News

Protesters, fans turn out for Rev. James Martin’s talk in Chicago

About 150 protesters gathered across the street as Rev. James Martin gave a talk titled "Encountering Jesus" on March 22, 2018, at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. By comparison, the talk sold out all 1,200 tickets. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

About 150 protesters gathered across the street as the Rev. James Martin gave a talk titled “Encountering Jesus” on March 22, 2018, at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. By comparison, the talk sold out all 1,200 tickets. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

CHICAGO (RNS) — For Catholics, a talk about Jesus doesn’t seem controversial.

And yet the Rev. James Martin, speaking on the topic at Holy Name Cathedral on Thursday evening (March 22), attracted about 150 protesters. Across the street from the church, they sang hymns and prayed the rosary. They held signs saying “Fr. Martin’s bridge to sin offends God” and “Sin creates chasms not bridges” — references to the title of his book, “Building a Bridge,” which urges dialogue between the Catholic Church and LGBT people.

Supporters too turned out at Holy Name for the first of several talks this week by Martin, who was invited to speak in the Archdiocese of Chicago after criticism of him by alt-right Catholic websites and some conservative Catholic writers. That pushback after the publication of his book last year led to the cancellation of several of his talks.

The protesters belonged to a group of Catholic laypeople called the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, according to its Chicago bureau director, Preston Noell.

Cardinal Blase Cupich of the Archdiocese of Chicago, center rear, listens as the Rev. James Martin speaks on March 22, 2018, at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

Noell said the group had been part of the online campaigns that led to the cancellation of three of Martin’s talks last fall. That’s when Cardinal Blase Cupich of Chicago invited the Jesuit author to give a series of talks about Jesus — the subject of at least one of his canceled talks — in the Archdiocese of Chicago during the last days of Lent, a penitential season observed by many Christians leading up to Easter.

“This is all very very damaging and harmful to the faith, and so we don’t think he should be given a platform. I’m very disappointed he’s here in my town, welcomed unfortunately by Cardinal Cupich,” Noell said, adding that he prays for Martin every day.


RELATED: Seminary cancels talk by priest who urges dialogue with gays


Martin told Religion News Service in an interview before his talk that Cupich’s invitation in September was “very welcome because it was a reminder to people that what I’m saying is entirely keeping with the gospels and church teaching.”

“Building a Bridge” has been endorsed by several bishops and two cardinals. The cover of the revised and expanded edition released earlier this month carries the words of Cardinal Kevin Farrell, prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, calling it “A welcome and much-needed book.”

The Rev. James Martin gives a talk titled “Encountering Jesus” on March 22, 2018, at Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. RNS photo by Emily McFarlan Miller

The reception Martin has received at similar events has been “overwhelmingly positive.” At a recent appearance in Los Angeles, he said, people had lined up for three hours to share their stories and have their books signed. There were “lots of tears and hugs and gratitude, mainly.”

“It is an extremely small percentage of people who are against the message, but it’s not surprising. There’s always been homophobia and hatred in the church — even Jesus had to deal with scribes and Pharisees who didn’t want to open their hearts to people,” he told Religion News Service.


RELATED: Why I kept my questions for the Rev. James Martin to myself (COMMENTARY)


Inside the cathedral Thursday night, the pews were packed. Tickets to the talk, which was often lighthearted, were sold out — all 1,200 of them — and only 20 or 30 remained for the next night’s talk, according to the archdiocese.

Martin opened his talk, “Encountering Jesus: Meeting the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History,” by thanking Cupich for the invitation. And drawing on his reputation as a humorist, Martin also apologized to those who’d come that he was not Sister Jean, the 98-year-old nun and Loyola University Chicago men’s basketball team chaplain who has attained “international celebrity” status during March Madness.


RELATED: Q&A: Rev. James Martin contemplates reaction to his book on LGBT Catholics


And he talked about Jesus.

“You can’t tame Jesus. Humanity and divinity are both part of his story. Scissor out the uncomfortable parts, and it’s not Jesus we’re talking about, it’s our own creation,” said Martin, a Jesuit priest, best-selling author and editor at large of America magazine.

Marilynn Pathiyil, who attends Old St. Patrick’s Church in Chicago, came to the talk after reading Martin’s book “The Jesuit Guide to (Almost) Everything.” She felt the book changed her life, she said, “like he wrote it just for me.”

Pathiyil said the protesters outside made her feel sad, “like they were missing the point almost,” and she spent much of the hour she waited in the line wrapping around the block to enter the cathedral praying for them. She doesn’t know everything about Martin’s views on including LGBT people in the church, she said, but “as far as I’ve read and understand, it’s just to be inclusive of them and love them and be kind and treat them like humans, and I agree with all those things.”

“I think that’s what we’re all called to do. That’s why when I saw them I felt sad. It’s not about changing church doctrine, if that’s what they’re holding onto. It’s just about being loving,” she said.

Not long after the talk had ended, cheers erupted from many of the people still milling around the sanctuary or purchasing Martin’s books in the narthex as they checked the score of the Loyola game on their phones. The Jesuit university had beaten Nevada 69-68 to advance to the Elite Eight in the college basketball tournament.

About the author

Emily McFarlan Miller

Emily McFarlan Miller is a national reporter for RNS based in Chicago. She covers evangelical and mainline Protestant Christianity.

283 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • 150 protestors in Chicago, a very big city. Verily, the smaller, holier Church that Jesus has always wanted.

  • For a certain type of so called Christian, there is nothing more offensive than the existence of gay people who won’t roll over for them. Nothing else matters except “get the gays.”

  • The protesters got it right. Simply show up and speak up, just like Fr. Martin did. Don’t worry about who gets the bigger audience or the better media coverage. Just show up (peacefully & lawfully), and speak up.

    Of the two protest signs appearing in this article, the first wasn’t impressive, but the second was perfect. Easy to read from the street, and instantly understandable. A crucial response to Fr. Martin’s book.

    Most of all, it’s 100 percent in line with the Bible (and most world religions, by the way.) That was THE correct sign for this particular protest. https://s3.amazonaws.com/lifesite/One_man_one_woman_marriage.jpg

  • 60 year old guilt free, raised catholic, lesbian here. Married 25 years, the second longest marriage in my family of 5 siblings. Never been divorced, 4 other siblings have been. Guilt came from lying about who I was, and pretending to be something I am not. Causing others pain who have feelings for you that you can not reciprocate is unkind and not loving. My fiancée was very happy to find out that I didn’t respond to him not because he was terrible or unattractive, but because my body isn’t wired to work that way.

    I really don’t see how my being a support for my parents, 5 siblings, 19 nieces and nephews and great nieces and nephews, a volunteer swim instructor of close to 200 kids a year in a coastal town, paying my taxes, and contributing to my community, while being 100% disabled, is subversive. Maybe it’s all the reading my wife and I do together in the evenings since we don’t own a TV that is subversive? Or taking our good friends’ 27 year old son who is on the Autism spectrum out to dinner twice a month to help him socialize is subversive? Or is the subversion my working with and reading the final exam to another kid, with fairly highly functioning Aspergers, so he could get a job as a life guard and now has his own house and job?

    Sorry, but you really don’t know anything about the subject.

  • * “raised catholic” – does that mean you profess to be Catholic?

    * “Married 25 years” – an impossibility

    * “body isn’t wired to work that way” – your body certainly is wired that way, but some psychological or spiritual affliction you carry prompts you in another direction

    * the litany of your life’s successes are real because you are a child of God, and all good things, all good & noble impulses, come from Him

    But to the extent that you affirm and defend your homosexual affliction is the extent to which you subvert God’s natural order

  • I found the handwritten sign (under the first sign) calling for the “conversion of Russia” to be offensive.

  • It is so sad to see people protesting someone who merely wants people to treat each other nicely. Interestingly, they bear a strong resemblance to those who persecuted the savior of their religion!

  • homosexual paranoia intended to frighten would-be believers away from the love and the reality of Christ – all contributed by Ben.

  • In reference to Daulphin:
    2 Peter 2:18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves[h] of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.

  • Thank you for always taking the high road. Sorry for following you here to this board. I’m not really sure what the etiquette is, but I find what you say to be thoughtful and kind.
    Not sure how you maintain your cool when confronted by those who profess to be Christian yet show very little of Christ’s love.
    Keep up the good work. As a confirmed skeptic, I see little evidence of god in religion, but I can spot love when I see it. Thanks again.

  • I am pretty sure she has had her fill of hateful fools spouting Bible quotes at her “out of love and concern for her soul” over the years.

  • Or maybe she meant to say He just likes to create snow days and traffic chaos with early spring snow storms. 🙂

  • Thank you for your kind words. I end up over here following Ben From Oakland 😉
    I am aware that my words likely don’t affect or move the person to who I am posting, but I am unable to let untrue statements stand without rebuttal.
    My spiritual beliefs are simple. I believe birth and death are opposites, and what we all are in our essence, is life, which never ends. I think we as humans are part of life becoming self aware of itself. I equate life, with consciousness, or god. I believe we as humans are consciousness/god’s attempt to become aware of itself while residing in form. So to me, being kind to others who dislike me, is no different than being kind to those who do. My time in this form is fleeting, and in the long run not all that important in the greater scheme of things. It only matters to the extent that I leave this world better than I found it, that everyone who deals with me in the day, comes away with a smile. I don’t always succeed, but I always try.

  • No, I do not profess to be catholic. I did have a priest in Maryland beg me not to leave the church in the 80’s as he felt more people needed to see and know gay people as their friends, neighbors and congregants. In the long run I did not have the patience to put up with those who couldn’t get past their own need to have someone to be better than, and felt my “sin” was far worse than any of theirs.
    Not impossible. People married or millennia without courts, judges laws or churches. We committed to each other, using the same vows all my siblings, and my father, when he remarried after our mother’s death, did. WE were legally married on our 21st anniversary, four and a half years ago.
    My body, as has been proven by a great deal of very good science, is indeed “wired” that way. I’ll post the science or you.
    The successes in my life come from having been raised to be empathic and think of others before myself. I was taught that having been born with greater gifts than others, we should be using those gifts for others. No god is required to provide that teaching, and none of know whether a god even exists, though many, many hope and believe one does.
    I affirm and defend that which is right for me. It would be wrong of me not to be who, in your tradition’s words, god made me to be. To be other than the authentic person I was meant to be would be the greater sin. Love is hard enough to find, to find one that is good and right for you and to walk away from it, is to deny the gift of the challenge of learning god’s unconditional love, the one thing any good marriage teaches.
    Enjoy your evening, I am done for the next few days, as my older brother’s 10 year old twins wanted to take a road trip and come see their aunts for spring break, and they are arriving tomorrow.
    Here is the science I promised you:

    Bailey, J. M., Benishay, D. S. Familial aggregation of female sexual orientation. Am. J. Psychiat. 150: 272-277, 1993. [PubMed: 8422079]
    https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/abs/10.1176/ajp.150.2.272

    Blanchard, R., Klassen, P. H-Y antigen and homosexuality in men. J. Theor. Biol. 185: 373-378, 1997. [PubMed: 9156085] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002251939690315X?via%3Dihub
    Bocklandt, S., Horvath, S., Vilain, E., Hamer, D. H. Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men. Hum. Genet. 118: 691-694, 2006. [PubMed: 16369763]
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-005-0119-4

    Camperio-Ciani, A., Corna, F., Capiluppi, C. Evidence for maternally inherited factors favouring male homosexuality and promoting female fecundity. Proc. Biol. Sci. 271: 2217-2221, 2004. [PubMed: 15539346]
    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/271/1554/2217.long

    Camperio-Ciani, A. et al,.Factors Associated with Higher Fecundity in Female Maternal Relatives of Homosexual Men. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 30 October 2012 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02785.x/abstract
    Friberg, Urban, Sergey Gavrilets, and William R. Rice. “Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 87.4 (2012): n. pag. Print. [PubMed doi:10.1086/668167]
    http://www.journals.uchicago.e…

    Hamer, D. H., Hu, S., Magnuson, V. L., Hu, N., Pattatucci, A. M. L. A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science 261: 321-327, 1993. [PubMed: 8332896]
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/261/5119/321.long

    Hu, S., Pattatucci, A. M. L., Patterson, C., Li, L., Fulker, D. W., Cherny, S. S., Kruglyak, L., Hamer, D. H. Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females. Nature Genet. 11: 248-256, 1995. [PubMed: 7581447]
    https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1195-248

    LeVay, S. A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men. Science 253: 1034-1037, 1991. [PubMed: 1887219]
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/253/5023/1034.long

    Mustanski, B. S., DuPree, M. G., Nievergelt, C. M., Bocklandt, S., Schork, N. J., Hamer, D. H. A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Hum. Genet. 116: 272-278, 2005. [PubMed: 15645181]
    https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00439-004-1241-4

    Ngun TC et al. (2015 Oct 8). Abstract: A novel predictive model of sexual orientation using epigenetic markers. Presented at American Society of Human Genetics 2015 Annual Meeting. Baltimore, Md.
    http://www.ashg.org/press/201510-sexual-orientation.html

    Pillard, R. C., Weinrich, J. D. Evidence of familial nature of male homosexuality. Arch. Gen. Psychiat. 43: 808-812, 1986. [PubMed: 3729676, related citations] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272760619_Evidence_of_Familial_Nature_of_Male_Homosexuality
    Rice, G., Anderson, C., Risch, N., Ebers, G. Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science 284: 665-667, 1999. [PubMed: 10213693]
    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/284/5414/665.long

    Risch, N., Squires-Wheeler, E., Keats, B. J. B. Male sexual orientation and genetic evidence. (Letter) Science 262: 2063- 2065, 1993. [PubMed: 8266107]

    http://science.sciencemag.org/content/262/5142/2063.long

    Sanders AR, Martin ER, Beecham GW, Guo S, Dawood K, Rieger G, Badner JA, Gershon ES, Krishnappa RS, Kolundzija AB, Duan J, Gejman PV, Bailey JM. Genome-wide scan demonstrates significant linkage for male sexual orientation. Psychol Med. 2015 May;45(7):1379-88. doi: 10.1017/S0033291714002451. [PubMed: 25399360]
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25399360

    Swaab, D. F., Hofman, M. A. An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Res. 537: 141-148, 1990. [PubMed: 2085769] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000689939090350K?via%3Dihub

  • If that offends you, I hope you haven’t been invited to tomorrow’s party for Fr. Martin at Blaise’s house. They’ll surely be makin’ a big, wet, sticky mess, just like “Pope” Francis would want!

  • Your comment makes no sense. Just what do you think I am objecting to? Or did you post that without the benefit of rational thought?

  • Correction:

    “But to the extent that you affirm and defend your homosexual religious affliction is the extent to which you subvert God’s natural order reality

  • There is a background to it prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

    I don’t think it’s aimed at the Russian Orthodox Church, but apparently the sign maker is not reading the news.

  • And the big void in the middle is where is this all going to lead? What does Martin advocate here that he is not specifying? Is this about just welcoming homosexuals as members of the RCC and if so is this the first step in redefining sexual relationships? It is the practice of the RCC that anyone who is in a sinful state cannot receive communion. Can homosexual individuals abide by that? There are plenty of people for whatever reason that attend church and do not receive and they respect this fact. This issue is not about homosexuals and their place in society, but this is all about changing what has been deemed sinful since the beginning. There is no amount of enlightenment or changes in attitude that can redefine what is considered a sin. Sin is not what offends man, but what offends God as it is His laws not mans. Just as murder is murder, and theft is theft, and all the other human behaviors that are sinful cannot be altered to fit our ways. It’s out of all our hands, and Martin should know this and define this clearly. I have no problem worshiping beside a homosexual in church as we are all sinners, but we all need to realize and understand the faith that we are there to celebrate.

  • “‘You can’t tame Jesus. Humanity and divinity are both part of his story. Scissor out the uncomfortable parts, and it’s not Jesus we’re talking about, it’s our own creation,’ said Martin, a Jesuit priest, best-selling author and editor at large of America magazine.”

  • Let me get this straight. According to these protesters, Catholics aren’t permitted to “bridge” to LGBT folks, because they’re “sinners.”  

    For the moment, I’ll take that principle — “Never bridge to sinners” — as a given.  

    Now then, moving on, elsewhere in Christian thought … aren’t all human beings “sinners”? It says so on Romans 3:23, among other places.  

    Hmmmm.  

    One would think, logically — given the premise above — that no kind of “bridge” to anyone is permissible … since one can “never bridge to sinners.”  

    These Christianists just opened up a massive can of contradiction. Not that this is news, nor is it unusual for them. Christianists are generally irrational and infantile, so the poor little things literally can’t help but be contradictory now and again.  

  • The conversion of Russia to Christianity took place over one thousand years ago, in 988 AD. And despite the many years of ruthless persecution by the militantly atheistic communist regime, Christianity there survived, and is expanding. Scores of churches and monasteries are opening each year. To say that we have to now “pray for the conversion of Russia”, as if it were some heathen land, belittles the Church already there. It is the acme of condescension and arrogance.

  • So you neglected to mention that the term “conversion of Russia” is from Fatima given in 1916-1917 to three children. This is before the Communist revolution where the Russian church was severely persecuted. If the RCC failed to do as the BVM had asked there would be another terrible war far worse that WWI as well as the errors of Russia (communism) would spread. The conversion of Russia has nothing to do with the conversion of the Orthodox faith, but as a means to keep Russia faithful and protected against the developing situation which saw up to 60 million people die under communism just under Stalin. So it is not offensive, or arrogant.

  • “…aren’t all human beings ‘sinners’?”

    Yes, all human beings are sinners, no exceptions.

    And consequently, all human beings must repent of their sins, no exceptions.

    That includes all sexual sins, no exceptions. Not for adultery, not for masturbation, not for same sex contact.

    I can see no contradiction in holding all people to the same standard of repentance.

  • Re: “… despite the many years of ruthless persecution by the militantly atheistic communist regime …”  

    Yeah, it always comes down to that Christian martyr complex for you, now, doesn’t it?  

    If it’s any consolation to you, those ruthless atheist communists also took a wrecking ball to science; for example, pushing Lysenkoism. Soviet science degraded over the decades. It’s rebounded in Russia since the SU collapsed, I’m sure you’ll be happy to know.  

    Also, all the horrid things the SU did weren’t because they were “atheists.” Because … well! … they weren’t all atheists! Before he got involved in the Russian Revolution and slaughtered his way to the top of the SU, for example, Josef Stalin had been a Russian Orthodox seminary student.  

    Yep. That’s right. He was not only a Christian, he was a seminarian! (Maybe that’s where he learned how to be murderous.)  

    What’s more, the Russian Orthodox Church didn’t disappear in the SU. It was simply nationalized and bent to support the regime. Kind of like a lot of national churches were, in the wake of the Reformation. You know? Oh wait. You don’t!  

    In truth, the things the SU did, weren’t because of its “atheism.” It was because theirs was a ruthless authoritarian regime … so ruthless that it became irrational, if not delusional. Not only did it do horrific things and perpetrate many atrocities, it did so in ways that were counter-productive and self-destructive.  

    Blame the excesses of the SU on its putative “atheism” if you wish — and yes, I know you wish since it feeds your own Christianist delusions — but it quite simply is not true. No matter how fervently and devoutly believe it’s so.  

    P.S. See YoikesAndAway’s comment re: the “conversion of Russia” sign having its origin in the Fatima prophecy.  

  • Seems to be working. Christ isn’t so powerful, is he. Which means YOU aren’t so powerful. That must hurt.

  • Re: “I can see no contradiction in holding all people to the same standard of repentance.”  

    I do, if you’re holding one group of “sinners” — to the point of railing against, and protesting, their very existence — and not others. Where are your protests against other kinds of “sinners,” e.g. divorcees? Adulterers? Gluttons? The greedy? People who eat meat on Fridays during Lent?  

    When you’ve protested all of those types of “sinners,” then you can plausibly claim you actually want to “hold all people to the same standard of repentance.” Until then I will continue to call you a “cherry-picker” — and I wouldn’t be incorrect.  

  • So, if the vision instructed people to “pray for the conversion of Russia” BEFORE the communist revolution, i.e., when Russia was a predominantly Orthodox Christian country, just what was it that the country was supposed to be converted TO? Obedience to the Papal See? Sounds likely to me.

    And a number of Catholics since that time have concurred with that. The person holding that sign would seem to be one such.

  • Frankly, the person holding the sign is probably “protesting” the RCC in general as it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

    The BVM’s request was not for everyone to pray for the conversion of Russia, but for the Church to conduct a consecration Mass throughout the world. This request was to be done by the clergy themselves and since they did not abide we have seen the consequences. If people do not believe in Fatima that is their choice, but the person holding the sign as well as most if not all Catholics do.

  • Nice try, but you have missed the crucial point.

    NO ONE is advocating that adulterers, pedophiles. etc., do not have to repent of their sins. Hence there are no protests, as no one is trying to normalize those sins.

    But some ARE advocating that those indulging in homosexual sin do not need to repent. Hence the protests.

    They are NOT protesting any classes of sinners, they are protesting the NORMALIZATION of a particular sin, of declaring a particular sin to not be a sin.

    It is those who promote the normalization of homosexual sin who are “cherry picking”, by granting privileged status to one particular sin, and hence not holding all people to the same standard.

    Remember to wash that cherry juice off your fingers before you type again.

  • Honey, Christ is more powerful than you will ever understand. lol……He created the Heavens, the Earth, and the seas and even you. You make me laugh

  • HATERS!!!! Hate is sin. These so-called “Christians” are among the worst haters on the planet.

  • Sandinwindsor in your mind is the Angel of God?

    Or are you just noting that – up to this point – you have not been smitten?

  • Can you PLEASE stop trolling others on this site. Unless you have something substantial to say to add to the discussion, please stop spewing your own hate.

  • Actually, no He did not. He calls homosexuality “unnatural” and a “shameful act” in Romans 1:26-27. Homosexuals cannot blame their behaviour on Him.

  • That was Paul. “He” didn’t say anything about homosexuality. Certainly, nothing about same-sex marriage, which is not a “behaviour”. People like you must hate themselves to be so hateful of other humans.

  • It’s called conversion to Catholicism. Russian Orthodox filled with dangerous teachings, acceptance of divorce one of them. If you are really a priest, hate to think of the seminary you came from.

  • If you were remotely orthodox, you would object to those two perverts being ordained priests, not a random sign. One day, they’ll do the right thing, re-consecrate the Cathedral in Chicago. They’ll remove Satanist Bernardin’s remains out of there, and make reparations for all of Cupich’s sleaze and debauchery.

  • So, let’s talk about often married, twice divorced, self admitted fornicator and adulterer Jabba the Trump.
    he got elected president by people who would say “no bridge to unrepentant sinners”.

  • You betcha. It subverts the dominant paradigm. It subverts religion that has made it the Numero Uno.

  • “the litany of your life’s successes are real because you are a child of God, and all good things, all good & noble impulses, come from Him

    But to the extent that you affirm and defend your homosexual affliction is the extent to which you subvert God’s natural order.”

    .
    quite a contradiction there. Maybe you should stop trying to create god in your own image.
    There is nothing wrong with Daulphin or me. We both feel just fine. The only spirituyal or psychological affliction I can spot is yours– that you have to take what is normal and natural for us, what brings us joy, fulfillment, and happiness, and turn it into an affliction.
    something about motes and beams come to mind. But most likely, it is just spiritual, moral and intellectual ignorance.

  • It’s just good Christians telling other good Christians that they aren’t really good enough Christians. It’s usual for these pages. I don’t see the problem.
    and yes, I’m being sarcastic. It is usually me that tells Christians to stop attacking other Christians.

  • The same way Herod committed to love and take care of his brother’s ex-wife Herodias and was told simply and honestly by the Baptist that “it is not lawful for you to have her.” Whereupon spite asked for his head on a tray. Some things never change.

  • LOL. Clearly you only know what your right wing fanatics have told you about fr. Martin. Typical.

  • 1. It’s not a “martyr complex” when one is really being martyred. The New Martyrs and Confessors of the Soviet era are the glory of the Church. May Christ our God have mercy upon us all through their prayers!

    2. No, I don’t need any “consolation”, and yes, I know about Lysenkoism. It was a tragedy for science in the Soviet Union. I have no idea why you would think that I would be happy about its return.

    3. It’s well known that Stalin was at one time a Seminary student. What you left out is that he went there as a charity case from a broken home and it was his only option to get an education, not because of any religious motivation on his part. While he was there, he declared himself to be an atheist, and subsequently left both the seminary and the Church. That was the end of his Christianity. So yes, was was indeed an atheist in his murderous Communist period.

    4. The historical facts show that the Orthodox Church was almost totally liquidated by the Soviet regime by the 1930s. Most churches and monasteries were seized by the state, and either razed, or turned into latrines, stables, etc. Clergy, monastics, and outspoken lay leaders were hunted down, sent to gulags, executed, or simply “disappeared”. During the war, what was left of the Church was given a reprieve in an attempt to bolster public morale, but that reprieve was short lived. I would suggest you do some research into the militant atheistic persecution of religion in the Soviet Union before writing again.

    5. “In truth, the things the SU did weren’t because of its atheism. It was because they were a ruthless authoritarian regime.” And they persecuted religion precisely because they were an ATHEISTIC ruthless authoritarian regime. It won’t work, no matter how hard you try to exonerate atheism for its crimes.

  • Sorry, but that’s what I go to Confession for. So you’ll have to eat your popcorn by yourself again.

  • They have not committed any sin by loving one another and taking care of one another. What a silly idea!

    Having sexual contact with one another, however, would constitute a sin.

  • It seems to me that it is the Roman Church that has imported all sorts of dangerous teachings and innovations into the faith: mandatory priestly celibacy, original sin, infallibility, immaculate conception, created grace, filioquism, to name a few.

  • I object to all unrepentant perverts being ordained priests, or for that matter, remaining in the priesthood if somehow already ordained.
    I take that as a given, so obvious I did not think I had to state it.

  • Can we forgo the pretense that the Catholic Church is going to change its stance away from anti-LGBT discrimination?

    As much as Rev. Martin’s stance appears like there is some kind of ground being broken towards acceptance and away from bigotry, the official line has not changed. The church is still one of the largest proponents of discrimination and hate against LGBT out there.

  • Re: “NO ONE is advocating that adulterers, pedophiles. etc., do not have to repent of their sins. Hence there are no protests, as no one is trying to normalize those sins.”  

    What do you mean when you claim someone “is trying to normalize … sins”? It’s a term that makes no sense. If you mean that someone is trying to make it appear acceptable, well, I would point out the “sin” of divorce — which, depending on whom you ask, happens in about half of all marriages — can very obviously be said to be “acceptable,” and has been … for decades.  

    It’s not about whether or not something is “sin.” The concept has no meaning to me, and for you it only means “something people do that my deity doesn’t like.” Really, so the hell what? Why are you even concerned with other people’s “sins”? What does it matter to you? Why is it any of your freaking business?  

    If you think people saying, “Leave us alone and stop harassing us” is “normalizing” something … well, I can’t stop you from saying that. What I can tell you, though, is that such an argument is nonsensical and pointless. It isn’t up to you to police the “sins” of other people. It’s certainly not your job to harass them and render them second-class citizens because you believe your deity doesn’t like something they do.  

    What part of “leave them the hell alone” do you not understand already?  

    Re: “They are NOT protesting any classes of sinners, they are protesting the NORMALIZATION of a particular sin, of declaring a particular sin to not be a sin.”  

    Stop railing and fuming over “NORMALIZATION.” This line of argument is, as I said, nonsensical, if not downright idiotic. It’s none of your business if people are gay or not. It just isn’t. Grow up and deal with it already.  

    Re: “Remember to wash that cherry juice off your fingers before you type again.”  

    You’re the cherry-picker, not me. I have nothing to wipe off. You’re the one who desperately needs to grow up, for once, and stop acting as though everyone else’s lives are yours to control in your deity’s name. That’s “religiofascism,” you know. Or, maybe you don’t … but you do, now that I just explained it to you.  

  • Re: “It’s not a “martyr complex” when one is really being martyred.”  

    It is, when the supposed “martyrdom” of historical figures is something you carry forward into the present, and mount like a banner above your own heads, as though their supposed “martyrdom” is your own affliction. It’s not.  

    Re: “… I know about Lysenkoism. It was a tragedy for science in the Soviet Union. I have no idea why you would think that I would be happy about its return.”  

    You implied the SU reserved only Christianity as a special institutional victim. I pointed out that, in its irrationality and delusion, the SU went after lots of other institutions. Including science. You could have acknowledged this point, but instead, you didn’t. Oh well.  

    Re: “What you left out is that he went there as a charity case from a broken home and it was his only option to get an education, not because of any religious motivation on his part.”  

    Actually, none of us has any way to know how sincerely religious he was or wasn’t. If he was able to get into a seminary, this means he had at least some religious knowledge, which in turn implies he had an interest in the subject.  

    Re: “That was the end of his Christianity.”  

    So you say. I do not consider you any kind of authority on Stalin, so I dismiss your statement.  

    Re: “I would suggest you do some research into the militant atheistic persecution of religion in the Soviet Union before writing again.”  ‘

    I would suggest YOU educate yourself before spewing the usual Christianist-apologetic trope that the Soviets did not preserve the R.O. Church and that the “atheists” who ran the SU had wiped Christianity off their map entirely. It didn’t happen that way. It’s well-known that Stalin reopened churches during the Nazi invasion and most remained open through the ’50s.  

    The truth … which you wouldn’t know, because for you, as a primitive Christianist, the matter is entirely black-&-white … is that the SU’s approach to religion, especially the R.O. Church, seesawed through the regime’s history. By the ’80s, open involvement by large numbers of Russians wasn’t a problem, as evidenced in this 1988 article in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/11/world/on-the-russian-easter-believers-see-greater-soviet-tolerance.html  

    I get that you don’t want to admit this, but really, I don’t care.  

    Re: “And they persecuted religion precisely because they were an ATHEISTIC ruthless authoritarian regime.”  

    If it were actually true that the SU was solely motivated by “atheism,” it would never have had any reason, for example, to demolish its own science and technology with B.S. like Lysenkoism. There’s no “atheist” motivation for that. It also would not have had a seesaw relationship with entities like the R.O. Church, and by the 1980s, Russians would not be able to go to church for Easter services (as mentioned in the Times article I cited above).  

    Again, you posit a motivation for the SU which simply doesn’t play out in light of the facts. Again, I know you don’t care about facts not matching your beliefs, but as I’ve told you many times, I really don’t care.  

  • Wow, you really are adept at missing the point.

    We will not be intimidated into denying the sacred teachings of our faith and saying that a sin is not a sin. In case you haven’t noticed it -and it seems you haven’t been able to grasp it – this is the crux of the protests. Why don’t you stop trying to control what other people (Christians) believe in the name of your LGBT ideology? THAT is what people have been protesting, namely the attempt to force an alien ideology on the Church. You support gay marriage? Fine. You’ve got laws permitting it. Stop trying to force the rest of us to approve of what we find morally wrong. Want to see someone acting like fascists? Take a gander in the mirror.

  • Not to you, of course. When I make love with my beloved husband, he is not “the recipient of my sex drive”. It takes a pervert to say something like that.

  • Perhaps you might want to consider what else Paul deemed as contrary to nature. And kind of unfair to stop at v. 27 – might even call it deceitful/

  • Re: “Wow, you really are adept at missing the point.”  

    I didn’t miss anything. You, however, did. Big time.  

    Re: “We will not be intimidated into denying the sacred teachings of our faith …”  

    Who asked you to? I certainly didn’t.  

    Re: “Why don’t you stop trying to control what other people (Christians) believe …”  

    I don’t care what you “believe.” Your “beliefs,” per se, are of no concern to anyone but yourself. What matters are your actions and what you do to other people. It’s fine for you to “believe” that (for example) gays are “sinners.” It’s quite another, however, for you to venture into their bedrooms and try to prevent them from being gay … or barring that, use other tools (economic, political, and social) to inflict some kind of punishment on them because they’re gay.  

    You equate the words “leave gays alone” with “you’re not permitted to believe gays are sinners.” This, however, is illogical. Telling you to stop venting your rage at gays and to stop harassing them, is not, and never will be, the same thing as preventing you from believing whatever you wish to about them.  

    Re: “THAT is what people have been protesting, namely the attempt to force an alien ideology on the Church.”  

    No one is forcing you to think well of gays. Really, no one is … no matter how fervently you may think they are. They simply are not.  

    Re: “You support gay marriage? Fine. You’ve got laws permitting it.”  

    Yes. That law exists. Grow up and get over it already.  

    Re: “Stop trying to force the rest of us to approve of what we find morally wrong.”  

    I really don’t care what you morally approve of, or don’t. Makes no difference to me. Again, your own beliefs are your own business. When you take your rage out on gays, and assume the power to harass them because they’re gay … well, that’s something else entirely.  

    And as I said previously … the day you protest divorce and demand that divorcees be rendered second-class citizens — since divorce has, effectively, been “normalized” (to use your word) for several decades now — then, and ONLY then, can you claim not to be a cherry-picking hypocrite. I leave you with the words of your own Jesus:  

    “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” (Mt 7:3-5)  

    “Then the scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery and made her stand in the middle. They said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?’ They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger. But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, ‘Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.’” (Jn 8:3-7)  

    If I were you, I’d pay attention to these words. Because your own Jesus also reportedly told you:  

    “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ but not do what I command? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, listens to my words, and acts on them. That one is like a person building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when the flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it because it had been well built. But the one who listens and does not act is like a person who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, it collapsed at once and was completely destroyed.” (Lk 6:46-49)  

    No, I won’t even get into how it is that I — cynical, cold-hearted, godless agnostic heathen that I am — happen to know your own Bible and your own Jesus’ instructions better than you do.  

  • I like your philosophy. As I said, I lean atheist, although, I am not arrogant enough to say without a doubt “there is no god.” He could be hiding in your example or elsewhere. The place I have yet to see him is in an organized religion.
    I began a brief explanation of my philosophy only to realize, once again, that I don’t have the talent of brevity. Suffice it to say that life is an experience, not a test. Perhaps one of an infinite number of experiences. Or more likely, the one chance to leave a positive legacy.
    Whatever the case; cruelty, self-righteous judgement and hypocrisy are not a path to happiness.
    Best of luck and keep up the good work.

  • Paul was commissioned by Christ, who spent three years teaching him via revelation in Arabia and as Christ is omniscient, he knew what Paul would write, and approved of it.

  • Don’t worry, Spuddie. With Pope Francis at the helm, the Catholics are in real trouble on gay marriage. Do you remember this RNS story? And this photo?
    https://www.religionnews.com/2016/08/07/top-catholic-bishops-criticize-biden-for-officiating-at-gay-marriage/

    Catholic Joe Biden, Vice Prez of America, openly officiated a gay wedding (and publicly boasted on it!!) only 3 months after happily meeting with Francis. Biden completely spat on — (and other bodily functions) — on the Official Catechism. Never have even the most liberal Catholic bishops done so.

    Yet Francis didn’t say one word against it. Not even a pious hint. Even the 3 Catholic bishops (critics) didn’t dare say Biden’s name. So honestly, you’ve no need to worry. The Catholics are in trouble.

  • Hmm. I didn’t see that one coming. Now I’m gonna have to steal your comment to use against gay activists in other forums!!

  • how lovely to see you floydlee!
    Hubby said to tell you that there are 10 commandments and not 9, so you cannot steal, but I’ll gladly sell it to you! 🙂
    Please, by all means, use it as much as you like.

  • “Real trouble” meaning that it is no longer socially acceptable to be a raging anti-gay bigot in public. Not my concern. The ability to express bigotry without social consequences is not something I have any care for, nor would any person with moral fiber.

    Oh well.

  • “Why don’t you stop trying to control what other people (Christians) believe in the name of your LGBT ideology?”

    But its’ not in the name of that whatsoever. It’s protestors– and I know who these people are and what they are about– not merely expressing a belief about sin, but demanding that their prejudices against one particular class of sinner be recognized in society and civil law. They are being very unhappy that Father Martin is choosing a different emphasis than they are, one that says “we might consider this a sin, but we actually do love and respect you, and will treat you accordingly.”

    I don’t give a damn whether you approve of me, my sin, or my marriage. If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married. But please stop demanding legal and cultural right to treat me any differently than you treat all of the rest of the people you believe are damned forever.

    when you treat a thrice married, twice divorced, self admitted fornicator and adulterer the same way you treat me, it will be news. Did you vote for him? Because that means you approve of someone who is and has been far more sinful than I could ever hope to be.

    but as far as this goes: “Why don’t you stop trying to control what other people (Christians) believe …” Would you ever think of directing those very words towards the red caped Catholic loony birds, whose protest is attempting to do exactly that? ?

  • Disagreement with you is t attacking you. I don’t wish to attack anyone just for being a Christian, but I will point out where your beliefs poison other people’s lives, case them harm, and violate your own principles.

    . And as I say, it’s not me calling other people Not-a-real Christian. That’s all Christians on those very pages

  • Well, I see the “God Hates Fags!” woman (sandinwindsor) is still here damning gay people (and anyone who treats them as human beings) to hell. The hateful bitch. Her life must be hell the way she continually tries to make other people’s lives a living hell.

  • Actually, that is a false interpretation and if you had done your due diligence, you would know that.

  • Ironic how a lie is a sin, yet you forward such. You forward an assertion as truth, yet you’ve no knowledge or corroboration of what truth is.

  • There’s way more studies, facts and information that’d back him up, over your superstition.
    Top kek.

  • Didn’t Catholics persecute other Christians, burning them at the stake and torturing them, (etc etc) among many other ppl?

  • If we’re going to talk history and the foundation of Christian belief… How did it first gain a foothold again? I recall a lot of bloodshed and persecution. Not exactly in tune with your “peaceful” beliefs.

  • You keep using atheism under a preconcieved notion of tribalism. Typical of a Christian. If it were under anything that wasn’t under your own tag, you’d still make the same lame accusation, but if it were Christianity, you’d be all for it. Bottom line, youre playing devils advocate for tribalism. Atheism is the accountability of the individual and not a group concept, no matter how you try to make it out to be. It is a stance, not some religion or organized sect.

    You think Christianity was established by being “peaceful”? You’ve been piggy backing on those you supposedly don’t agree with and then playing PR and pretending you’ve had nothing to do with it. You’re the same kind of degenerate by proxy, whether you believe it or not. That’s what happens when you believe in organized FAITH. An assertion of truth without having any knowledge of what is true. A belief based on an assumption.

  • You wanna talk psychological affliction? Guess what, you were subjugated to indoctrination. That belief was implanted in your brain. That was psychological manipulation before you even had a chance to come up with truth on your own. If you were born to a different culture, you’d be practicing their belief and their ways.

    Nothing of what you stated carries any credence. All unsubstantiated assertion. Invalid opinions.

  • Whoa, whoa, whoa, Ben!

    Nowhere in the article did I read of the protesters demanding the legal right to treat you/any LGBTs differently than they would any others they deemed guilty of other sins. And for the record, neither would I condone disparate legal treatment.

    “when you treat a thrice married, twice divorced, self admitted fornicator the same way you treat me, it will be news.”

    Well, stop the presses! We have breaking news! I DO treat you and he EXACTLY THE SAME! I would give Holy Communion to NEITHER of you, and counsel BOTH of you to turn away from whatever sins you may be living in. (Not that you give a flying leap about that, but I mention it as an example of how I would treat the two of you exactly the same.)

    During many decades of ministry, I have refrained from ever speaking about who I voted for; it just gets in the way. I will say that I vote for candidates based on their policy positions, not on their personal morals. (I suspect politicians don’t actually have any, anyway.) I will also say that I am neither a Republican, nor a Democrat, etc. I see no political party deserving of my allegiance or support, and considered all the candidates of the last election miserably reprehensible. (By the way, I would have no problem voting for YOU if I liked your policy positions. Come to think of it, you could easily have been better than the candidates we did have!)

    But getting back on topic, it is my impression that protesters like the ones in the article are not concerned about imposing legal disabilities on LGBTs, but rather are concerned about maintaining their religion’s traditional sexual morality. They see what has happened among the Episcopalians (and other liberal/mainline Protestants), and they don’t want that to happen to them. They view Fr.Martin with deep suspicion (rightly or wrongly), and see his efforts as constituting a sort of Trojan Horse to undermine traditional Catholic morality. Hence their protest.

  • “But its’ not in the name of that whatsoever. It’s protestors– and I know who these people are and what they are about– not merely expressing a belief about sin, but demanding that their prejudices against one particular class of sinner be recognized in society and civil law.”

    Oh, you mean that pesky Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution?

    Or was it the Eighteenth Amendment?

    Perhaps it is 18 U.S.C. §§ 2421–2424, The Mann Act, or White-Slave Traffic Act, passed June 25, 1910?

    Each demanded prejudices against slavers, alcoholics, and pimps respectively be recognized in society and civil law.

    That is what happens when laws are made to form a society – the electorate chooses what is promoted, what is discouraged, and what is disregarded by laws.

    Father Martin belongs to a church which says “we might consider this a sin, but we actually do love and respect you, and will treat you accordingly.”

    http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/homosexuality/always-our-children.cfm

    On the other hand, that same church teaches that “Under no circumstances can they (same sex acts) be approved.”

    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2357

    One would assume that with Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), which struck down sodomy laws, and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015), which struck down laws on marriage, you’d be a right happy camper.

    But, no, what you really appear to be after is for all those Christianists and religionists to shut up altogether.

    And THAT ain’t about to happen.

  • WARNING! Straw man argument ahead:

    “It’s fine for you to “believe”, for example, that gays are “sinners”. It’s quite another, however, for you to venture into their bedrooms and try to prevent them from being gay…or barring that, use other tools…to inflict some sort of punishment on them for being gay.”

    I have NEVER done or advocated any such thing. You are arguing with a straw man of your own imagining; so much easier that way, isn’t it?

    And why oh why should I “protest divorce and demand that divorcees be treated as second class citizens…”? I don’t do that for gays, so why should I do that for divorcees? So another straw man argument on your part, falsely attributing something to me that I neither believe nor do, and then facilely and falsely accusing me of cherry picking!

    Like scriptural quotes? Try this one:

    “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Exodus 20:16

  • Christ taught on marriage –

    1 Corinthians 7 – Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. 3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband.”

  • Re: “I have NEVER done or advocated any such thing.”  

    If that’s the case, then why does the existence of LGBT folk so enrage you? It makes no sense for you to get so bent out of shape over their existence, if you truly are disinterested in them.  

    Re: “And why oh why should I ‘protest divorce and demand that divorcees be treated as second class citizens…’?”  

    Because divorce is a “sin” which has become socially acceptable, or to use your favorite word, “normalized.” You don’t want gays to be “normalized,” but aren’t bothered by divorce having been “normalized.” Hypocrite much?  

    Re: “‘Thou shalt not bear false witness.’ Exodus 20:16”  

    Wow. Is that ever rich! You accuse ME of “bear[ing] false witness” against you, while you have, by contrast, lied about supposedly not being interested in gays’ private lives. Hmm. Not only are you hypocritical, you’ve got a pretty big supply of chutzpah as well.  

  • Acts 2:38 ESV
    And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

  • If you consider it superstition, then I would say that you do not know the love and faithfulness of Christ. Perhaps put yourself in a position to learn that before you try to discuss,or dismiss it.

  • You have already shown you have no knowledge of a relationship with Christ, DD. You have no substance to call anything a lie without previous knowledge of it.

  • Hell is a reality. Christ is faithful and just to forgive our sin should we turn to Him, repent and follow Him. That will remedy any problem with Hell.

  • Oh well. The man is trying to blur the lines between right and wrong in reference to homosexuality. He is not on their side whatsoever.

  • Sin is a breaking of your covenant/promises to your god/deity.. How can someone not of your faith be under the onus, if they’re not members of your cult and are not aware what those ‘sins’ are? How are you being ‘forced’ to approve of anything gay? How? Do you now by law/mandate have to marry another same sex person? Do you have to by law attend a wedding of two
    Men or women? How do you force someone to approve of anything? Ridiculous…..

  • Well, my friend “Catholic Jack” never burnt me at the stake, and he could pray some of the most encouraging prayers I’ve ever heard. So we be friends, not foes.

  • Blurring the lines? So modern Catholics see treating people with respect and love as being wrong. I am relieved I left 20 years ago. I do not recognize the RCC anymore.

  • Re: “why does the existence of LGBT so enrage you?”

    They don’t. Only in your straw man imaginations am I enraged. I feel about them the same way I do about all entangled in sin: great sadness.

    Re: Because divorce is a sin which has become socially acceptable, or to use your favorite word, “normalized”.

    Another swing and a miss! I couldn’t care less about what is “socially acceptable”. That is not what I mean by normalized. I have been using the word on the context of Christian sexual morality, in which context normalized would mean “not sinful”. And, yes, divorce is still sinful in the Christian moral context, just as homosexual sin is. What I would protest is either sin being deemed no longer sinful, thus normalized in the realm of religious morality. Couldn’t care less if they are considered acceptable/normalized in society at large. Many sins are considered socially acceptable; that is not my concern here. I am rather concerned about acceptability in the realm of religious morality. You don’t care about religious acceptability; I am not concerned about social acceptability. But you have been arguing as if I was.

    Re: “…you lied about supposedly not being interest in gays’ private lives…”

    Well, that right there is a lie, pardner, for I made no such claim. What I actually said was that I never advocated preventing people from pursuing homosexual sin (“being gay”, in your words) by any sort of force or compulsion (“…some sort of punishment…” in your words.) So ANOTHER example of false witness on your part, although I recognize that in this case it may have been unintentional, as you do not seem to have read my response very attentively.

  • 1. Sin is rather living in a state of separation from God. It is not dependent on our awareness. (Most people are not aware of their sinfulness.) If you murder someone, you are still guilty of murder, even if you are unaware that murder is wrong.

    2. There have been many examples of people who in employer mandated workplace diversity seminars risk losing their positions unless they are in full-throated approval of all things LGBT, and hence feel forced to go along with it. Do some research. The columns written by Rod Dreher give many examples.

  • Again, that definition applies to members of your cult who have made promises/covenants with your deity… many don’t believe your favorite deity exist.. Please link to all those examples of people losing jobs behind not giving ‘full throated approval of the gays’.. I’d love to read it for myself…

  • It is quite acceptable and loving to tell someone they are sinning:

    James 5:20 – New International Version

    remember this: Whoever turns a sinner from the error of their way will save them from death and cover over a multitude of sins.

  • And Fr. Martin has never said they were not sinning. Your evil tongue is spreading lies against him. Awful. I love you so I will tell you that you are sinning. By continuing to spread lies you about Martin, you are sinning. You’re welcome 🙂

  • Re: “Only in your straw man imaginations am I enraged.”  

    Again, I will point out … if you are as indifferent to them as you say, and don’t object to their existence, then there’s no reason for you to reject the notion of anyone “building a bridge” to them. If, in fact, you TRULY are not bothered by them, then you wouldn’t care who reaches out to them, if anyone does. It simply wouldn’t matter to you.  

    But it does. So … how can it be that you don’t object to their existence? You’re trying to have it both ways — but logically, you can’t, and I won’t let you get away with this evasion.  

    Re: “I couldn’t care less about what is ‘socially acceptable’.”  

    How about religiously acceptable?  

    Re: “That is not what I mean by normalized.”  

    I really don’t care what you meant by a nonsense word.  

    Re: “And, yes, divorce is still sinful in the Christian moral context, just as homosexual sin is.”  

    So why don’t you protest efforts to reach out to divorcees? Such as what was offered by none other than Pope Francis himself: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/13/pope-endorsement-softens-stance-on-divorced-catholics By all rights, you should protest that effort as well. Why haven’t you?  

    Re: “Well, that right there is a lie, pardner, for I made no such claim.”  

    Again, IF in fact you do not wish to control the private lives of gays, why would you care whether anyone wishes to build bridges to them? It should make no difference to you whether they do or not.  

    Re: “What I actually said was that I never advocated preventing people from pursuing homosexual sin (‘being gay’, in your words) …”  

    Hold on right there, pardner. Gays aren’t gay because they “pursue” anything. Rather, they’re gay because they’re gay. You’re trying to portray their “sin” as one of volition and choice, rather than of nature. But that’s simply not the case. You misrepresent — if not libel — them by claiming they “pursue homosexual sin.”  

    Re: “… by any sort of force or compulsion (‘…some sort of punishment…’ in your words.)”  

    You want them ostracized, from your church at the very least (by virtue of your demand that no one in your church ever “bridge” to them), and in all probability from society generally. You just dehumanized them, above, by implying they’re “pursuing homosexual sin” rather than simply “being gay,” which is the truth. How can you portray yourself as NOT wanting them punished? It’s nonsensical of you to claim that. You’re contradicting yourself … as I’ve said before … by overtly professing indifference, when in reality your goal is to cut them off.  

  • Yes I would.. But I wouldn’t destroy, denigrate, and humiliate whole other groups of people to do so…my ideal god, wouldn’t be such a [email protected]$$y, wouldn’t need my defense, not like that…

  • That the protest against Fr. Martin’s appearance in Chicago was sponsored by The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property might not ring a warning bell for folks who don’t know the organizations ugly history. Years ago, when I as regularly attending mass at a schismatic, pope-defying parish run by the Society of St. Pious X, TFP was a much admired group for their work in (literally) combating proponents of liberation theology in Latin America. TFP included shock troops of single young men who were working alongside Latin American death squads in their attempts to eradicate what they perceived as communist infiltration of the Roman Catholic Church. TFP’s appeal has always been to the most extreme, intolerant elements on the far-right of the Catholic Church, and apparently not much has changed.

  • No one is destroying anyone. Christians are helping these people to not go to Hell. These people will finally be alive and not dead.

  • He is trying to open doors to legitimize the sin. No lies. I’m not going back to the other article to quote my reason. He is not legitimate.

  • Nope. Still lying! Stop sinning. Seriously. I am very worried for your black soul. I will keep you in my prayers!

  • Oh I agree! You do not need to lie. It is like drinking liquor. One does not need to but many still do!

  • And I’m not in the mood to banter with someone more intent on fighting than learning the truth. Night night.

  • Night night. Hopefully the grace of god will come to you during your sleep and cure you of your defamation of a honorable priest. He is preaching the Gospel of Jesus. (Remember him?!!). You are lying about what he is doing. If you want to show where he is advocating acceptance of sin, by all means do so. Otherwise, your serpent tongue is blatantly obvious. Sleep tight. Hope you don’t pass tonight and face the final reckoning!

  • I can get that from websites. You are not necessary for that. I am speaking to you. God and Jesus can get their own disqus accounts.

  • Ignorant putzes like you won’t shut up until everyone genuflects at your beliefs and religion is driven out of public life.

    Yes, we get that.

    Fortunately we outnumber you.

  • Yep, that’s what I said.

    I also said I need not go to Confession for stating the truth, not that I never need to go.

    Your reading comprehension seems a bit off. Maybe you need to sleep later in the morning.

  • The issue is not “reject(ing) the notion of anyone ‘building a bridge’ to them.”

    The issue that James Martin, SJ, keep running into is that while characterizing his position as favoring “‘building a bridge’ to them”, in fact he is arguing for treating LBGT relations as morally acceptable.

  • There is no indication in his posts that “the existence of LGBT folk so enrage” him.

    There is some indication that you’re overheating a bit.

  • There is no indication of sandinwindsor “destroy(ing), denigrat(ing), and humiliat(ing) whole other groups of people”.

  • The Catholic Church teaches that sexual relations between unmarried people are per se sinful, and that same sex marriage is a contradiction in terms.

    Whether that constitutes “discrimination and hate against LGBT” or traditional Christian moral teaching depends on where one sits in the moral spectrum.

  • It does appear that the Catholic leadership is spending a lot of time looking the other way. But it is not ubiquitous.

  • He’s not the target of protests because he “merely wants people to treat each other nicely”.

  • Of course the “god/deity” “cult” shtick more or less ends your communication with anyone who disagrees with about religion.

    Which, as it turns out, is the majority of Americans.

  • I don’t believe most of the readers of the exchange comprehend the complex relationship between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, particularly the sensitivity of the Russians to Uniatism.

  • The evidence that The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property “included shocks troops” who were “working alongside Latin American death squads” appears to be zero.

  • Speaking of “buil(ing) their whole theological universe around what Jesus NEVER said — that is, a single word about homosexuality — while completely ignoring what he DID SAY over and over — that is, that the whole law is summed up in the command to love.”, Jesus never condemned fornication.

    He did suggest that if you love God, you will keep his commandments, and that he did not come to change one jot or tittle of the Law.

    I am afraid the consensus opinion is that yours is the “perversion of Christianity”.

  • Well better that schtick, then having someone claim a god for me by default.. Father Herman and you both are very arrogant to think you talk on behalf of anyone or any deity..

  • I don’t ready anyone claiming a deity for you.

    On the other hand I do read you thinking you can restrict other people’s religious beliefs and practices.

  • There was no mention of homosexual acts being a sin in original Hebrew. The story of Sodom and Gomorrah was inadequately interpretted by the anti-gay agenda. There’s nothing against it in the 10 commandments, and Jesus never said anything against homosexual relations, himself. Homosexuality as a sin was fabricated by homophobic bigots. I shouldn’t even have to have this conversation. There’s much study that’s gone into this that has shown the Bible to be flawed many times over. Get over it.

  • You must have deleted your post. You probably figured how ridiculous a rebuttal it was. Let’s share it.

    “If you consider it superstition, then I would say that you do not know the love and faithfulness of Christ. Perhaps put yourself in a position to learn that before you try to discuss,or dismiss it.”

    Btw, you’re talking to an ex-Christian. As far as I’m concerned, it’s mythology. Stories fabricated by a superstitious people. There’s nothing to corroborate the stories of the Bible, in fact, there’s more corroboration worldwide thst would suggest the Bible is bogus. There are more acclaimed scholars that have put more effort into researching incidents surrounding stories storiessot the bible. What have you done to prove that your belief is true?

  • It’s easy to manipulate ppl and not provide any proof for your assertions.
    Obvious scare tactic for the gullible. Try again.

  • 1. So if one does not believe in the God who said “Do not murder”, then murder is okay? No, murder is always wrong/sinfull; its wrongness/sinfulness is not dependent on your acknowledgement of it as wrong.

    2. Try Dreher’s articles “View from the faculty lounge” (3/6), “It can happen to you – and will” (3/21), and “Christian life in exile” (3/5), as well as the anecdotal evidence from readers in the comments. I know there is much more there, but do not know how to search for it on the site.

    Then there are the cases of Ken Howell of the University of Illinois, as well as John McAdams of Marquette, who incurred the wrath of LGBTers for dissenting from LGBT orthodoxy. The workplace experiences of average Joes, however, don’t make the headlines, but they can often be seen in Dreher’s comments section.

  • Huh, don’t see you’re comment here. It’s in my email, though.

    “Well, my friend “Catholic Jack” never burnt me at the stake, and he could pray some of the most encouraging prayers I’ve ever heard. So we be friends and allies, not enemies.”

    Wow. “As long as it’s not me he’s killing and gets rid of everyone else, we’re good.”

    Some Nazi think right there. Condoning the mass execution of innocent ppl just because you guys are buddy buddy. Disgusting.

  • There were laws/legislation written, pushed for by christian orgs and people like Sandi which forbade and barred gay people from
    Marrying.. Caused a lot of harm..if you don’t know what’s going on in the ‘world’ maybe you should refrain from
    Making stupid comments…

  • The laws on marriage dated back to the pagan Roman Republic.

    The reason why they forbade and barred same sex marriage had nothing at all to do with religion at that time. The Roman were tolerant of same sex relations.

    They had to do with the fact that the foundation of any successful society is the family, which requires a procreating couple who raises the children they bear.

    That caused zero harm, although it meant that some people did not get what they want.

    Same sex marriage advances no goal of society. However, until Justice Kennedy went off on yet another “sweet mystery of life” tangent, every state was free to endorse it, not endorse it, or endorse an alternative.

    Speaking, of course, of making stupid comments ….

  • Don’t know why the hell you’re talking about Roman marriage laws or what they have to do with current laws, since our marriage laws are not based on them, never were..I’m talking about the federal law, the defense of marriage act and all those states(32 of them) changing/amending their constitutions to ban/ forbid same sex marriage.. I’m talking
    about prop 8, where you wonderful Catholics and Mormons put out tv ads claiming we (the gays)were coming for your children.. Nice Catholics right? I’m talking about current laws were the religious right are most definitely trying to interject themselves into the discussion, into the public civil policy laws which are none of their business.. If your faith/cult whatever, feels it’s morally wrong for two men or two women to marry than by all means follow your conscience and tenets of your faith and don’t get gay married… The hubris and arrogance of the religious nowadays, is that they feel everyone should follow their beliefs.. Even if we’re not members of your cult.. That is wrong.. You know it too..oh and for your edification, gays do have and are raising children.. Children who will do better in general because their parents can now marry and enjoy the 1100+ benefits which come when couples legally marry..
    “Same sex marriage advances no goal of society..” Withholding the right to marry to gay couples advances no goal either, except for discrimination… Stupid..

  • Paul never even met Jesus.. Yet he has some kinda fit/vision/epileptic shake on the road and Jesus filled him in on everything in those few seconds…please….

  • Then you haven’t been following the conversation.. Fr. Herman claimed that I’m covered under the blanket of ‘sin’ of his religion whether I know what it entails or not..
    Your reading comprehension kind of stinks…

  • Re: “There is no indication in his posts that “the existence of LGBT folk so enrage” him.”  

    He demands no one “build bridges” to them. He wants them isolated. This means he cannot possibly either like, or be indifferent to, them. It just doesn’t fly.  

  • Is he, really? Or not? He would say one. You and your Christianist friends say otherwise. Honestly, I really don’t care all that much. What I can say is that demanding LGBTs be isolated, in any way, is not compassionate toward them and doesn’t even evince mere indifference. Call it what you will, but the position makes no sense without the presence of some degree of hatred.  

  • Now THAT is funny!! I haven’t been showing my sinful ways on here. You have been defaming Fr. Martin. It is shameful and sinful (8th commandment FYI).

  • Jesus said, “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” John 9:41

  • “Jesus never condemned fornication” Well, He did say it makes us unclean (Matt. 15:18-19)

  • Let’s cut the “Christianist” cr-p, eh?

    He’s a Catholic priest, a member of the Jesuit order.

    This kerfuffle is an internecine Catholic one.

    Call it what you will, morality requires making distinctions, and alleging it “the position makes no sense without the presence of some degree of hatred” “makes no sense without the presence of some degree of hatred”.

  • If in fact there is a deity, if in fact that deity has decreed moral laws, and if in fact you’re violating that moral law, you’re covered under the blanket of sin.

    Obviously he believes all of that. Obviously you do not.

    That does not constitute his claiming a deity for you.

    Your comprehension, and not just reading, is not up to the task you’re undertaking.

  • I understand that you don’t know why the hell I’m talking about Roman marriage laws or what they have to do with current laws.

    Like most folks who did high fives over Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S.(2015), you are without a clue as to what the basis for the decision or the arguments pro and con were.

    Actually our marriage laws were based on the same basis as the Roman laws – natural law and the good of society.

    As to “all those states(32 of them) changing/amending their constitutions to ban/ forbid same sex marriage”, brace yourself. The Constitution can be amended, and may well be.

    Public civil policy laws are everyone’s business. That’s one of the reasons that Article VI, Section 3 of the Constitution reads:

    “but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”.

    The way our system is devised, the Constitution and everything after that is the result of a political process. Yes, Justice Kennedy said “That is wrong”, and yes, if enough people get behind an amendment they can say “That is right”.

    Withholding the privilege of marrying from same sex couples arose because the very purpose of marriage is reinforcing the building block of society, NOT making wills, NOT inheritance, NOT tax breaks, NOT any other picayune falderal.

  • Re: “Let’s cut the “Christianist” cr-p, eh?”  

    I would if I could, but being confronted with so much militant Christianism, I can’t. If you want me not to talk about Christianists, then make them stop being Christianists, and stop being one yourself. OK? Otherwise, I can and will talk about them … all I want! … and there’s nothing in the universe that can ever possibly make me stop. Your deity included.  

    Re: “He’s a Catholic priest, a member of the Jesuit order.”  

    So what? Am I supposed to pin a medal on him, or something?  

    Re: “This kerfuffle is an internecine Catholic one.”  

    … based on some Catholics’ Christianist animus against LGBTs. Yeah, I already know that. Tell me something I don’t know. OK?  

    Re: “Call it what you will, morality requires making distinctions …”  

    Go ahead, make all the distinctions you want. Just don’t use those distinctions to order other people around and justify marginalizing groups you subjectively dislike.  

    Re: … and alleging it ‘the position makes no sense without the presence of some degree of hatred’ ‘makes no sense without the presence of some degree of hatred’.”  

    Er, uh … what? This is gibberish.  

  • What he wrote was “We will not be intimidated into denying the sacred teachings of our faith and saying that a sin is not a sin.”

    Nothing about a bridge.

  • “I would if I could, but being confronted with so much militant Christianism, I can’t.”

    If you’re saying you’re not responsible for yourself, based on experience I would tend to agree.

    “If you want me not to talk about Christianists, then make them stop being Christianists, and stop being one yourself. OK?”

    No.

    “Otherwise, I can and will talk about them … all I want! … and there’s nothing in the universe that can ever possibly make me stop.”

    It’s interesting to see how a juvenile who suffered from oppositional/defiant disorder presents as an adult.

    “So what? Am I supposed to pin a medal on him, or something? “

    No, but for a change it would be swell if your comments accurately reflected both the article and the posts on it.

    Making distinctions in formulating laws is what is done.

    “Er, uh … what? This is gibberish.”

    Try again, sport.

  • Re: “If you’re saying you’re not responsible for yourself, based on experience I would tend to agree.”  

    How am I responsible for the existence of Christianism? Do you even know what you’re talking about?  

    Re: “It’s interesting to see how a juvenile who suffered from oppositional/defiant disorder presents as an adult.”  

    It’s interesting how you couldn’t get even the simplest point, which is that you have no say in what words I choose to use.  

    Re: “No, but for a change it would be swell if your comments accurately reflected both the article and the posts on it.”  

    It did. I can’t help it if you can’t understand what I say … or worse, you purposely misinterpret it.  

    Re: “Try again, sport.”  

    You first. Try it in English … or barring that, some other language I happen to know. Since you’re Catholic, I suggest Latin.  

  • I’m not going to repeat myself. You’re obviously not following what has been said here and are looking for ways to rationalize your sanctimony. Have fun being self-righteous … but don’t lie about what other people, including both myself and your BFF, said or didn’t say. Most Christians believe lying about others to be un-Christian.  

  • A lot of those fears seem overblown and created to scare people. Regardless of whether you find same-sex sexual conduct to be sinful, your HR department may require you to take a course on how not to discriminate. If there’s documentary evidence that somehow employees are being “forced” to “affirm” LGBT individuals, it could be produced. Where is it?

  • My understanding is that this refers to the second secret of Fatima, i.e., the visions and secrets allegedly given by Mary to the three Portuguese schoolchildren during their vision at Fatima in 1917. I can certainly understand why an Orthodox priest would find that offensive. edited to add: Fatima-related beliefs appear to be a major emphasis for the group that organized this protest.

  • I’ve read the exchange.

    So have you, which is why you have not presented a quotation in which “He said the folk who protested Fr Martin’s effort to ‘bridge’ were correct”.

    His argument, and the protestors’ as well, is with James Martin’s clumsy attempt to present LBGT behavior as a morally acceptable alternative.

  • No one suggested you were “responsible” for the existence of “Christianism”.

    What you were told is that YOU are responsible, and no one else is, for what you post.

  • You’re obviously trying to scare ppl with your devil (boogyman) and God (Santa Claus) tactics. Like I said. Easy manipulation for the gullible when you don’t have to provide proof. Millenniums passed, and you’ve yet to provide a single shred of evidence, even with all our advancements. Yet, people worldwide have debunked your belief, very efficiently. Can’t provide proof for something that doesn’t exist. If you can prove leprechauns, gold at the end of the rainbow, unicorns, fairy’s, little green men in the moon, (etc etc) exist; then maybe I’ll cater to your game. Otherwise, quit wasting ppls time with your crazed rambling.

    Like I said, your ability to do research before replying shows how inept you are. Nothing you say bears any weight. A fool trying to lower everyone else to your low standards.

  • So, you are accepting someone’s opinion when the Jewish have always been against homosexuality.

  • The therefore would indicate that this had a cause – not worshiping God. Different than sexual orientation. But a further clue as to the value meaning of unnatural is also found when Paul writes contrary to nature in describing something else.

  • Re: “No one suggested you were ‘responsible’ for the existence of ‘Christianism’.”  

    Actually, you did. You’d know that if you were able to keep track of the asinine bilge you keep posting here.  

    Re: “What you were told is that YOU are responsible, and no one else is, for what you post.”  

    Again … I wouldn’t have to keep posting about Christianists if there were no Christianists for me to post about. Stop being one and I may decide not to use the word any more. Continue, and I will use it just as often as I wish.  

    You do not possess the authority to coerce me to stop using the word “Christianist.” Simple as that.  

    Christianist, Christianist, Christianist, Christianist. There, I just typed it out gratuitously a few more times. Just to tweak you, and force you to notice that you cannot prevent me from using the word.  

  • Re: “His argument, and the protestors’ as well …”  

    So, you admit he agrees with the protesters.  

    QED.  

    It’s been enjoyable explaining to you what someone else said and putting up with your childish sanctimony that I insolently dared do so!  

    Thanks for playing! Run along now and have someone change your diaper.  

  • Congratulations, you addressed everything stated here with a one word term for “abomination.”

    I reiterate; it does not indicate the act of homosexuality as a sin, there are no instances where God condemned the act (it only came from the assertion of another human) and the interpretations were subjective and fallible.

  • “Again … I wouldn’t have to keep posting about Christianists if there were no Christianists for me to post about.”

    Are you on drugs?

  • There are many people who don’t subscribe to your god.. They’re called atheist and other religions.. We don’t go around murdering each other.. Are you saying that without God belief saying not to murder, you Christians would be running around murdering people? Wow, then you really do need god in your life, to save the planet of course…

  • Really? Where? When did Jesus and Paul physically meet in person? Take your time, I’ll wait….

  • I have to admit, there are a lot of idiots out there. But you do not outnumber us. You will find this out for sure in November.

  • The only thing called to’evah in the Torah regarding same-sex sexual conduct is that one particular sex act, not homosexuality or gay people in general.

  • If they do, they’re acting on their own volition.

    The alleged message at Fatima about Russia was apparently aimed at the atheistic regime rather than the Russian Orthodox.

    In addition the word “convert” is problematic.

    From the Catholic perspective Orthodoxy is a schism rather than a heresy.

    The Catholic Church recognizes all of the Orthodox sacraments and its clergy.

    The Fatima adherents have a relatively high level of zanies, so it is difficult to imagine what any particular adherent is thinking.

  • Funny, you call them stupid but haven’t refuted any of them.. You don’t even know what you’re talking about.. Just winging it.. Right?

  • I see you didn’t bother to read the opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___ (2015).

    That’s okay, most of it would have incomprehensible to you.

  • I’ll explain it to you Linda.
    They chose an idol over the real God, so God gave them up to the LUSTS of their hearts and allowed them to dishonour their bodies because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie.
    He called what they do “dishonourable passions” because they exchanged “natural relations” for those “contrary to nature”. They committed “shameless acts”.
    It is very clear.
    What is not mentioned is that Christ will forgive these people of their sin, should they turn to Him,repent and follow Him.

  • Christianists exist. Don’t like it? Then do something about them. It’s your religion. Police it … or don’t. Either way, it’s not my problem. It’s YOURS. Grow up and deal with it already, instead of sniveling at me about it.  

  • You’ve done your usual — get your panties in a wad over something without even being able to follow a discussion and have any comprehension of what you’re supposedly angry about. Waaaah!  

  • I assume it doesn’t bother you that you come off as a fruitcake, a particularly nut-laden one.

    It’s a bit early in the season.

  • It’s interesting in these postings how homosexuality is supposed to be kind and healthy, when so many that approve of it see it as an affront to a powerless God. It is an unnatural way of relating to life and clearly offers a sense of distancing and even turning away from God based on some of the vitriolic comments. Good luck with that.

  • Funny how a Catholic site is being used by secularists to promote homosexuality. I no longer doubt the existance of a homosexual infiltration into the American priesthood as a means of subversion. I used to see it as maybe far fetched or just conspiritorial but not anymore. It is real.

2019 NewsMatch Campaign: This Story Can't Wait! Donate.

ADVERTISEMENTs