Crazy? Angry? You decide and I couldn’t care less!

LGBT=Ultimate Reduction of Person to Inclination

Here’s the most fantastical and smarmy effort at “I know you are but what am I?” I’ve ever seen. It’s pure fiction! Do people actually fall for this? Please read JD Flynn’s call out of Fr. Martin and judge for yourself.  JD did a great job pointing out Fr. Martin’s ever present attempt to tie people to their sexual inclinations. It’s his shtick and he’s made a mint doing it. (Yes, yes, he’ll tell you that he took a vow of poverty. Sorry, he ain’t sleeping on a floor and eating at McDonald’s in between Met Galas and movie premieres.)


I will point out something I’ve learned. When Fr. Martin sends out multi-tweets like this, it shows he has gone into defensive mode because somebody exposed him. Let’s look at them. I snipped the link to his ridiculous talk because it should be ignored by all anyway.

Let’s look at his fanciful text rant piece by piece, shall we?

However, this article does what it says it wants to avoid: reducing LGBT people to their sexual desires.”

Dude! You do this EVERY TIME you use the LGBT acronym. It is the ultimate reduction of a person to a disordered inclination. It’s akin to calling someone a Fat Catholic, Porn Catholic, Lazy Catholic, or Alcoholic Catholic. Catholics with a shred of love don’t do this. Christ never did this. Why do you? Despite the accusations in your tweet, JD Flynn didn’t even mention chastity by name. He’s calling you out for not teaching the fullness of the Faith, which you, yourself, have admitted you do not do.

“The “fullness” of Church teaching on LGBT people is not simply the teachings on chastity and celibacy (which I am not challenging).

Well, first of all, you leave those teachings out all the time. And, hello, let’s try a little truth for once. You challenge them all the time. I really need to bookmark this page, because it’s a nice, concise list of the times Fr. Martin challenged Church teaching on this issue.

Next, chastity and celibacy (the first of which you never give a clear definition of your understanding) are a HUGE part of teaching on people suffering with same-sex attraction. It is there to protect the dignity of the person and to help them gain everlasting life with God. How you can so easily write this off is beyond me? Don’t talk to me about the dignity of the person when you seem to have your own private catechism on the issue or, at best, are trying to completely misrepresent the actual Catechism.

Let me show the mental gymnastics that James Martin, SJ, goes through to remove chastity from the obligation from those suffering with same-sex attraction. If you want to hear him in his own words, go here, but I will distill it down for you. 

For a teaching to be really authoritative, it is expected that it will be received by the people of God, by the faithful. So you look at something like say, the Assumption. So the Assumption is declared and people accept that. They go to the feast of the Assumption, they believe in the Assumption, it’s received.


The teaching that LGBT people must be celibate their entire lives, has not been received.

First of all, how can James Martin, SJ, say with a straight face he doesn’t challenge Church teaching? It’s really incredible. He’s saying that the teaching is not binding because people don’t receive it. Uh, where does it say that in the Catechism??? Is, say, murder not a sin because it’s not received by a person??? Same logic, but he won’t like that reference. In fact, the sections on conscience, which he mentions later, say just the opposite. Of course, he also tries to lead people astray in the “primacy of conscience” area, too. He has to, but that’s another story that goes hand in hand with this one.

Rather, the fullness of church teaching on LGBT people is found in the mystery and person of Jesus Christ, and in his teachings of love, mercy and compassion, especially for those people who felt on the margins of society.

Blah, blah, blah, what does this mean? Fr. Martin, I’ve never actually heard to you deliver the fullness of Church teaching (maybe that lower case “c” in your tweet is appropriate) on the issue (or probably any issue). Literally never. In fact, you’ve stated that you purposely don’t talk about “chastity and celibacy” because they’ve already heard that a bunch.

LGBT lives are more than their sexual desires.

Then stop calling them by their sexual inclination! You’re the one doing this every day. 

LGBT people lead rich lives, participating in the lives of their parishes, loving their friends, caring for the poor, looking after aging parents, and so on. They also still suffer great discrimination, especially within the church.

And here we go into victim status, as usual. Is there really anyone who doesn’t suffer from some sort of discrimination? What Fr. Martin constantly puts forth as examples, people being fired, removed from their ministry, etc., isn’t discrimination of the person. It’s discrimination of the lifestyle they are living. Fr. Martin always wants to say that those suffering with same-sex attraction are simply being singled out for being who they are. Sorry, not letting that stand. What he wants to do is single out an immoral lifestyle with the goal of trying to confuse people on the difference between public and/or obvious sin and private sin. “Why aren’t they firing the divorced and remarried? Those using birth control? Etc.” First of all, you cannot look at a heterosexual couple’s wedding picture on Facebook and know if they are divorced and remarried, using birth control, etc.  If they decide to make this public, I’m totally fine with firing them (we’re talking Catholic school teachers here – you know, people who are supposed to be transmitting the Faith). It would be scandalous to do otherwise. If they chose to keep these sins hidden, though, there is no scandal caused. Why would you fire them? 

But, if two guys or two girls post their wedding picture, they’ve just blasted their sin. It’s really not that confusing, but Fr. Martin confounds away!

So the question is: How can we treat them with the love, mercy and compassion that Jesus showed for people on the margins? And in this case: How can Catholic colleges and universities show them welcome and respect?

Uh, I think JD Flynn actually covered this, but maybe you didn’t give it a good read. Let me help. You tell them the truth. You teach them about the freedom that only Christ’s teaching can give. You don’t offer them a stone or snake when they ask for bread or fish.  You love them. You encourage them. You struggle with them to follow Christ’s teachings.

35 thoughts on “LGBT=Ultimate Reduction of Person to Inclination”

  1. I’m going to quote (briefly) an article I wrote in full, because it fits in a combox and I think counters Fr. JM, SJ succinctly.

    When we talk about “Love the sinner, hate the sin”, what we really mean is this:

    -I hate sin, therefore I repent of it.
    -I love the sinner, therefore I wish them to repent of their sins.
    -I wish them to repent of their sins using the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
    -The Sacrament of Reconciliation requires an Act of Contrition.
    -The Act of Contrition closes with: “I firmly resolve, with the help of Thy grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life.”

    I love the sinner, therefore I wish for them to amend their lives.

    1. Last year I saw a bumper sticker that read: “Jesus loves: prostitutes, thieves, drug addicts, murderers, homosexuals, etc. Which one are you?” Of course the decal completely agreed with the “love the sinner, hate the sin” catchphrase I was raised to believe, but it made me wonder, is it true? I started looking into it, and I could not find anything outside of modern parlance that suggests we should or must love the sinner. Love our neighbor? Yes. However, Psalm 5 states that God hates evildoers and abhors the man of blood and deceit. In the Divine Intimacy, we read, “the virtue of fraternal charity is not love of the creature in itself and for itself, but it is love of the creature ‘propter Deum,’ that is, for God’s sake, because of its relation to God.” I think when we started believing we must love the “sinner,” we started defining people by their sin—not just LGBT—and thus the bumper sticker. If you doubt what I am writing, try repeating this: “I love the child rapist.” I can’t do it, because I know he deserves to have a millstone wrapped around his foul neck and drowned inside a sack while vile creatures claw his body to pieces (this was the actual Roman punishment). I love my neighbor because he is a reflection of the lovableness of God. Anything that is not God (sin), is not lovable. We are all sinners, but that is not why we should be loved. Love the sinner just does not make sense and appears, to me, to be contrary to God. If He hates evildoers, should not we?

      1. Maybe you’re going exactly what we are stating you should not do. We do not identify people as their sins. We should hate the evil we do and we should pray as Christ did. “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” The rest is God’s determination. Us? We are every hopeful for conversion of heart and overcoming sin. I’m sure you don’t consider youself soldieron (name your sin).

        1. I don’t disagree with your reply, but I was responding to the often used “love the sinner, hate the sin” mantra of the previous post. Since it was brought up in the comments, I wondered if anyone could tell me where it originated, because I can’t find it. I identify other people I encounter as my neighbor (Our Lord’s term), not as a rapist, adulterer, usurer, thief, liar, homosexual or whatever sin he has committed, because I prefer not to define him by his sin. You rightly point out that homosexuals should not be called by their sexual inclination in response to Martin’s “LGBT lives are more than their sexual desires.” I assume that is because doing so defines a person by his sin. So, to say I love the homosexual means I love the sin, but if I say I love the man who suffers from this inclination does not tie my love to his sin. This is why I am struggling with “love the sinner, hate the sin.” Of course we are all sinners, but I don’t love that. Is it possible the lack of distaste for being identified by one’s sin by homosexuals is connected to this motto? How does this saying not conflict with Psalm 5 and other passages in the Bible where God clearly hates the sinner? Perhaps what I really wonder is if this is not a Protestant incursion into Catholicism. Finally, I believe the only place where we will be defined by our sin is Hell.

  2. Martin lies all the time. What do you do with a Catholic priest that refuses to accept Catholic teaching? Martin will never accept Catholic teaching. He is a slithering beast, lying non stop all the time. He should be excommunicated, not made a consultant to the Vatican. Francis has elevated all the very worst priests in the world and told them they are right. The pope is responsible.

    1. What breaks my heart is the false hope he gives to those with loved ones living active SSA lifestyles by telling them to be patient until the Church changes to accept them. One of our local parishes recently held a Q & A Skype call with Fr. Martin as a follow up to their parish-sponsored reading of his bridges book. Most of the people in attendance, several my personal friends, are family members of SSA individuals. My friends came away giddy with the excitement of meeting a “celebrity” who shared such “good news” with them. Just be patient… Fr. Martin also indirectly told them that unless all sins – hidden and public – are called out, then no sins should be called out. He issued a no instruction to live a chaste life regardless of what your attractions are. He also told them he is very careful not to contradict church teaching so he doesn’t get himself into trouble.

      1. Yep. He can say he never challenges church teaching (even though when he says that I always think it seems so “wink wink nudge nudge”) but he certainly does not celebrate or at the very least even share what the church teaches and why. He just doesn’t believe it, it would seem. Does anyone actually believe him that when he says he is careful not to openly contradict church teaching that he is actually a person who cares what the Church teaches in the first place?? It’s just too transparent.

    2. Teach acceptance

      Dekbert, I’m curious if you support Trump? He lies all the time, too, yet so many evangelicals and Catholics support him.

        1. Teach acceptance

          So Trump’s lies are okay as long as he says the one thing you want to hear. Ok, makes total sense.

      1. If Trump continues to defend our unborn sisters and brothers, our religious rights and guards our consciences from being forced to do things we believe immoral then yes, I also will vote for Trump. We’ve been this route before TA and it’s always the same argument from you. Martin knows Church teaching and skips around it while giving people hope that active SSA is okay with God. I for one will not be blinded by someone of the likes of Martin, nor will I refuse to see the good that Trump has done for the unborn despite his being a sinner like me, you and everyone else. He is not a leader of the Church but he is the defender of the Constitution which safe guards our Religious freedom and Life in this temporal world. Martin on the other hand is playing with eternal souls on the field of eternity.

        1. Teach acceptance

          Bob, no one is forcing you to have an abortion. No one is forcing anyone to have an abortion. It’s a woman’s right to choose. To avoid a woman’s need to choose, how about we put all unmarried men on contraception so the issue doesn’t even come up or make sex outside of marriage and outside of a woman’s fertile time, illegal and punishable with imprisonment. Let’s take their choice away for a while. Bet Trump would change his tune pretty quickly back to what it was.

          1. Thanks for bringing out the old and tired ‘if you don’t like abortion don’t have one’ argument. How about if you don’t like slavery don’t own a slave? Or if you don’t like wife-beating don’t beat your wife? Really, this is one of the dumbest pro-abortion arguments ever.

            I don’t know if you’re Catholic, but sex outside of marriage IS against the rules and unrepented IS punishable by God’s law. So is abortion. And why do you keep bringing up Trump? This article is about a Catholic priest who continues to deceive people into thinking the sin of sodomy is not really a sin. This has nothing to do with the POTUS or politics. Is your Trump Derangement Syndrome so deep that you can’t get stop thinking or talking about him?

            1. TA is not a rational or intellectually honest interlocutor. Some people live to muckrake on the internet and that’s what we’re dealing with.

              Supposing for a moment that TA were a reasonable counterpart, I would summarize their assertions so far, thus:

              1- All lies are equal, and one person who lies should be reviled as much as another person who lies.
              2- When someone has been accused of lying, they are a liar, whether it is actually a lie or not.
              3- Anyone who opposes one liar but not another is a hypocrite.
              4- Abortion is a form of contraception
              5- Abortion is a choice.

              I’m going to take each of these in turn just because I feel like being argumentative.

              1- All lies are equal.

              Said another way, this can be stated as everything that isn’t true is a lie. So If I was ignorant of geography and I called a small germanic nation in the middle of europe “Australia”, I would be a liar by this rubric.

              The fact of the matter is that things that are not true fall into a number of categories.
              A) Malicious Lies, intended to deceive or achieve some aim through that deception.
              B) White Lies, intended to soften some bad news (“I was really busy at work I can’t make it” is a white lie if you really just don’t want to go to someone’s party)
              C) Factual Inaccuracies, like the australia/austria example
              D) Lies of Omission, where everything explicitly stated is true but the important (and usually controversial) information is intentionally withheld. This is a similar kind as (A).

              The second part of #1 is that all liars are equal. This is demonstrably false, because we can categorize these different untruths by subject and intent. Someone who is ignorant can be forgiven for not knowing the location of austria and australia. Someone who is malicious would be committing a serious offense if they sold you plane tickets the European nation of Australia as a scam. These are obviously different situations. If TA cannot distinguish between the different kinds of untruths, then there are plenty of resources for education.

              2- When someone has been accused of lying, they are a liar, whether it is a lie or not.

              TA says “I’m curious if you support Trump? He lies all the time, too”. This is not actually true, there’s no data to support it. But someone once called him a liar and TA is repeating it because the accusation makes it as good as true. American jurisprudence uses “innocent until proven guilty”–claims ought to be researched, and claims repeated without being researched risk falling under C) Factual Inaccuracies. If they are repeated in the knowledge that they are inaccurate, it is likely they are A) Malicious lies.

              TA, your claim that Trump is a liar is not true. Which kind of untruth is it?

              3- Anyone who opposes one liar but not another is a hypocrite.

              This is clearly false equivalency. We can clearly distinguish types of untruths in #1, and we can distinguish types of liars given by #2. So opposition to one person but not another is not in any way equivalent, if the kinds of untruth are different. And because TA has claimed Trump is a liar, which is itself a lie, ought we oppose TA vigorously even though I charitably believe that is simply a factual inaccuracy.

              4- Abortion is a form of contraception.

              This is a complete nonsequitur from the other comments but lets take it seriously for a second.

              Abortion is not a form of contraception. Contra = Against, ception = abbreviated “conception”, so contraception means “against conception”.

              When people get an abortion it is because a baby has already been conceived. This is after the conception has already happened. So, TA, when you claim “putting all unmarried men on contraception” is equivalent to outlawing abortion, you are equating contraception and abortion. Both are fundamentally immoral, but one prevents conception and one removes conception. Was this just a factual innacuracy or were you lying?

              5- Abortion is a choice

              Yes, it’s a choice a woman makes to murder a baby. Though for the sake of inclusivity, we should really ask the baby’s opinion too. By the time we can get their opinion they’ll have already been born.

              Abortion ought not be a choice. When a pregnant woman is murdered, it’s a double homicide. When a pregnant woman aborts her baby, that’s a choice? That logic doesn’t make sense.

              QED. TA, If you can offer a reasoned response I would be happy to discuss this further. I hope you see the fallacious nature of your arguments here.


          2. “and guards our consciences from being forced to do things we believe immoral”. It is in forcing physicians in performing abortions, forcing nurses to assist them, forcing Christians to participate to help celebrate SS ‘marriage’ by baking them cakes, photographing their celebration when it is obviously against Christians’ conscience. Oh, I know I do not have to have anything to do with abortions but I do when I have to pay insurance premiums that will pay for abortions or have the tax payer pay for them because my taxes goes to infernal groups like PP. Not forced?? Think again.

            And no one is forcing anyone to commit murder yet we have laws against murder. Why? Why have laws against murder? If someone wants to murder another person so what? You don’t like it? Then don’t do it. Right TA.

            There are laws against murder because murder is the wrongful taking of an innocent life. A life created by God, a human life with an immortal soul. No, I am not forced to have an abortion but I will defend an unborn human life from being murdered when ever and where ever I can. I would hope that people have just a little compassion left in their heart where they see that a human life, an innocent human life is not simply refuse to be thrown away.

            Name me anything that an unborn little baby has done that makes it deserving of death? It is alive and in the way. That’s all. Boy, is THAT deserving of death or what huh?

        2. Teach Acceptance

          Bob, Trump is just buying your vote by saying he wants to repeal Roe v Wade. He actually doesn’t care. He just cares about grabbing women by the pussy because, you know, you can do that when you are a celebrity. Do you honestly think he has gone to a priest or any religious person and confessed? You are all a bunch of hypocrites.

          1. You seem to think repealling Roe vs. Wade does anything more than throw it back to the states. It’s one state at a time and MANY lives have been saved simply by the Trump administration not penalizing or suing states who have passed restrictive laws or banned abortion.

  3. So according to Martin, a Church teaching is authoritative only if it’s received by the faithful. Let’s see, the majority of Catholic don’t believe in the Real Presence or attend mass regularly on Sundays. I guess Martin thinks these teachings aren’t authoritative either. How many souls must this imposter lead to hell before he’s laicized?

  4. In writing, ALWAYS use quotation marks with “transgender” to signify that it is a faux term since nobody can change their genders. Also, there is no “transgenderism,” and nobody has ever “transitioned” from one gender to another one, so quotation marks should be used for these terms as well. In conversation, be sure to make it clear that the faux terms are not accepted and won’t be acknowledged for the same reason. Don’t ever give in on this, even for so-called politeness reasons.

    Many years ago the late, great Reverend William Smith frequently advised that “all social engineering is preceded by verbal engineering.” The more we give in to the use of such malevolent and false terminology (no matter how many doctors, psychologists, church leaders, and so on believe otherwise), the more we help to normalize the abuse of properly recognizing God’s creative order of male and female.

    LGB”T” should also be so designated. The L, G, and B do not require such modifiers because they do not refer to non-existent beings. There are individuals who can be classified as lesbian, gay as a synonym for a homosexual male or lesbian female, and bisexual as a person who engages in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, desires, and so on. But again, the “T” is not a real category and should never be treated as such in any way.

    1. I disagree. By your standard L,G, and B would require quotes since they also refer to “non-existent beings.” L, G, and B refer to sinful sexual inclinations no different than bestiality and pedophilia. The inclination is a spiritual disease similar to a celiac and hemophiliac having a physical disease. I do not put them in quotes. God made them male and female…there are no other human beings and no other categories.

      1. Incorrect, and apples and oranges. Categories can be used for many things so long as they are accurate and reflect reality. So for instance we have Catholics and Protestants, and it would be silly to claim otherwise because God made them male and female so there are no other categories. The standard I set forth is based on reality. Here’s the key:

        LGB”T” should also be so designated. The L, G, and B do not require such modifiers because they do not refer to non-existent beings. There are individuals who can be classified as lesbian, gay as a synonym for a homosexual male or lesbian female, and bisexual as a person who engages in both heterosexual and homosexual activities, desires, and so on. But again, the “T” is not a real category and should never be treated as such in any way.

        Happy to disabuse you of your faulty notions.

        1. The word “gay” should never be used to describe a person who
          chooses to engage in homosexual behavior. A person who chooses to engage in homosexual behavior is simply a person who chooses to engage in homosexual behavior. (Nor should the word “gay” be used to describe a person who has deep-seated homosexual tendencies but refuses to engage in homosexual behavior.)

          If persons who kill unborn babies were to want to be called the “happies”, we should not call them the “happies”. If persons who produce child pornography were to want to be called the “joys”, we should not call them the “joys”.

  5. It’s ironic that the author thinks nothing categorizing LGBT people as “suffering” but doesn’t want them to use the identity as one characteristic of who they are for any other purpose. Being LGBT is not considered a disease by any mainstream medical association and few LGBT people would consider themselves to be “suffering” from their orientation. Nor does identifying as such negate the many ways we identify ourselves by religion, race, ethnic background, sex, political party, etc. We are many things. Among those things, we have a sexual orientation. I also find it amusing that the author thinks it’s ok to hire hypocrites to be Catholic school teachers but not people who are honest. What’s more, sexual orientation is one form of identification separate and independent from behavior. One can be LGBT and celibate. An L or G couple may be chaste, as are some heterosexual couples. Singling out L or G teachers who make no mention of whether or not they are sexually active is an extraordinary form discrimination that divorced and remarried heterosexual teachers or heterosexual couples who use contraception do not face because, wink, wink, they don’t explicitly say anything about it. There is a clear double standard.

    1. Many errors here:
      LGBT people don’t use LGBT as “one characteristic of who they are,” but define themselves entirely by this characteristic. Heterosexuals don’t do this. Why do they?
      What mainstream medical associations think is or is not a spiritual disease is irrelevant. Few sinners today recognize sin, and even less realize the suffering inflicted upon their souls.
      No, we do not have a “sexual orientation” since there is only one—heterosexual. All others are sin. Call it sinful orientation.
      I am certain the author does not “think it’s OK to hire hypocrites to be Catholic school teachers.” Non-Sequitur.
      Sexual orientation is NOT separate and independent from behavior. It is defined by behavior.
      If you are identifying yourself as L or G, you are proudly supporting sinful behavior in front of children and deserve to be fired. Imagine a teacher walking around declaring he is a rapist or a racist.

      If you are going to publicly declare your sin (whether you are acting on it or not), then you should be fired. Perhaps the bigger question is why LGBT get jobs in Catholic schools knowing Catholic teaching on the matter.

      1. In order to force Catholics to change their beliefs and they know it will create a sensation in the media who will side with LGBT. Same reason they look for Christian bakers and photographers knowing it will also cause the media and it’s influence to side with the LGBT. LGBT won’t admit it but they need their life style to be accepted and approved by the Church hierarchy because that is the only way they they think they will get the majority of the faithful to accept LGBT lifestyle. You can see it happening today in some of our bishops and priests.

    2. If a Catholic school teacher experiencing same sex attraction enters into a marriage (or frankly, even into an engagement to be married) with a member of the same sex, he would publicly be indicating his dissent from Catholic teaching on marriage, one of the seven sacraments of the Church. He’s literally saying, “I disagree with the Church on what constitutes a marriage and will make that statement in the most public way possible.” That’s a big deal considering the Church teaches that Jesus Himself gave all seven of the sacraments to us personally. All Catholic Church employees are routinely required to sign employment agreements that they will accurately hand on the faith and live it out in their own lives as models to others. The situation I describe above is a direct violation of that. You can’t hand on the Church’s teaching on marriage if you yourself are living in direct contradiction to that very teaching.

      So, if I were the dean of said school, I might congratulate the teacher on his honesty and willingness to follow his convictions, but I would also end his employment with the school for violating his employment agreement to accurately hand on the faith and live it out in his life.

      Likewise, if a teacher was publicly found to be using contraception or engaging in an adulterous relationship (such as being divorced and taking up with another person who was not his wife), that teacher would and should receive the same fate. In the first example, the teacher is flouting the Church’s teaching on being open to life. In the second, he is flouting the Church’s teaching on marriage, exactly like the same-sex attracted teacher in the first paragraph. The difference is that there is generally not a way of knowing publicly that a person is using contraception. There’s no public record of it or public statement made to that effect. Of course, there have been teachers who did get in trouble for this, including one who was publicly promoting Planned Parenthood, contraception and abortion on Facebook. She lost her job. She may or may not have been using contraception herself but she was certainly publicly dissenting from the teachings of the Church.

      It would be public knowledge, though, for the adulterous teacher if he was found to have civilly married his new “wife”. The situation would be the same as the same-sex attracted teacher example in the first paragraph and the result would be the same, too — loss of employment at that school.

      There is no contradiction or double standard here.

  6. What Fr Martin and his LGBT fans have demonstrated is how one moves from breaking the 6th commandment to breaking the 1st commandment. When your sexual inclinations become what defines you as a person, you have a much bigger problem than sex, you have a problem with idolatry.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: