Vatican City, Feb 21, 2020 / 04:06 pm (CNA).- Archbishop John Wester of Santa Fe has offered his recollections of a meeting between Pope Francis and the American Southwest, especially as regards a discussion during the meeting of Fr. James Martin, SJ.
CNA reported Feb. 20 that Martin was discussed during a Feb. 10 meeting between the pope and bishops of the USCCB’s Region XIII, who were with the pope as part of their ad limina visit.
Martin, an American Jesuit, is well known for his writing and speaking on LGBT issues and the Church. His work has been a subject of controversy; it is criticized by some bishops and praised by others.
Wester confirmed that Martin and his Sept. 30 visit to the pope had been discussed in the meeting, in a Feb. 21 commentary published by the National Catholic Reporter.
The Santa Fe archbishop, who was appointed to his post in 2015, is one of seven U.S. bishops to have endorsed “Building a Bridge,” Martin’s 2017 book on the Church and homosexuality.
“This courageous work is necessary reading for all who wish to build up the Christian community and to give witness to the Gospel message of inclusion,” Wester wrote of Martin’s book.
In his Feb. 21 commentary, the archbishop indicated that a broader discussion of Martin had taken place than was previously reported. Wester said bishops raised to the pope questions about a recent speech Martin delivered to the presidents of Catholic universities, “and his work in general with the LGBT community.”
The pope’s visit with Martin “was only mentioned in passing and was not the main point of the questions” bishops raised to the pope about Martin, Wester wrote.
The archbishop did not indicate what he saw as the “main point” of the bishops’ questions, nor did he indicate the response of Pope Francis to questions raised about the issues he mentioned.
While it would be “difficult for anyone to remember with precision anything that was said” in such a lengthy meeting, Wester said that he did not recall “the pope saying or implying that he was unhappy with Father Martin or his ministry.”
Regarding the pope’s visit with Martin, one bishop told CNA Feb. 20 that Pope Francis “made his displeasure clear” about the way the meeting was interpreted, and framed by some journalists.
Wester’s commentary confirmed that report. The archbishop added that from his viewpoint, “it was not Father Martin the Pope was talking about, but the way others tried to use that encounter, one way or the other.”
The Archbishop of Santa Fe did take issue with a bishop who told CNA that “the Holy Father’s disposition was very clear, he was most displeased about the whole subject of Fr. Martin and how their encounter had been used. He was very expressive, both his words and his face – his anger was very clear, he felt he’d been used.”
Speaking of that bishop’s description, Wester said “the language subtlety, yet incorrectly, leads the reader to believe that Father Martin was the issue while in fact, it was how others used their meeting that was in play.” Wester said he did not think the pope had been “angry, upset or annoyed.”
In his commentary, Wester disagreed with reports from other bishops that the pope said Martin had received some correction about the way the Sept. 30 visit was framed.
According to Wester, the pope did not say that Martin was given a correction.
“I vaguely remember some mention of people in leadership trying to clarify any misunderstandings about his ministry,” the archbishop wrote, but said he thought that reference had to do with an article written by Martin in America Magazine that, the archbishop said, “detailed the ways in which his ministry was not contrary to Church teaching but in keeping with the Church’s mission and Gospel mandate.”
Martin himself, after Wester’s commentary was published, tweeted that he has “never heard anything negative from Jesuit superiors, nor was I ever given a ‘talking to.’”
The archbishop said he could not recall other aspects of reports about the meeting.
“I believe that I have an obligation to offer my perspective on those matters contained in the CNA article about Father James Martin, SJ, since my understanding of the facts differs from what was reported anonymously,” Wester concluded.
The bishops who spoke with CNA reported that Martin’s work in regards to the LGBT community was also discussed with the heads of numerous Vatican congregations, and that some officials expressed concern about aspects of the priest’s work. Wester did not comment on those reports.
[…]
“The message concluded with papal gratitude for French priests’ ‘courageous and persevering commitment . . .'”
What a difference a month makes!
We read that Pope Leo “..expressed hope that God can ‘renew the marvels he has accomplished in the past’ through these saints’ intercession.”
About renewed marvels and surely relevant in our moment, we have this account about St. John Vianney (Abbe Francis Trochu, “The Cure of Ars: St. John Marie-Baptiste Vianney,” 1927/Tan 1977):
“A number of his parishioners were ignorant of the most elementary notions of the catechism. This was especially true of those who had grown up during the [Sexual!] Revolution–that is, the young men and women between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five [and today, we add the following generation]. It was they who were the chief causes of scandal. Some of them went so far as to boast of their conduct, openly asserting that they saw no harm in their [licentious] dances [and now serial cohabitation and more], their profanation of the Sunday and other disorders. How were these wandering sheep to be brought back to the fold? The new pastor was painfully aware of his helplessness; he did not lose heart, however–God and time would work with him” (p. 117).