Anonymous wrote:“Fr”.Martin isn’t even Catholic. He has excommunicated himself through his open embrace of ideas which a Catholic may not hold. As has been noted, he supported Pete Buttigieg’s gay “marriage” and has expressed hope that the Church’s teaching on the sinful nature of homosexuality will change. Attendance at his Masses would be mortally sinful.

We ought to pray for his conversion
In Christ
SSPX poster

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Voris of Church Militant has Fr. Martin’s number. Probably because Voris used to be an actively gay man, who now lives as a chaste Catholic.

Chastity - what a blessing!

This topic is for Catholics. Not swingers.

You really have that dichotomy in your world view? If you think the only options are chaste or swinger, that’s a seriously twisted opinion of sex and humans as sexual beings. God made our bodies capable of sexual pleasure as one of his many gifts to us. It relieves stress, alleviates pain, and helps couples bond. If you want to be aesthete and abstain from sex forever that’s fine. But swinger isn’t the only other alternative!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Now that Fr Martin’s quote has been exposed here his supporters will scamper away.

Do you mean this quote:

Next, when speaking to a male questioner recently, Martin expressed the “hope [that] in 10 years you will be able to kiss your partner or, you know, soon to be your husband”.

I had never heard of him before this thread, but I’ve practiced Catholicism my whole life and I don’t see anything wrong with that quote.

Acceptable!?! It is an intrinsically sinful union.

How is it intrinsically sinful?

I should add that I do not support abortion because the fetus is obviously killed and women are often harmed psychologically and sometimes physically. Typically because we as a society refuse to offer financial support to poor children.

I do not support the death penalty or euthanasia because they also take lives, typically people we as a society find inconvenient to have in our midst.

Who is harmed when two men marry?

Are you a humanist or a Catholic?

What man is harmed when you slander the Lord? No man directly.

God’s law is violated when two men marry and the victims are the men themselves who may face eternal damnation.

So no intrinsic harm. Only picky-choosy interpretations from the Old Testament. Do you eschew shellfish? Never indulge in a bacon cheeseburger? Not wear wool and linen blends?

+1

Honestly, I have a hard time thinking that God is going to send a man to Hell because he married another man. Jesus spent pretty much no time condemning homosexuality, but he said an awful lot about helping the poor, welcoming the stranger, and lifting up the oppressed. Those things are hard, though, so it's not surprising that a lot of people would rather fixate on policing people's sex lives, which is more exciting and a lot easier. Specks and planks, people.

Also, hoping that the Church's teaching on same-sex marriage changes isn't heresy. Not all teachings are dogma. Teachings changes. The Church used to condone slavery; now it does not. It used to permit capital punishment in some circumstances; now it does not. It used to teach that all non-Catholics were doomed to Hell; now it teaches that non-Catholics may be saved through grace even if they are not formally part of the Church. It used to ban charging interest for loans; now it does not. The idea of a separation between Church and State used to be called the "Americanist heresy," and now it's doctrine. The Church used to permit the sale of indulgences and taught that they were efficacious for the forgiveness of sins; now it does not. The idea that the Church might someday recognize same-sex marriage is not, to me, problematic at all.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is a kind, compassionate and open minded person. Priests like him are bringing people back to God.

Plus a million.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Voris of Church Militant has Fr. Martin’s number. Probably because Voris used to be an actively gay man, who now lives as a chaste Catholic.

Chastity - what a blessing!

This topic is for Catholics. Not swingers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Michael Voris of Church Militant has Fr. Martin’s number. Probably because Voris used to be an actively gay man, who now lives as a chaste Catholic.

Chastity - what a blessing!

Anonymous wrote:Michael Voris of Church Militant has Fr. Martin’s number. Probably because Voris used to be an actively gay man, who now lives as a chaste Catholic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He like most people has some things right and some things wrong.

His work to build a bridge the lgbt community is very good but he plays it very safe.

He wrote this book.... https://www.amazon.com/Building-Bridge-Relationship-Compassion-Sensitivity/dp/0062694316

He is Jesuit ... so is Prep... he strongly supported Kavanaugh. He blocked anybody that had anything intelligent to say about their negative interactions with boys that attended various Jesuit all boy schools. He blocks trolls ... that make sense but anybody that had a negative comment.???

He lost a lot of followers and lots of credibility.

He also is the editor of the American magazine.

Follow him on twitter or Facebook and decide for yourself.

He supported Kavanaugh until Dr. Blasey testified, at which time America Magazine (he is the editor at large) and the Jesuits withdrew their support.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/09/27/editors-it-time-kavanaugh-nomination-be-withdrawn

https://relevantmagazine.com/culture/fr-james-martin-even-the-disciples-dismissed-the-testimonies-of-credible-women/

Yes for the nomination.

But the idea that the Jesuits need to do something about the morals at the all boys Jesuit schools ... not so much.

I’m not in the position to find the article but right after dr. Fords testimony there was an article about there is nothing wrong with the all boys Jesuit school.. never have been.

Renata would disagree.

I haven’t read his stuff and I’m personally not a fan of single sex education. But I will say that I went to a lot of guys in college who went to Jesuit schools and they aren’t all the same. The guys from Regis high school in New York were all really nice. I know Regis gives a ton of scholarships to working class New Yorkers and also doesn’t seem to have the sports culture of a place like GP. I think the privilege of the kids attending, and the emphasis placed on things like sports, affects the culture of the school a lot.

Anonymous wrote:
So that's my problem with Fr. Martin. He does not follow the Catechism; he suggests gay unions may be approved.

But the Catechism expressly states that cannot be approved, though the homosexual is to be treated with kindness and grace. But not with lies and false hope.

Anonymous wrote:
So that's my problem with Fr. Martin. He does not follow the Catechism; he suggests gay unions may be approved.

But the Catechism expressly states that cannot be approved, though the homosexual is to be treated with kindness and grace. But not with lies and false hope.

Anonymous wrote:
So that's my problem with Fr. Martin. He does not follow the Catechism; he suggests gay unions may be approved.

But the Catechism expressly states that cannot be approved, though the homosexual is to be treated with kindness and grace. But not with lies and false hope.