Susan from the Parish Council or James Martin, SJ?

I’m starting to think Susan isn’t a parody account after all, but probably just Fr. Martin’s alter ego.

It’s just another day to call out Fr. Martin on the ridiculous suppositions he tries to float.  Let’s just look at his novel’s worth of tweets and all the bunk found in them.





Poland 4

First of all, before you start ranting along with me, please take note that this is a typical Fr. James Martin, SJ, tactic.  He frames an argument that doesn’t exist, spins reality on its ear, then hopes that nobody notices.  Do the research, people. 

This had nothing to do with feeling closer to Our Lord and Our Lady.  It had everything to do with using an adored image in Poland to protest the Church.  How do I know?  Because the people behind it said so! (empasis mine)

“The Warsaw Freedom Activists had already earlier explained why they had conducted an action with the Mother of God of Equality in Płock,” wrote Łukasz Grzegorczyk in Polish.

“In a letter sent to the Na Temat editorial office, they wrote that the rainbow Mary, which they stuck to the walls and sidewalks near the church of St. Dominic, is supposed to be an expression of opposition to the stigmatization of non-heteronormative people by the clergy.

So, Fr. Martin might say “it looks a lot less like a protest,” but sadly he’s just trying to fool you.  The instigators admitted it was.  He’s just hoping you won’t find out about that.

So then he makes the argument nobody’s making:

“But the larger question is this: Why shouldn’t LGBT Catholics be able to feel close to Mary and Jesus? And why shouldn’t they have art that enables them to do so, as do other groups in the church?”

This is just made to tug at the heartstrings and really has no merit, but it would still be lame even if it were true. Let me answer it anyway.

Last time I checked, Our Lady raised her son knowing He would sacrifice Himself for us and she watched his Passion and death on the cross. Our Lord died on the cross for ALL our sins (you know, the ones Fr. Martin probably isn’t sure exist). Why would you need to change an image held dear to the faithful in Poland (or anywhere else for that matter) to feel close to Mary and Jesus? They made the ultimate sacrifice for ALL, but altering an image of them is necessary for you to feel close to them? If Christ’s death and resurrection failed to hit the mark, I’m pretty sure a little Photoshop isn’t going to do it.

Fr. Martin might have also wanted to notice that Black Madonna of Częstochowa doesn’t look like the vast majority of Poles.  They didn’t seem to need to change that image to revere and adore her, did they?

And finally:

“In short: Are Mary and Jesus only for straight people?”

Seriously? I’m not sure YOU know who or what Mary and Jesus are for.  You seem overwhelmingly confused, or at least you’re trying to confuse the masses and you’re quite willing to use any method to do so.


42 thoughts on “Susan from the Parish Council or James Martin, SJ?

    1. God only Knows why Bergoglio promoted this Cino clergy Martin along with Cocopalmeiro, Roisica, Radcliffe, Daneels ,Mahoney. And Mc carrick. Why??


  1. Dear: One Mad Mom: Christ died for all people regardless of sexual attraction. All are prone to lust. Christ came to strengthen everyone who avails themselves of Him.
    I appreciate your honesty in saying that adoration of Mary exists among the Poles. It exists in my Sicilian culture. Most Catholics prefer that you do not admit this to anyone, as well as not admit that Mary and Jesus are treated as equals in the minds of many Catholics. It is refreshing that at least one Catholic admits it, even if I disagree that they are equal.


        1. There are “Catholics”, like Jorge Bergoglio, who think that there are excuses to make adultery “Holy”. We are in very dangerous times. Madness is mainstream. Objectivity is a dying discipline.

          I am moving toward….we ain’t seen nuthin’ yet. THAT is frightening.


        2. Well, in a way, she is, as we will be as well…She has been “divinized” as we will be by virtue of our baptism into the Body of Christ…see, that’s the point. She isn’t or ever will be God but she is now woven into the “fabric”, if you will, of the Trinity because she now receives an eternal share of Christ’s Divinity. She is the first of us…we need to wait, but in the meantime, she is ‘like Him’ and her desires are the desires of the Trinity.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I don’t know what it means to be woven into the fabric of the Trinity and receiving an eternal share of Christ’s Divinity. If this is true of Mary, then this should also apply to those of us who have Christ within us at the present time.
            Mary may be divinized, as we all should be, but this does not make us part of the Godhead. We can only be partakers (partner with) the divine nature. We can’t provide for each other, the peace and strength that come from the Spirit of Christ. This requires our surrender and unconditional trust directly in Christ. This is allowed for Him because He is part of the Godhead; otherwise, it would be idolatry.
            His Spirit within us then gives us access to the Father because the Father dwells in Jesus. This is only possible through the God-man Jesus Christ. No other human being is the Word incarnate.
            He was part of the Godhead before He assumed human form; and He continues to be part of the Godhead. We can only be saved through Him. This is the only gospel that I am aware of. It’s best to not divert our attention away from Christ.


      1. I agree. We honor Mary above all creatures. She has a unique role in our salvation, and graciously consented to be the Mother of God. However, she is not divine, and therefore is not to be adored or worshipped.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Mary was the woman who consented to be the mother of Jesus. This is why all generations will call her blessed.
          In all of the NT epistles, she is only mentioned once when Paul says that “God sent forth his Son, made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4). What would her present role be in our salvation? The Catholic Church has much to say on this: both official and non-official; but the epistles do not.
          If there was no teaching on this in Scripture, and people were mightily saved at that time; this tells me that we should have a better understanding of why this is the case.


          1. We’re not sola scriptura people, Aiello01. 2 Thessolonians 2:15. Read the early Church Fathers to understand what the early Church believed. And, of course, other Church documents to support this.


          2. The Church may be more Sola Scriptura than many Catholics think. Vatican II, in Dei Verbum 21 says: “Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture.” The Church wouldn’t be saying this if Scripture was lacking or incomplete in any important way (see also 2Timothy 3:16-17).


          3. “There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.” The end of John’s Gospel. The Scriptures themselves do not say that Sacred Scripture alone contains the totality of the Christian life. The New Testament did not even exist at the time of the earliest Christians. You’re either “sola Scriptura” or you’re not. There are no gradations.


          4. It would have been impossible to have put into writing, everything that was spoken back then; but Scripture has the essentials.
            Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 11 says: Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
            The quote from 2Timothy was written hundreds of years before the New Testament was compiled by the Catholic Church in the fourth century. Scripture regulates all Christian teaching (Dei Verbum 21).


          5. And where scripture falls silent we actually still go back to scripture and that’s where you find Peter as the rock, loosing and binding and holding to oral and written tradition. We are not a sola scriptura chuch.


          6. After Vatican II, it seems to me that it is getting more difficult to define precise differences between Catholics and Protestants when it comes to Sola Scriptura.
            Scripture is important for all of us. At least, it is for me.


          7. You’ve got it backwards. It is Church teaching that has regulated Scripture all along. It was the Catholic Church which approved the New Testament canon, which had emerged out of the teaching/preaching Church over the centuries since Christ. It was Church teaching that went into Scripture in the first place. All of Scripture is true, that’s why the Church declared it to be Sacred Scripture while at the same time rejecting the apocryphal books. But not all truth needed for salvation is in Scripture. What remains is in the Sacred Oral Tradition handed down continuously from the Apostles to the present day. In fact, nowhere in Scripture does Scripture says that Scripture alone is the Christian’s guide to life. So “sola Scriptura” is in itself unscriptural.


          8. New Testament period apostles and disciples produced the writings that were later compiled into the New Testament. They were written down to preserve the earliest Christian teachings. This is how we know what the teachings were; and we still have them. The Church decided in the fourth century which writings best represented the earliest Christian faith; and it rejected others. This is why the Church now says that it is regulated by Sacred Scripture, which has all of the essential information for salvation; otherwise, the Church would not say this. Those that apply these teachings to their lives, are the best witnesses for their effectiveness.


          9. You’re continuing to get it wrong. Re-read the section from Vatican II that you’ve quoted. Nowhere does it says that ALL truth necessary for salvation is contained in the Scriptures. You’re changing the meaning of the text. The Scriptures contain the truth, yes. But they do not contain all the truth, as though no reference were necessary to Sacred Tradition. This is not a hard concept to grasp. It’s simple, but you’re refusing to see it.


          10. It doesn’t sound like the Church views tradition as ‘adding’ to Scripture; tradition hands it down in its ‘full purity’. Vatican II’s Dei Verbum 9 says: “Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)”.
            Trying to piece together all of the statements from Vatican II can be a challenge.


          11. “Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.” Sums it up perfectly.


  2. What is wrong with this priest? Why does he rattle peoples chains just because? Oh, yes he’ll say its just to bring awareness or what ever he wants to bring in his oh so innocent mind vomit. Why doesn’t his bosses have a talk with this guy and tell him what’s up? Are we going to have to continue to be held hostage to self promoting priests like this or is a bishop somewhere tell him to knock off this crap? He will have to answer for this some day.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The bishops, cardinals and Pope Benedict XVI should tell him to be quiet and repent and if he continues, he should be excommunicated and defrocked. Sadly, Francis seems to like and promote this guy, so in all seriousness, I doubt he’ll silence him.
      Actually, the bishops and cardinals need to do their duty in regard to the recent letter concerning Francis’ heresies.


  3. In constantly conflating race with sexual practice, James tells us all we need to know about his premise.

    I’m dropping the honorifics in order to “feel closer” to him.


  4. Ok, now that I have calmed down from my first comment I just want to remind all of us what Jesus might say concerning clergy who have gone off the deep end paraphrased:

    Matthew 23:2,3
    “The clergy sits on the seat of Peter. They are the teachers of the faith. Listen to them and obey them but do not do as they do.”


  5. I think it’s obvious: Francis is as corrupt and morally compromised as his friends. Why else would he choose these people to promote and defend his indefensible positions, while keeping them on as confidantes?


  6. I think the reason that Catholics get upset when a Fr. Martin shows up is because many don’t believe that they are allowed to follow their own discernment when it is is better than the discernment of someone in the clergy.
    When it comes to infallible supernatural discernment within the Church, Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 12 says: “The entire body of the faithful, anointed as they are by the Holy One, (111) [cf. 1 Jn 2:20, 27] cannot err in matters of belief. They manifest this special property by means of the whole peoples’ supernatural discernment in matters of faith when “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful” (8*) [Cf. 1 Cor. 10: 17] they show universal agreement in matters of faith and morals. That discernment in matters of faith is aroused and sustained by the Spirit of truth.”
    If this is true, why wouldn’t the lack of supernatural discernment also be present “from the Bishops down to the last of the lay faithful”? Holy Orders doesn’t confer a privileged discernment that other cannot have. If a pope is capable of heresy, why wouldn’t a Fr. Martin also be capable? By their fruits you will know them. There is no reason for those of us who have discernment, to get disillusioned when Fr. Martin gives his opinions. The best thing to do is ignore him, and anyone else who displays a lack of discernment.


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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