them temptation.

      Like

      1. The reason we use “disordered” to describe it is because we follow natural law which has a specific order and an attraction of the same sex does not follow the order of how nature procreates or exists. It’s that simple. So it’s the same as “unnatural”. Maybe that term is less offensive to some people. But it still is a term for behavior that God says is wrong.

        Like

          1. Ha! I guess you’re right. Blech. I’m so over trying to explain this without just saying it’s just freakin’ wrong and stop saying it isn’t!!!! (And we all know that James Martin is dealing with this issue himself… nothing else explains it.)

            Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s