Father James Martin, S.J.: Unbeliever or demoniac?

Over at Fatima Network Perspectives, Christopher Ferrara writes:

"As I have already shown..
behind Father James Martin’s treacly grin is a cunning subversive on a mission to overturn, if it were possible, the Church’s infallible teaching, rooted in the divine and natural law, that homosexual acts are “acts of grave depravity, … [as] tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’…; Under no circumstances can they be approved.”

On and on Father Martin goes, preaching the lie that homosexual acts are not only not depraved, but on the contrary are genuine expressions of what he calls “love.”  Martin even dared to proclaim openly during a conference at Fordham University (my alma mater) that there is nothing wrong with the depraved acts performed by his homosexual friend “Mark” and that he professes not to understand how “even the most traditionalist, homophobic, closed-minded Catholic cannot look at my friend and say: that is a loving act...”

As Scripture makes clear, the irreproachable Justice of God recognizes the sin of Sodom as one of the four sins that “cry out” to Heaven for divine retribution, along with murder, the oppression of widows and orphans, and cheating workers out of their just wages.  (Cf. Gen. 4:10; Gen. 18:20-21; Exod. 21-23;Deut. 24:14-15). Of course, these sins may be forgiven by the merciful God through the ministry of the Church. Nor does the Church teach hatred of those who commit such sins, but on the contrary her perennial counsel is “hate the sin, love the sinner.”

But forgiveness is not possible without repentance and a resolution to sin no more.  Martin, on the other hand, denies the need for repentance and teaches that intrinsically depraved homosexual acts are good.  This is simply monstrous.  And yet not only does he get away with it, day in and day out, he has even been given a promotion to the status of a consultor to the Pontifical Council for Social Communications..."

Of course, Francischurch is committed toward genuflecting before the Devil.

Today we are living in the most decadent, violent and faithless period in the history of mankind. But many cannot see this because they have succumbed to satanic pride. Satan fell in love with his own beauty and wound up rebelling against God and leading other angels to do the same, drawing them to Hell.

Today, bishops, priests, religious and laity, puffed up with satanic pride, have become enamored with themselves and their "intellectual prowess." And like their master, the father of all lies (John 8: 44), these too are now rebelling against God and His Holy Church.

These sons of Hell spend much of their waking hours contradicting Sacred Scripture, denying dogma and popularizing immorality. These pseudo-intellectuals arrogantly divinize man's intellect while ridiculing the Word of God. Saint Paul spoke of these disciples of Lucifer in 2 Timothy 4: 1-4: "I charge you to preach the word, to stay with this task whether convenient or inconvenient - correcting, reproving, appealing - constantly teaching and never losing patience. For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround themselves with teachers who tickle their ears. They will stop listening to the truth and will wander off to fables."

In Romans 1, Saint Paul emphasizes the fact that there is a connection between a refusal to acknowledge and obey God and a subsequent degeneration of morality. And yet, with all the sex abuse scandals within the Church and all the sexual immorality and dissent, there has been very little discussion about this truth. False worship and pride in one's own intellect cause spiritual blindness and subject men to the destructive and degrading drives of fallen nature - most especially in the area of sex. Saint Paul tells us that people who fall into such spiritual blindness begin to encourage others to do so. And so infidelity spreads like a cancer.

There is an increasingly hostile attitude toward Sacred Scripture on the part of many who believe that they can "correct" God's Word. Still others, as you note, alter the scriptures because a particular verse convicts them.

Contrast this arrogance with the Church Fathers. When confronted with such an arrogant approach to God's Word, they responded in no uncertain terms:

"They have not feared to lay hands upon the sacred Scriptures, saying that they have corrected them. Nor is it likely that they themselves are ignorant of how very bold their offense is. For either they do not believe that the sacred Scriptures were spoken by the Holy Spirit, in which case they are unbelievers, or if they regard themselves as being wiser than the Holy Spirit, what else can they be but demoniacs." (St. Hippolytus of Rome, "Fragment" in Eusebius, History of the Church, 5, ch. 28).

Father Martin is one or the other.  In either case, he has forfeited any and all credibility with serious Catholics who adhere to Church teaching.

Pope Francis, isn't concern for the protection of nature incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Pope Francis, in Laudato Si, insists that, “Since everything is interrelated, concern for the protection of nature is also incompatible with the justification of abortion.” And “How can we genuinely teach the importance of concern for other vulnerable beings, however troublesome or inconvenient they may be, if we fail to protect a human embryo, even when its presence is uncomfortable and creates difficulties?” See here.

And what of the homosexual question? Isn't it also true that concern for the protection of nature is incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Today so many, even within the Church, seek to justify homosexual acts.  But, as the Roman barrister and statesman Cicero reminded us, "right is based, not upon men’s opinions, but upon Nature. This fact will immediately be plain if you once get a clear conception of man’s fellowship and union with his fellow-men. For no single thing is so like another, so exactly its counterpart, as all of us are to one another…And so, however we may define man, a single definition will apply to all.” [Laws I x 28-30]

Cicero goes on later to draw two conclusions of critical importance, namely that laws exist for the common good, and laws that deny fundamental human rights are not valid laws at all: “It is agreed, of course, that laws were invented for the safety of citizens, the preservation of States, and the tranquillity and happiness of human life, and that those who first put statutes of this kind in force convinced their people that it was their intention to write down and put into effect such rules as, once accepted and adopted, would make possible for them an honourable and happy life; and when such rules were drawn up and put in force, it is clear that men called them ‘laws’. It may thus be clear that in the very definition of the term ‘law’ there inheres the idea and principle of choosing what is just and true.”

Vatican II stressed that the moral goodness of the acts proper to conjugal life, ordered according to true human dignity, "does take only the good intentions and the evaluation of motives into account; objective criteria must be used, criteria drawn from the nature of the human person and of his acts, criteria which respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love" (Gaudium et spes, n. 51).

This teaching is emphasized in the Declaration Persona humana: "The use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage" (n. 5).

Homosexuality is objectively incapable of achieving "the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation". In this regard the above-mentioned Declaration Persona humana says: "According to the objective moral order [Natural Law], homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality" (n. 8).

May we not say that concern for the protection of nature is incompatible with the justification of homosexual acts?

Of course. So why doesn't Pope Francis say this in his Encyclical?

Related reading here.

Deacon Ryan Duns: Archbishop Nienstedt comes across as homophobic

In a Blog post addressing a letter written by Archbishop John Nienstedt to a mother explaining the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts and the reception of the Holy Eucharist, Deacon Ryan Duns, the Jesuit seminarian who believes that "gay marriage" might be a movement of the Holy Spirit, said that the Archbishop's letter, "..serves only to reinforce the belief that the Catholic Church is a homophobic institution more concerned with obedience than human flourishing." See here.

In his Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (God is Love), Pope Benedict XVI writes, "It is characteristic of mature love that it calls into play all man's potentialities; it engages the whole man, so to speak. Contact with the visible manifestations of God's love can awaken within us a feeling of joy born of the experience of being loved. But this encounter also engages our will and our intellect. Acknowledgment of the living God is one path towards love, and the 'yes' of our will to his will unites our intellect, will and sentiments in the all- embracing act of love. But this process is always open-ended; love is never 'finished' and complete; throughout life, it changes and matures, and thus remains faithful to itself. Idem velle atque idem nolle —to want the same thing, and to reject the same thing—was recognized by antiquity as the authentic content of love: the one becomes similar to the other, and this leads to a community of will and thought. The love-story between God and man consists in the very fact that this communion of will increases in a communion of thought and sentiment, and thus our will and God's will increasingly coincide: God's will is no longer for me an alien will, something imposed on me from without by the commandments, but it is now my own will, based on the realization that God is in fact more deeply present to me than I am to myself. Then self- abandonment to God increases and God becomes our joy (cf. Ps 73 [72]:23-28)." (No. 17).

Jesus gave us this new Law of Love.  He said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments." (John 14:15).  And through the centuries many have demonstrated their love for Him by obeying His commands, even unto martyrdom. Others have followed Him indifferently or have turned away from Him entirely, abandoning that faith which is the pearl of great price.

Those Catholics who are agitating for "gay pride" and even same-sex "marriage" have embraced a false notion of "freedom."  For such people, there can only be true freedom if they are permitted to engage in homosexual acts or marry a member of the same-sex.  And anyone who resists this immoral agenda which embraces a counterfeit notion of freedom is denounced as a "hater" and a "bigot" or as one who fosters "prejudice."

Clearly Deacon Duns has set himself in opposition to the Church's authentic teaching regarding homosexual acts and has little interest in the truth that the Eucharist is properly the Sacrament of those who are in full communion with the Church (CCC, 1395).

Should this confused individual, who has shown contempt for Church teaching and a faithful Bishop of Christ's Church, be ordained to the priesthood?

Is this What passes for a sound candidate today?

Mark Shea, Deacon Greg Kandra and false compassion

Deacon Greg Kandra is impressed with Mark Shea's Blog post about Perry Lorenzo, a homosexual man who lived in the Seattle area.  According to Deacon Kandra, "Mark Shea tackled a tough subject with a kind of grace and compassion that couldn't help but leave me impressed."  Here's what Mark Shea wrote:

"One of the people I admire most in the world, who I regard as an inspiration and, very likely, as a saint was a gay guy who lived here in Seattle named Perry Lorenzo. You can get something of a sense of the man from his blog. Dunno if he was celibate or not and, frankly, regard it as none of my business. All I know is that the guy was clearly a man who loved Jesus, loved his Catholic faith, and taught a huge number of people about it, both gay and straight, in a way that was immensely attractive and uplifting for everybody who encountered him. He was also one of the most learned people I have ever met and a profoundly humble man. He was, for many years, the director of education for the Seattle Opera. Had a brilliant knack for speaking the Catholic tradition to the cultured despisers of tradition here in Seattle. His funeral, which he planned himself as he was dying, was one of the most beautiful and Christ-centered liturgies I’ve ever experienced. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if half the congregation was not Catholic: a testament to his greatness.


Some Catholics (and some of my gay readers) will probably be surprised to hear that I’m not interested in whether or not he was celibate. Not my business. That’s between him and God. (I had a reader write me in some degree of scandal after I posted on his death because he apparently had a partner he lived with. If memory serves, I expressed to my reader a deep lack of interest in that fact since a) Not. My. Business and b) merely living with his partner is not proof of anything anyway, either about his relationship with his partner, nor about his relationship with God.

So do I contradict myself, since it’s not a secret that I agree with the Church that homosexual acts are sinful. I don’t see how. If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge. After all, I also agree with the Church that my own acts of gluttony are sinful and even gravely so. But I don’t believe God has abandoned or rejected me and I trust his grace to help me slowly become conformed to Christ, so why should I believe for a second that somebody like Perry, who manifested such abundant and beautiful fruits of the Spirit was not pleasing to God and was not doing his best to strive for God? On the contrary, I regard him as a role model and greatly admire his deep, generous and true faith. I hope he prays for the Church in Seattle and I think he is (not was, God rest his soul) one of the great ornaments of the Church."

Mark Shea's argument that it is none of his [and by extension, none of our) business whether a man who professed to be Catholic was an active homosexual or not is specious.  On the surface it might seem charitable or compassionate to some.  But at its root, it is nonsense.  Although the privacy of a person's home is indeed sacred, it is not absolute.  Granted that the scandal of an evil act [such as a homosexual act] is greatly compounded when it is done in public.  But the same evil act does not become a good act simply because it is performed in private.  Its evil nature remains unchanged.  If a man is sexually abusing children within the privacy of his own home, does Mr. Shea take the attitude that it's none of his business?

Although homosexual acts are graver when they are public or manifest, these acts continue to be "intrinsically evil" when done in private.  This is the teaching of Pope John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor: "If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it.  They remain 'irremediably' evil acts per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person" (Veritatis Splendor, No. 81).

When Mr. Shea writes, "If Perry was an active homosexual, it’s none of my business and certainly not mine to judge," again this might appear on the surface to be the Christian attitude.  But, as Dr. Germain Grisez explains, while "Vatican II neatly formulates the prohibition against judging others: 'God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts; for that reason he forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone'..This norm..does not preclude judgments necessary for determining that one should try to dissuade others from committing sins or to encourage them to repent if they have sinned...the responsibility, stated precisely, is not to admonish sinners, but to admonish those who seem to be sinning.  To evade this responsibility on the ground that one cannot fulfill it without being judgmental is to rationalize indifference and cowardice, rooted in the inadequacy of love of neighbor." (Citing Gaudium et Spes, No. 28).

Mark Shea is advancing a false idea of compassion.  True compassion, as Thomas Aquinas tells us, is an effect of charity (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 25, a. 6, ad 4).  But the object of this virtue is God, whose love extends to creatures (St., II-II, q. 25, a. 3).  Thus the virtue of compassion seeks to bring God to the one who is suffering so that he may participate in God's infinite love.  As Saint Augustine explains, "'Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.'  Now, you love yourself suitably when you love God better than yourself.  What, then, you aim at in yourself you must aim at in your neighbor, namely, that he may love God with a perfect affection." (Of the Morals of the Catholic Church, No. 49).

Obviously, none of us has the right to judge Perry Lorenzo's internal guilt.  For as Gaudium et Spes emphasizes, "God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts."  But for this same reason, none of us has the right to declare Perry Lorenzo a saint.  The fact that Mr. Lorenzo was openly homosexual and was known to have lived with another man is a matter of serious concern not to mention a source of scandal.

I would pray for Mr. Lorenzo's soul.  But to declare him a saint is imprudent.

Marianne Duddy-Burke: Why isn't the Boston Archdiocese accusing her of causing harm to the community?

As I mentioned in a previous post, "Marianne Duddy-Burke, executive director of the homosexual Catholic-in-name-only 'DignityUSA,' praised the new policy of the Boston Archdiocese which prohibits "discrimination" against students who come from a homosexual household while stating clearly that it is her belief that, 'As long as the doctrine stands [Catholic doctrine which defines marriage as a heterosexual union and which says that homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity], it makes it really hard for the pastoral and the doctrinal aspects of our faith not to come into a clash...The people of the church are changing, and by and large very affirming of gay people, and the hierarchy and the doctrine are lagging behind.' (See here).


This is nothing less than a call for the Church to abandon its teaching that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil acts.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which was solemnly promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, teaches that there are explicit kinds of human acts, specified by the object of moral choice, which are always morally wrong because a willingness to choose an object of this kind demonstrates a disordered will (i.e., moral evil).  The Catechism explains that, "A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together.  An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting 'in order to be seen by men').  The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety.  There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil." (1755). 

The same Catechism identifies various kinds of intrinsically evil acts, proscribed by absolute norms.  For example, the intentional killing of the innocent (2273), specific examples of which are infanticide (2268) abortion (2273) and mercy killing or euthanasia (2277); masturbation (2352), fornication (2353) adultery (2380-2381) and homosexual acts (2357).
If one is to be faithful to Christ and His Church, one may not assert that what the Magisterium teaches is false and that the faithful possess a right to reject its teaching and substitute it with their own opinions or those of dissenting theologians.  But this is precisely what Marianne Duddy-Burke is doing.  She is agitating for a change in the Church's teaching while suggesting that the Church needs to "catch up" with those who are "very affirming of gay people," (in other words, who condone homosexual acts). 

But the Church, while respecting the homosexual person (CCC, 2358), cannot affirm acts which are intrinsically evil.  Which is why the Catechism states clearly that, "Homosexual persons are called to chastity." (2359).  In his Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor, No. 113, Pope John Paul II warns that, "dissent, in the form of carefully orchestrated protests and polemics carried on in the media, is opposed to ecclesial communion and to a correct understanding of the hierarchical constitution of the People of God."  In the face of such dissent, a dissent which harms the Church's communion, Pope John Paul II insists that, "the Church's Pastors have the duty to act in conformity with their apostolic mission, insisting that the right of the faithful to receive Catholic doctrine in its purity and integrity must be preserved" (No. 113).

Has Cardinal O'Malley done this?  Has he acted in conformity with his apostolic mission to address Ms. Duddy-Burke's public dissent from the Church's teaching regarding homosexual acts?  How about Father Emile "Mike" Boutin's dissent from Church teaching?  Thus far there has been nothing from the Boston Archdiocese but silence.  But the same archdiocese managed to find the time to accuse Boston Catholic bloggers faithful to the Magisteium of harming the community of the faithful.  Pope John Paul II never said that fidelity to the Magisterium is opposed to ecclesial communion.  But rather dissent.

Why the silence from Cardinal O'Malley?  What do you think?  And more to the point: Why is it that the Church in Boston finds it so easy to partner with individuals who are engaging in intrinsically evil acts but so difficult to partner with Catholics faithful to the Magisterium?  While you wrestle with that, let me finish this post with another quotation from Marianne Duddy-Burke, taken from an article she authored for The Huffington Post:

"We will be looking for someone to fill Senator Kennedy's shoes--and no one will. But perhaps his leadership can give hope to the many Catholics who feel their values on LGBT issues do not agree with what they hear from their bishops. Ted Kennedy confirmed that progressive Catholics can live out their deep convictions and genuine faith even when these convictions differ from those of the church hierarchy."  See here.


God save the Boston Archdiocese!

The Paulist Center Boston: Respect for Homosexual Persons or a "Gospel" of Violence?

“If one has the spirit of God, chastity is not a troublesome and humiliating burden, but a joyful affirmation.” -Josemaria Escriva de la Balaguer.


The Church’s teaching concerning sexual morality is not a mere set of rules created and imposed by the Church. Those who have adopted a legalistic attitude toward the Church’s teaching have already been answered by Saint Paul, “For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from unchastity; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honour, not in the passion of lust like heathen who do not know God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as we solemnly forewarned you. For God has not called us for uncleanness, but in holiness. Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.”

Notice the wording from Saint Paul, “that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in this matter.” Chastity is the virtue which regulates one’s sexual thoughts, desires and actions. Primarily a natural virtue, chastity helps us to see the dignity of other persons as children of God created in the Imago Dei and not as sexual objects. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2337, explains that, “Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man’s belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman. The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift.”

The same Catechism teaches clearly that homosexual acts are among the sins gravely contrary to chastity, “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved” (2357). See also 2396 of the Catechism. Now Saint Paul teaches that the unchaste will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven, “Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.” (Ephesians 5: 5, 6).


Let no one deceive you with empty words. Now this is precisely what some are attempting to do as they lead others to believe that homosexual acts are not illicit and even that they represent a positive good. This even though the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated clearly that such an attitude represents an act of violence against those with homosexual tendencies, "The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behavior or to considerations of homosexual unions.” ( Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons, No. 11, July 31, 2003). This because, “Homosexual persons [like everyone else] are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.” (Catechism, 2359). If we truly respect homosexual persons, we will not affirm acts which are gravely contrary to chastity but will challenge such persons to live out that chastity which leads to inner freedom and Christian perfection. We will also remind such persons that those who engage in sexual acts outside of marriage [and this includes heterosexual persons as well] inevitably harm themselves and others.

The Paulist Center in Boston, as this article details, is not committed toward assisting homosexual persons to live chaste lives. Instead, the Center is engaged in violence toward homosexual persons.

Related reading here.

"...the mouth of the wicked..."

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, now feels "deep sorrow and regret" for his statement that the Catholic Church in Ireland has lost "all credibility." See here. As well he should. For the Proverbs teach us that, "The just man weighs well his utterance, but the mouth of the wicked pours out evil" (15: 28).

However, as I explained in a previous post, Archbishop Williams has argued - against the entire Christian Tradition - that homosexual relationships are comparable to marriage while attempting to make a case for active same-sex relationships. And he is not alone. The many forces behind the New World Order seek to discredit the Church because She alone stands in the way of the satanic agenda to prepare the way for the emergence of the Man of Sin.

Homosexuality is ranked among the "sins that cry to heaven for vengeance." Which is why the angels said to Lot: "We are about to destroy this place, for the outcry reaching the Lord against those in the city is so great that he has sent us to destroy it." In his Second Epistle, St. Peter explains how the punishment inflicted on Sodom and Gomorrah stands as a warning to evildoers: "God condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction, reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless of what is coming." (2 Peter 2: 6).

Archbishop Williams needs to repent of the evil which he has promoted. The evil of a sin which cries to heaven to vengeance. See here. Also Genesis 19: 13.