He said, "Even if you think I am a sinner, you are supposed to sit next to me." But that’s not what Scripture teaches. If someone is a non-believer, yes, we are called to be with them. However, if someone claims to be a believer yet lives in sin, the Apostle Paul gives a clear instruction against this. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul advises believers not to associate closely with anyone who professes faith but continues in sinful behavior, saying, "Do not even eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11).
The problem with James Martin is simple: he teaches that LGBTQ is fine, whereas the magisterium of the Catholic Church has always taught that to engage in homosexual acts is sinful. It’s even in the Catechism. James Martin contravenes the teaching of the magisterium. That’s not my opinion: you can look at Catholic theologians such as Prof Larry Chapp and Matthew Levering. I am not sure what Martin expects? Of course lots of Catholics are going to be offended by his teaching.
The problem with you is that you cannot distinguish between "being" gay, and "engaging in certain sexual acts". I don't know who you're sleeping with, or whether you are. How on earth would YOU know who else is? "Being gay" is no sin, say, in the same way "being an uneducated fool" is no sin; but acting on that uneducated foolishness by, say, spreading divisiveness and judging others you have no right to judge, could be sinful, right?
@@gerardmcgorian7070To be fair he never mentioned the word "gay" once. You did. Better to address his comments in an educated ,less emotive way might be helpful
@@gerardmcgorian7070 But I do distinguish between same-sex attraction and homosexual acts (as I said in my comment). And, moreover, you missed the point of my comment: the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that homosexual acts are sinful and so it's inevitable that lots of Catholics will oppose Fr James Martin. I haven't even expressed my views on homosexuality. And, yes, you are correct that same-sex attraction is not a sin, just as opposite-sex attraction is not a sin.
@@bayreuth79 You're clinging to "what the Church has always taught" (and it has taught absolutely NO such thing as you're claiming it "always" has:, cf. John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (1980), "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (1994) ), so you're simply dead wrong on your "scholarship"), and the "Magisterium", for security, is what many theologians call "infantilism"; I'm assuming you're baptized and confirmed; try thinking for yourself. If your well-formed conscience tells you, truly, that you are called to concentrate on other people's sex lives, so be it. My question is quite simply, WHY are you so interested in the sex lives of other people?
A classic defensive move exhibited here….paraphrase: the problem is really you…you’re probably gay yourself and just can’t admit it…🙄 Also incorporating inaccurate use of the word homophobic…no fear of it in the folks I talk to, just disagreement with the lifestyle and the unapologetic promoting of this especially to young adults and children….media saturation and cancel culture responses to anyone who believes differently…but the gay community is all about tolerance right…sure they are.
Ever think that maybe the reason you've gotten pushback is because of your passive-aggressive attitude towards us? Think about the centuries we've been persecuted for who we are. Then we get maybe just a sliver of affinity and respect towards us and it's "over the top". I don't think it is. There are still places across the world that will k!ll you just for having an attraction towards the same sex. I mean, are we wrong for noticing a pattern that the most homophobic among us happen to be in the closet themselves. Anti LGBT lawmakers decrying gay people then a month later getting caught in a broom closet with a gay man. Every.Single. time. The right always rattles on about being nooticers. Well, we recognize the patterns as well.
What puzzles me is why is a priest flag bearing on a single issue such as this. There are much bigger issues to be attending to that I believe are causing havoc: decline of marriage and family, divorce rates, decline in yhe birthrate, huge mental health issues in the young, loneliness, negative impacts of technology on society, massive use of pornography, decline of community, overrall crisis of meaning in modernity. For him to declare that anybody who disagrees with him is a closet gay is an outrageous statement and he should have been challenged on that.
"Islamic Homosexualities", Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, 19917, NYU Press. And you're as "dead wrong" about Islam, as my friend up there is about Catholicism. The Convivencia period in Spain is FULL of Islamic gay poetry.
Andalusian and Turkish Muslim leaders literally had male harems. Today, boy prostitution is practiced in Muslim countries in Central Asia. Islam has had its fair share of homosexuality.
He said, "Even if you think I am a sinner, you are supposed to sit next to me." But that’s not what Scripture teaches. If someone is a non-believer, yes, we are called to be with them. However, if someone claims to be a believer yet lives in sin, the Apostle Paul gives a clear instruction against this. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul advises believers not to associate closely with anyone who professes faith but continues in sinful behavior, saying, "Do not even eat with such a person" (1 Cor 5:11).
The problem with James Martin is simple: he teaches that LGBTQ is fine, whereas the magisterium of the Catholic Church has always taught that to engage in homosexual acts is sinful. It’s even in the Catechism. James Martin contravenes the teaching of the magisterium. That’s not my opinion: you can look at Catholic theologians such as Prof Larry Chapp and Matthew Levering. I am not sure what Martin expects? Of course lots of Catholics are going to be offended by his teaching.
The problem with you is that you cannot distinguish between "being" gay, and "engaging in certain sexual acts". I don't know who you're sleeping with, or whether you are. How on earth would YOU know who else is? "Being gay" is no sin, say, in the same way "being an uneducated fool" is no sin; but acting on that uneducated foolishness by, say, spreading divisiveness and judging others you have no right to judge, could be sinful, right?
@@gerardmcgorian7070To be fair he never mentioned the word "gay" once. You did. Better to address his comments in an educated ,less emotive way might be helpful
@@gerardmcgorian7070 But I do distinguish between same-sex attraction and homosexual acts (as I said in my comment). And, moreover, you missed the point of my comment: the Roman Catholic Church has always taught that homosexual acts are sinful and so it's inevitable that lots of Catholics will oppose Fr James Martin. I haven't even expressed my views on homosexuality. And, yes, you are correct that same-sex attraction is not a sin, just as opposite-sex attraction is not a sin.
@@bayreuth79 You're clinging to "what the Church has always taught" (and it has taught absolutely NO such thing as you're claiming it "always" has:, cf. John Boswell, "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality" (1980), "Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe" (1994) ), so you're simply dead wrong on your "scholarship"), and the "Magisterium", for security, is what many theologians call "infantilism"; I'm assuming you're baptized and confirmed; try thinking for yourself. If your well-formed conscience tells you, truly, that you are called to concentrate on other people's sex lives, so be it. My question is quite simply, WHY are you so interested in the sex lives of other people?
@@daddycool228 So "homosexual" acts, as he calls then, aren't "gay"?
A classic defensive move exhibited here….paraphrase: the problem is really you…you’re probably gay yourself and just can’t admit it…🙄 Also incorporating inaccurate use of the word homophobic…no fear of it in the folks I talk to, just disagreement with the lifestyle and the unapologetic promoting of this especially to young adults and children….media saturation and cancel culture responses to anyone who believes differently…but the gay community is all about tolerance right…sure they are.
Ever think that maybe the reason you've gotten pushback is because of your passive-aggressive attitude towards us? Think about the centuries we've been persecuted for who we are. Then we get maybe just a sliver of affinity and respect towards us and it's "over the top". I don't think it is. There are still places across the world that will k!ll you just for having an attraction towards the same sex.
I mean, are we wrong for noticing a pattern that the most homophobic among us happen to be in the closet themselves. Anti LGBT lawmakers decrying gay people then a month later getting caught in a broom closet with a gay man. Every.Single. time. The right always rattles on about being nooticers. Well, we recognize the patterns as well.
What puzzles me is why is a priest flag bearing on a single issue such as this. There are much bigger issues to be attending to that I believe are causing havoc: decline of marriage and family, divorce rates, decline in yhe birthrate, huge mental health issues in the young, loneliness, negative impacts of technology on society, massive use of pornography, decline of community, overrall crisis of meaning in modernity. For him to declare that anybody who disagrees with him is a closet gay is an outrageous statement and he should have been challenged on that.
He is the biggest Queen ever but has he come out?
Islam will never bow down to Rainbow movement, unlike Christianity. Period!
"Islamic Homosexualities", Stephen O. Murray and Will Roscoe, 19917, NYU Press. And you're as "dead wrong" about Islam, as my friend up there is about Catholicism. The Convivencia period in Spain is FULL of Islamic gay poetry.
@@gerardmcgorian7070
None of what you said makes gay stuff Islamic. Muslims doing gay stuff, racism, financial fraud is not Islamic.
Andalusian and Turkish Muslim leaders literally had male harems. Today, boy prostitution is practiced in Muslim countries in Central Asia. Islam has had its fair share of homosexuality.