Father James Martin, S.J., and a formation which looks to the person's final end...

My good friend to the North, Vox Cantoris writes: - about Father James Martin, S.J. -

"Rather than correct the poor child [a transgendered child whose parents want to ensure he is educated in a Catholic school] from what is clearly confusion and probably some kind of mental illness, he leaves him in his state and deceives the parents. He dares to write that it is a 'scandal.'"

For Father Martin, it constitutes a "scandal" that the Catholic school in question has refused the boy entry.  But Catholic schools must consider the good of the child.

Are his parents concerned with the good of their child?  In other words, is their idea of “the good” in conformity with Church teaching and Canon Law?

Canon 795 of the Code of Canon Law states quite clearly that, “Since a true education must strive for the integral formation of the human person, a formation which looks toward the person’s final end, and at the same time toward the common good of societies, children and young people are to be so reared that they can develop harmoniously their physical, moral and intellectual talents, that they acquire a more perfect sense of responsibility and a correct use of freedom, and that they be educated for active participation in social life.”

So “the good of the child,” according to Holy Mother Church, must consist of a formation which looks toward a child’s final end.  And that education is only true which strives for a child’s integral formation and which contributes to the common good.  How then can the Church partner with parents who raise their child as "transgendered"?

As Father Vincent Miceli, a great Jesuit scholar and my mentor, once noted, “It is said that ‘the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.’  But if the person who rocks the cradle is warped and crippled in personality then the world will not be ruled but ruined.”

Father Martin doesn't understand the nature of Catholic formation.  But then, he's not the intellectually gifted Jesuit that Father Miceli was.

Cardinal Joseph Tobin: Disingenuous

Cardinal Joseph Tobin, in a feeble attempt to justify his decision to welcome an "LGBTQ" pilgrimage to the Newark Cathedral, has said, “I don’t presume that every person who identifies him or herself as LGBTQ is sexually active...If they’re attempting to live a chaste life, then they certainly need the support of the believing community, a chance to pray, and to know that they’re welcomed within the body of Christ.”

The Cardinal is being disingenuous. Nothing new for him.  See here.

The Roman Catholic apostolate Courage, which assists those with a homosexual inclination to live authentically Catholic lives, embracing chastity, explains why it will not use the terms "gay" and "lesbian":

Q. Why doesn’t Courage use the terms “gay” and “lesbian”?

A. Courage discourages persons with same-sex attractions from labeling themselves “gay” and “lesbian” for the following reasons:

1) The secular world usually uses those terms to refer to someone who is either actively homosexual or intends to be. When a person decides to “come out” and say “I am gay” or “I am lesbian”, the person usually means “this is who I am – I was born this way and I intend to live this way. I have a right to find a same-sex partner with whom to have a romantic sexual relationship.” To “come out” as being “gay” or “lesbian” doesn’t usually mean “I have homosexual attractions and I have a deep commitment to living a chaste life”.

The Cardinal isn't being honest is he?

Courage continues:

2) By labeling someone [as the Cardinal does by referring to people with a homosexual inclination as "gay"], we discourage those who may wish to try and move beyond homosexual attractions. Some people, especially young people, are able to further their psychosexual development with spiritual and psychological aid. If we labeled them “gay” and “lesbian”, they might think there’s no possibility of moving beyond these attractions.

3) There is more to a person than one’s sexual attractions. Even if one experienced same-sex attractions for most of one’s life, he or she is first and foremost a child of God created in His image. To refer to that person as “gay” or “lesbian” is a reductionist way of speaking about someone. We are even trying now to avoid using the term homosexual as a noun, or as an adjective directly describing the person (i.e. homosexual person). Although it takes more words, we prefer to speak of “persons with same-sex attractions”. Fr. Harvey has said that, if he could, he would rename his first book “The Homosexual Person” to something else like “The Person With Homosexual Attractions”.

There are people within the Catholic Church who might argue that those who label themselves “gay” or “lesbian” aren’t necessarily living unchastely. That’s true, but the implications of the terms in today’s society don’t commonly connote chaste living. Furthermore, they are limiting their own possibilities of growth by such self-labeling, and reducing their whole identity by defining themselves according to their sexual attractions. At Courage, we choose not to label people according to an inclination which, although psychologically understandable, is still objectively disordered."

Pray for Cardinal Tobin to repent of his intellectual dishonesty.