Over on Twitter and Facebook, Fr. James Martin, SJ, is beating the same old dissenting drum. Well, he is when he’s not mourning the death of over-sexualized, sometimes pornographic author, Toni Morrison.
The Archbishop of Indianapolis has denied a Jesuit high school’s request to hold their traditional “Mass of the Holy Spirit” to start the school year. Why? Because the school refused to fire a gay teacher who was legally married.
Why? Might it be because it would totally be scandalous to have a school allowed to hold Masses when they have lost their Catholic identity? James Martin, SJ, is conveniently forgetting to include that inconvenient little piece of information. For those who missed it, the short story is that Archbishop Thompson removed their Catholic identity after they refused to obey him. Over across the diocese, another school in the same situation is being allowed to carry on as normal because the leaders of that school actually obeyed the bishop.
Anyone else here find the qualification “legally married” a bit weird coming from a priest? You should. This isn’t a secular institution. This is supposed to be a CATHOLIC institution where “legal” has little to do with it unless we’re talking Canon Law. “Legally married” is just a euphemism for saying “sodomizing couple.” Let that sink in. When teachers make known that they are in a sexual relationship that is contrary to the Catholic faith sexual relationship known, do we really think that high schoolers don’t know what’s going on? Could we maybe give them a little more credit? “Legally married men” aren’t sitting home knitting on a Friday night. (Apply brain bleach here.)
In other words, the Archbishop is denying the Eucharist to high school students at that school at the beginning of their school year. In other words, he is preventing priests in good standing from celebrating a Mass for young people. Brebeuf Jesuit Prep is appealing to the Vatican’s Congregation for Catholic Education.
That would be your words, Fr. Martin. In reality, the archbishop is protecting the youth and the Eucharist from grave scandal – like the soul-killing kind. Wouldn’t it be nice if you did that for people? Instead, you’re encouraging people to read Toni Morrison trash, often mention Game of Thrones, and tell us how vibrant a group “Out @ St. Paul” is. What’s next? The Handmaid’s Tale? So, yeah, I’m going to profusely thank Archbishop Thompson for probably being one of the few adults around to truly care about their souls. It’s certainly not the “legally married” guys. In fact, nobody seems to care for their souls either at Brebeuf.
To put it in context, the Archdiocese said earlier that both the private and professional lives of school employees must “convey” and “support” Catholic teaching. But they do not require schools to fire Catholics who are divorced and remarried without annulments, who use birth control, who use IVF, or who do not attend Mass every Sunday (all against Catholic teaching). Nor do they require schools to fire Protestant, Jewish, or agnostic employees (whose lives also don’t “support” Catholic teaching). Nor do they ask them to fire teachers who do not give to the poor (against the Gospel, which is the heart of Catholic teaching).
Thanks for giving us your desired context. A couple of things. One, how do you know for what past teachers have been fired? Two, it’s pretty easy to tell who is in a same-sex marriage (especially when they’ve made it public), but how would you know who is divorced and remarried? Using birth-control? Engaging in IVF? Don’t attend Mass on Sunday? And why would we expect a non-Catholic teacher to be an example of Catholicism? Etc., etc.? I asked Fr. Martin before how I would know someone’s private sins simply by looking at them. He didn’t respond. Now, as I’ve said before, for two dudes wearing wedding bands and making out, the sin is obvious. Two dudes who post their wedding pic to Facebook and Instagram? Even more obvious. Should a teacher put a picture of their preferred birth-control method on-line, I would hope they would be fired, too. Catholic teachers do that how often, though?
What Fr. Martin doesn’t want you to understand is that there are sinners who champion their sins and then there’s the rest of us in the Body of Christ who struggle daily with our faults. We know they are sins, we admit they are sins, and we try our hardest to overcome them. That is not the Brebeuf teacher. He’s flaunting it and the school is letting him. As usual, the Jesuits don’t let us down in the area of letting us down. Very consistent.
The only employees whose lives are placed under a moral microscope are LGBT people. This is clearly discriminatory. Denying the Eucharist to schoolchildren for this reason only makes it worse.
More often than not, the only employees who flaunt their sins on Facebook are the “LGBT” teachers and/or raging feminists. Deal. So, will there be a higher percentage of them fired? Absolutely. Don’t want to get fired, don’t flaunt your sins. It’s super easy. Not sure why Fr. Martin is missing this one. He, himself, tries super hard to maintain plausible deniability. He just slips up every once in a while. He wants martyrs for his various causes. He’s just not willing to be that martyr. So, he will remain ever ambiguous.
The “worse” in this scenario is the scandal of school children caused by a man who publicly lives his life in contradiction to the truth of the Church yet is still allowed to teach in a school pretending to be Catholic. The “worse” is the students being taught that it’s just fine to dissent against Catholic teaching. The “worse” is having students being taught dualism. The “worse” is definitely NOT Archbishop Thompson protecting the students from scandal and the Eucharist from sacrilege. I’d be worried about millstones if I was opposing him.
Statement from William Verbryke, SJ, the school’s president: https://brebeuf.org/update-from-brebeuf-jesuit-president-f…/
NB: The Archbishop permits the 7:45 AM Daily Mass to be celebrated (typically, in high schools for a smaller number of children, though all students and faculty are invited) but not for the traditional “Mass of the Holy Spirit,” where the entire student body and faculty attends. Which makes the rationale all the more inexplicable.
Excuse me while I chuckle a bit. I went on-line and looked for pics of the Brebeuf chapel. I found a total of one that may or may not be it, and I consider myself pretty proficient at Googling. Couldn’t even find one on their web page. So, forgive me if I wonder if the students would even know where to find the chapel, and I can’t help but doubt the multitudes that would show up early for school to attend. This Mass is most definitely for the Jesuit community. It’s kind of reminiscent of the old sanctions on the SSPX. They were allowed to have Mass for those that lived in their community day and night. The Jesuits still retain their priesthood even at Brebeuf. The school has just lost its Catholic identity. When you lose that, there are consequences for all involved. I’d be a bit more worried about millstones. Just saying.
9 thoughts on “Because There are Consequences for Actions, Fr. Martin!”
If the Jesuits. There purses promoting.homosexual teachers retaining their jobs,. They should be expelled. From Indiana. under canon law 1362 ….. Jesuits at Fairfield and Fordham univ. In ct. And Ny.. Need the same religious ban for their blatant advancement of homosexual Married so called same gender sodomites. Employees …. Looking at Martin of Amer. Mgz. And. Honduras jesuits Promoting sodomites there ,A wholesale housecleaning is needed for the entire Jesuit order ,not just in Indiana ..
There was a chapel at “The Prep” when I was in school there (’65-’69) but who knows now? It was to the right of the main entrance (small windows). With these clowns, that room is probably being used by the “Gay Students Union” or some such crap. As I previously stated, I used to be proud to be a graduate of Brebeuf, now I am embarrassed and ashamed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Chin up! You could be one of the proud from there!
The bishop is entirely right, entirely within his rights as bishop, and courageous. Although this sounds like an informal interdict on the school, he should place the school formally under interdict by announcing that no sacraments may be celebrated by the school institution because it is not a Catholic school, although the Jesuit residence may still celebrate sacraments as a community of Catholic priests.
James Martin is entirely wrong in his hiSJy fit.
Also, I visited the school website and noticed that the school is seeking a religion teacher. Could it be that perhaps one faithful and courageous religion teacher did the right thing by quitting as a result of the Jesuits’ dissenting actions and posturing and their refusal to submit to the bishop?
The job description laughably contains the following two requirements: “Sensitivity to diversity” and “Practicing Catholic.” Ha! The cognitive dissonance!
In his usual totally disingenuous manner, James Martin LGBTQSJ (I can’t bring myself to call him “Father”), states
‘In other words, the Archbishop is denying the Eucharist to high school students at that school at the beginning of their school year.’
Umm… not exactly. The Archbishop is not preventing them from going to Mass and receiving Holy Communion in their own home parishes, going to any daily Mass before or after the start of the school day etc. He is not ‘denying them the Eucharist’ but rather preventing the holy sacrifice of the Mass from being celebrated in one place only: in a ‘catholic’ school which is causing scandal and has lost its Catholic identity. Not the same thing at all as “denying them the Eucharist.”
Does he think his readers have an IQ of 25 and can’t see the difference?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Does he think his readers have an IQ of 25 and can’t see the difference?”
Ummm yes, he does.
Good grief. Once again “Fr.” James Martin, LGBTQSJ, demonstrates how the Jesuits seemingly, for all intents and purposes, promote a different religion.
Has anyone ever heard a rebuttal to “Fr.” Martin from a fellow Jesuit? I would like to read it if this is the case.