The Devilish Cunning of Fr. James Martin

As this “pride” month comes to a close, it is high time we discuss the infamous Fr. James Martin, S.J.

There are so many instances wherein we find Martin promoting the rainbow lifestyle to Catholics that I am sure we can all think of a few. One extremely egregious example comes to mind: namely, when Martin told the world last year that Catholics could celebrate “pride” month. Technically, he is partly correct. Catholics do have the free will necessary to celebrate pride, just like Lucifer had the free will to celebrate pride.

Now, before we continue, I would like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to the good Jesuits, who still exist and should not be lumped in with this wolf in rainbow-colored clothing. As a Canadian, I am eternally grateful to the Society of Jesus for the conversion of so many Canadians, which was made possible by their shedding of blood in the early days of New France. It pains me to think that such an illustrious order could produce a priest like Fr. Martin and still allow him to act publicly as a priest.

Before we consider the negative things that Fr. Martin has done and is still doing, I would like to compliment him on his qualities. Objectively speaking, he is a highly intelligent man, which is not surprising considering the intellectual rigor required to become a Jesuit. He is a craftsman with words; and admittedly, he is, on the natural level, an engaging speaker. I recall hearing one of his talks years ago—before I knew who he was—about the subject of humor and Catholicism, and I remember it being quite entertaining and thoughtful.

The reason I have extended these kind words to Martin is not to blow smoke—insert Canadian wildfires joke—but to show why he is so dangerous.

Fr. Martin has convinced a massive number of Catholics and non-Catholics that the Church accepts homosexuality as a practice and that the traditional teachings of the Church—and natural law—on the subject can be cast aside.

Admittedly, Fr. Martin is cunning, devilishly so, which makes it difficult to say in black-and-white terms that he has clearly and completely expressed a heresy in an unambiguous manner. Admittedly, Fr. Martin is cunning, devilishly so, which makes it difficult to say in black-and-white terms that he has clearly and completely expressed a heresy in an unambiguous manner.Tweet This

Let us consider the following quote from Martin for an example wherein he seems to suggest that homosexuals aren’t really bound by Church teaching and the natural law because they just don’t like the teaching:

To take a theological perspective, a teaching must be “received” by the faithful. It’s a complex topic (and I am no professional theologian) but, in general, for a teaching to be complete it must be appreciated, accepted and understood by the faithful. The tradition is that the faithful possess their own inner sense of the authority of a teaching. That’s the sensus fidei or sensus fidelium…

This has always been part of church teaching. In any event, it seems like the majority of the LGBT Catholic community does not agree with the church’s teaching on same-sex relations: that is, they are impermissible. From what many LGBT people tell me, that particular teaching doesn’t fit with their own experiences as human beings who love and are loved. So that teaching, it seems, has not been “received” by the LGBT community, which is the community most affected by it.

Let’s break this down.

First, he speaks of taking a “theological perspective.” This may seem innocuous, but it is not.

The question of homosexuality is not merely a “theological” one, it is primarily a question of morality and natural law. Without ever even considering the nature of God and the science of God (theology), we can come to the conclusion that male and female are different, and that male & female do things that male & male and female & female simply don’t. This is not merely a “Catholic” position or a “Muslim” position, or even a position. It is a natural, biological, and fundamental reality that is as obvious as breathing air or digesting food.

By suggesting it is a question of theology, Fr. Martin is suggesting that we can compartmentalize the issue into a little box and put it beside another box, without ever having to open the boxes and really see what is inside.

Next, he uses some fancy Latin theological language, which is highly ironic since he says he is not a professional theologian. It should be noted that he is clearly trained in theology, but perhaps he uses a Jesuitical mental reservation to say he is not a “professional” theologian due to the fact that he isn’t paid to be a theologian. By his logic, I guess I am not technically a Catholic author because the Catholic Church doesn’t pay me to write…although I bet there are many in the Church who would like the Church to pay me to stop writing.

Martin’s use of sensus fidei and sensus fidelium is highly misleading, and also highly effective, because of how seemingly correct his statement is. It is true that the faithful have a “Catholic sense” and therefore can distinguish between true and false teaching. But this Catholic sense is not relegated to a small group or a fringe group from the modern era. We say “sense of the faithful” to express what is believed as orthodox at all times and by all—not what is believed by some in a certain period of history. 

By his logic—or anti-logic—Catholic teaching that is not accepted by Catholics isn’t really Catholic teaching, or at least binding Catholic teaching.

Amazing. If we don’t like something the Church teaches, then we can cast it aside and say, “We didn’t receive that one. Please send us another that we like!”

Perhaps Martin may be a closeted—no pun intended, I promise—defender of the Traditional Mass. After all, we “trads” have clearly not “received” the New Mass and the New Springtime. Maybe if we make some sort of multicolored flag that represents the Apostolic Liturgy and the Summa Theologica, Fr. Martin will tell Catholics it’s okay to celebrate “Tridentine Month.”

Actually, that is not a bad idea, considering our parades would be processions, and our mission wouldn’t be to groom kids and send souls to Hell.

One of the most egregious things that Fr. Martin has ever said—and that is saying a lot—is when he referred to the Holy Ghost as “She.”

Now, there have been some theologians in the past who have used feminine descriptors to describe the action of the Holy Ghost in a spiritual sense, this is true; but to refer to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity as a female Person is absurd. Although some languages use a feminine noun as the word for “spirit,” this is not a reference to “femaleness.”

For example, in Italian, if I said, “lei ha uno spirito molto femminile,” I would be saying, “She has a very feminine spirit.” Notice that the word for “spirit” is masculine, but I am describing that spirit as feminine. In no way does this mean the feminine spirit of this hypothetical woman is somehow transgender or two-spirited. On the contrary, it is simply how a grammatical device is used in a particular language based on grammatical convention.

Mary is the spouse of the Holy Ghost, and Christ was conceived by the power of the Holy Ghost. Just like the other Persons of the Holy Trinity, it is proper to refer to the Holy Ghost as “He”; and it is blasphemous for Fr. Martin to have ever imputed some sort of spiritual lesbianism into the nature of the union between Mary and her Heavenly Spouse.

Pray for Fr. Martin; and pray that he be suppressed, once and for all.