Editor’s note: The following essay was penned by a participant in the Catholic apostolate of Courage.
Author’s note: I did not read the official response by Courage International before writing this essay, and thus arrived at the word “calumny” independently.
————-
On May 5, 2026, the General Secretariat of the Synod of Bishops published the Final Report of Study Group 9, entitled “Theological Criteria and Synodal Methodologies for Shared Discernment of Emerging Doctrinal, Pastoral, and Ethical Issues,” together with two appended personal testimonies from men living in same-sex civil marriages.
The report is not magisterial teaching, but a document published under Vatican auspices, invoking the authority of synodal discernment and lived experience, is not without consequence. It deserves a careful answer.
What the Report Gets Right: Genuine Pastoral Concern for Human Dignity
Any fair critique of the Final Report of Study Group 9 should begin by acknowledging its genuine pastoral impulses. The document returns repeatedly, and sincerely, to the dignity of persons with same-sex attraction and the Church’s obligation not merely to tolerate but to genuinely accompany them. It explicitly invokes the condemnation of violence already present in Homosexualitatis Problema (1986), that “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action.” This statement, which the Report mentions approvingly, is one that no thoughtful Catholic should dispute. The insistence that the Church must approach its pronouncements on faith and morals with an active, relational engagement with the human beings who are same-sex attracted reflects the best instincts of pastoral theology.
The Report’s section on possible pathways for synodal discernment likewise contains several proposals deserving genuine respect. It soundly calls for a serious engagement with the 2019 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission titled What is Man? The acknowledgment that “suffering, solitude, and exclusion” accompany many persons with same-sex attraction, and that members of the Church have sometimes shown inadequate or wounding pastoral responses, reflects an attempt at honest reckoning. Catholics who have witnessed the damage done by contempt, dismissal, or public humiliation directed at persons with same-sex attraction will recognize the justice of this concern.
Pope Francis stated that “the Church is a mother [that] preaches in the same way that a mother speaks to her child,” (Evangelii Gaudium, Section 139). Mothers do not turn their children away. The Church is called to proclaim to every same-sex attracted person, without hesitation or qualification, what Saint Paul proclaimed to all: that nothing in all creation can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:39).
The Final Report thus contains genuine goods, and intellectual honesty requires mentioning this before turning to what is gravely mistaken.
A Calumny Against Courage: Misrepresentation as Method
Whatever its pastoral intentions, the Final Report recklessly bears false witness against an organization that has served many thousands of Catholics faithfully and well. In its analytical summary of the two testimonies, the Report states flatly that Courage is “a Catholic group… which, by pushing for ‘reparative therapy,’ had the effect of separating faith and sexuality.”
This characterization does not appear in the testimonies themselves. Annex A.2 mentions that the author joined Courage at the suggestion of a conversion therapist, a notably different claim, and Annex A.1 criticizes conversion therapy as a general phenomenon without attributing it to Courage at all. This false characterization of Courage as an organization engaged in “conversion therapy” is the Report’s own editorial invention, unsupported by its own source material. By contrast, in speaking with many participants in Courage, the author of this critique found that they have never been coerced or even encouraged to engage in conversion therapy. Many of the participants in Courage also expressed skepticism that such therapy would be effective.
Apparently, when listening, the Report’s authors heard only what they wished to hear.
Courage International, founded in 1980, is an apostolate grounded in the sacramental life of the Church, focused on Catholics with same-sex attraction. The original participants in Courage organized it around five goals: to live chastely in accordance with Catholic teaching; to dedicate one’s life to Christ through prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments, and spiritual reading; to foster fellowship so that no member faces the difficulties of homosexuality alone; to cultivate chaste friendships as essential to Christian life; and to live as a good example to others. Conspicuously absent from these goals is any program of “change in orientation.” Courage does not practice “reparative” or “conversion” therapy, contrary to what is falsely claimed by the Report. This is not a disputed point; it is a matter of organizational record.
Thousands of Catholics have found in Courage not secretive misery, as the testimony of a *single individual* in the Appendix suggests. Many of the participants in Courage instead found community, sacramental depth, the companionship of others, and the particular peace that comes from living in accord with one’s deepest convictions and faith. Yet their testimony is absent entirely from the pages of the Report. A Study Group that claims to have placed itself “in a position of listening” chose not to listen to their testimony.
This is not a minor oversight. The Catechism of the Catholic Church calls persons with homosexual inclinations to chastity, and calls the Church to accompany them “with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” (Sections 2358–2359). Courage is, quite literally, the Church’s primary organized attempt to fulfill this holy mandate. To misrepresent it in a synodal document as an apostolate that harms those it serves is not pastoral charity; it is polemical convenience dressed in the language of discernment.
The Corruption of Language: From “Controversial” to “Emerging” and Beyond
George Orwell observed in his 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” that ideological language is designed “to make lies sound truthful… and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” Similarly, the Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper, in Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power (Orig. 1974; Ignatius Press, 1992), argued that the corruption of language is never merely semantic but always finally moral: “if the word becomes corrupted, human existence itself will not remain unaffected and untainted.” A document of the Church should be held to a higher standard than either author demanded. Instead, the Final Report of Study Group 9 conforms to another of Orwell’s observations, that “political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness”.
The Final Report of Study Group 9 announces that it has deliberately replaced the term “controversial issues” with “emerging issues.” The justification offered is telling: “controversial issues” implies the need for “problem-solving,” while “emerging issues” supposedly honors “the holistic nature of the commitment concerning the whole of the ecclesial community.” What this reformulation actually accomplishes is the removal of the word “controversial,” and its replacement with a term that frames received moral teaching as merely one moment in an “emerging” process whose terminus has not yet been identified. The implication is that controversy exists because the Church has not yet finished thinking, when the truth is that some Catholics wish to change what the Church teaches and has always taught. The renaming is not neutral; it is a conclusion dressed as methodology.
The document is saturated with similar constructions: “Paradigm shift,” “trans-disciplinary approach,” “historical, experiential, and practical hermeneutics,” “existential, social, and cultural ‘peripheries,’” “performative interpretation,” “healing and inclusion,” “safe space” and “lacerations and longings.” These phrases accumulate into a fog through which it becomes very difficult to ask simple questions. Does the Church’s teaching on the moral status of homosexual acts admit of revision? The Report will not say. Does the inclusion of same-sex couples in the life of the Church require a change in doctrine to allow for homosexual acts? The Report will not say that either. Instead, it says that we must avoid what it tendentiously frames as “pre-packaged doctrine.” The appearance of radical openness masks a radical evasion. A document that claims to honor the complexity of human experience should be willing to state what it is actually proposing, in language plain enough to be held accountable.
The importation of the acronym “LGBTQ” into the Report’s framing (appearing in the Report’s analysis of the testimonies) is another instance of this newspeak. This is not merely a shorthand; it is a category drawn wholesale from secular activist discourse, carrying within it a set of anthropological assumptions about the nature and fixity of sexual identity that are foreign to Catholic moral anthropology. The document’s unquestioning use of the term “LGBTQ” reduces human beings to an alphabet of identities. It even incorporates the term Q-“queer,” long considered offensive by many of the people it purports to describe.
Its use of T-“transgender” imports a contested theory of the relationship between bodily sex and personal identity that the Church has explicitly addressed and declined to endorse. Specifically, Pope Francis warned against any ideology that promotes “a personal identity and emotional intimacy radically separated from the biological difference between male and female,” insisting that “biological sex and the sociocultural role of sex (gender) can be distinguished but not separated” (Amoris Laetitia, section 56, quoting Relatio Finalis).
The Excluded Witness: Marginalizing the Faithful Through “Inclusion”
One of the Report’s recurring themes is the imperative of genuine listening: listening to those on the “existential, social and cultural ‘peripheries’”, while “tilting in favour of the disadvantaged, the marginalized, and the excluded.” The putative language of “inclusion” is everywhere, with particular attention to “those who are less visible or less able to express their voice”. It is therefore both striking and ironic that the document’s actual practice of listening is aggressively selective.
Both of the testimonies included as Annexes, the sole human voices on which the analysis of homosexuality is built, come from men currently living in same-sex civil marriages. The Report describes their testimony as evidence of “experiences of goodness” and a “journey of faith.”
Nowhere in the document is there a testimony from one of the many Catholics who have lived chastely with same-sex attraction and found therein fulfillment, spiritual depth, and peace. Nowhere is there a voice from the thousands of men and women who have participated in Courage and its affiliated apostolates and discovered that the Church’s teaching, far from being a death sentence, opened onto a freedom and an intimacy with Christ that they had not previously known. Nowhere is there a witness from someone who tried the path of acting on same-sex attraction, found it spiritually costly, and turned back. The “listening” the Report performs is attuned only to one particular register of human “lived experience.”
This is not a small methodological quibble. The Report explicitly proposes the sensus fidei fidelium, the sense of faith of the faithful, as a touchstone for discernment. But the sensus fidei, properly understood, is not a democratic aggregate of the opinions of those who “identify as” Catholic. The International Theological Commission in its 2014 document Sensus Fidei in the Life of the Church clarified that this is “a supernatural appreciation of the faith” which “stems from that feeling for the faith which is aroused and nourished by the spirit of truth in order that, under the guidance of the teaching Church which they accept with reverence, the People of God may cling unswervingly to the faith given to the early Church.”
It is not a survey limited to those who dissent from that magisterium, and “not all the ideas which circulate among the People of God are compatible with the faith.” To invoke the sensus fidei while excluding the testimony of those who have found holiness and joy within the Church’s teaching is not to honor it but to distort it. The faithful who steadfastly affirm the virtue of chastity in sometimes heart-rending circumstances have been marginalized and rendered mute by a body that claimed to listen to everyone.
Conforming to the World: On Final Alignments and Their Costs
The Acts of the Apostles passage that Study Group 9 adopts as its governing image is the Jerusalem Council of chapters 10–15, in which the early Church decided not to impose dietary laws or circumcision on Gentile converts. This is a telling choice. The Council resolved whether ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic law, which had pointed typologically toward Christ and found their fulfillment in him, were binding on those coming to faith from outside Israel. Saint Paul’s answer, argued throughout Galatians and Romans, was that the ceremonial law had served its purpose; the new covenant in Christ had superseded it.
The parallel the Report implicitly draws is that received moral teaching on homosexuality might stand in the same relation to the future self-understanding of the Church as circumcision stood to the Gentile mission. This analogy collapses under examination.
The moral condemnation of homosexual acts in Scripture is not grounded in Mosaic ceremonial law but in natural law and in the theology of creation: in what it means for human beings, made male and female in the image of God, to strive to flourish in the fullness of that image. Saint Paul’s extended argument in Romans 1 and his catalogue in 1 Corinthians 6 are not applications of Torah ceremonial regulations. They are claims about the human person that Paul upholds precisely as the ceremonial law recedes. The analogy the Report leaves implicit is historically and theologically unsound, and its deployment as a rhetorical frame, even if not stated plainly enough to be debated, is an example of exactly the sleight of hand that Orwell warned against.
What the Report actually attempts, beneath its tendentious methodological language, is an alignment of the Church’s pastoral imagination with the regnant assumptions of Western secular culture regarding sexual identity and its expression. The second testimony reflects this alignment: “Reading the Bible in context made me realize that traditionalist interpretations have little to say about contemporary, life-giving same-sex relationships.” This is the core claim of the theology of sexual “liberation” developed primarily in the secular academy.
The Report incorporates this testimony without serious critical engagement: no response drawn from the Church’s tradition, no acknowledgment that the claim is contested, no engagement with scholars or contemporary same-sex attracted persons who have reached different conclusions. No reflection that, despite the privilege being assigned to the “contemporary,” there is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1:9). No reference to the restatement by Pope Francis that “there are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family” (Amoris Laetitia section 251, quoting Relatio Finalis), which the synodal document calls into doubt, but without the courage to state so plainly.
Pope Francis also warned against “ideological colonization” or the imposition of Western “progressive” assumptions on communities that have not sought them. He stated that “gender ideology, today, is one of the most dangerous ideological colonizations… because it blurs differences and the value of men and women” (La Nación interview, March 10, 2023). The wholesale importation of this gender framework, developed in the faculty lounges of secular universities, into a document of the universal Church is exactly the kind of cultural imperialism Francis named and condemned, imposed now on the Church’s own moral tradition.
When the Church mirrors back the assumptions and confusions of the surrounding culture, when it says, in effect, that the path to flourishing runs through “affirmation” rather than through the narrow gate, it offers its people a stone when they ask for bread. The cost of this alignment will fall most heavily not on those who advocate for it but on the people the Report purports to serve. The most vulnerable among them, those whose same-sex attraction has brought not “liberation” but confusion, compulsion, and desolation, will find in an “affirming” Church not accompaniment but abandonment dressed as welcome.
The distinctive gift that the Catholic Church can offer persons with same-sex attraction is precisely what no secular institution can offer: a vision of the human person capacious enough to hold sexuality within a larger account of the soul’s vocation, a sacramental community capable of accompanying suffering without endorsing every resolution of it, a theology of the cross that refuses to identify the good life with the comfortable life, and the promise, proclaimed without condition, that nothing in all creation can separate them from the love of God in Christ Jesus.
Related at CWR:
• “The dangerous error buried in the ‘Study Group #9’ Synod Report” (June 8, 2026) by Deborah Savage
• “Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power in the Church” (May 16, 2026) by Randall B. Smith
• “The Scandalous Synod Report: A Betrayal of Trust” (May 17, 2026) by Mary Rice Hasson and Theresa Farnan
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
The critique is deserved but as usual people don’t want to name the elephant in the room. It’s astounding that they actually try to claim Francis, and by extension Leo, didn’t want this kind of thing. Are they just clueless or are they trying to play good cop bad cop? The more important fact is that not a single person at the Holy See said anything to challenge the report, including Leo. The authors thus completely avoid that it is now Leo who has embraced these things, with many other indications of it too- his embrace of fiducia supplicans, almost all of his episcopal appointments are of lbgt-promoting guys, as just a few examples. It’s been more than two months since the report was issued, so it’s more wishful thinking to believe someone will come out at this late stage to say anything. On the contrary, about ten days afterwards the marching orders were given that the reports are now to be “Received and implemented” at the local level. It is more than reasonable to conclude that the report from study group 9 has been unchallenged by church authorities because Rome, including Leo, does not want it challenged. Only a heterodox person would do nothing to address this report or the synod that produced it. We all know this would never have happened under JPII or BXVI, and if it had, it would have been promptly repudiated, the synodal process stopped, the membership changed. Consider too the people put in charge who facilitated it- the openly heterodox Cardinal Grech, the facilitators of group nine, who have been appointed by someone, with the buck stopping at Leo, particularly with Grech.
The same goes for bishops- note that the number of bishops who have said anything about it could be counted on one hand or two. Their silence is also an affirmation that they know this is what Leo/Rome wants. This especially includes allowing the american based ministry of courage to be trashed on an international level and Leo saying nothing and a few, if perhaps any, american bishops saying anything. And compare this to the vatican’s and their surrogates’ having a hand in promoting james martin’s outreach group instead, with their recent conference drawing the attendance of several cardinals, one of whom publicly said that Leo is furthering Francis’ promotion of lgbt issues. Americans are loathe to admit we have another bad pope, but it’s time to wake up people.
Give the pope a chance, already.
Pope Leo has been in the Vatican for many years before he became Pope. He knows exactly what he is doing.
Oh but I forgot, there is no crisis in the church
chance for what?
To do more evil?
He’s had his chance. He has rendered himself quite poorly. It isn’t over until its over. We’ll see if he can pick his pontificate up.
Francis and Tucho appear to still be in the front seat.
Surely you jest. (You do, don’t you?) Leo has had ample opportunity to demonstrate his mindset, and he has taken more than full advantage of every opportunity to promote heterodoxy and heteropraxis through his statements and appointments. One’s intent can be inferred from one’s actions, and by his episcopal appointments he obviously intends that the church be “ordaining” women as deacons, priestesses and bishops (and cardinals and popes?) at least by mid-century if not sooner, and that we have unisex matrimony sometime this century–among many other “reforms.” Clearly, he also intends that what we call the TLM be rendered extinct within the same time period–and he probably intends many other things I haven’t even touched on. Anyone who–by mid-2026–is still sincerely pleading “give him a chance,” is obviously self-deluded and needs to open his eyes! I say “sincerely” in the assumption that the above poster is indeed engaging in satire.
More broadly, the entire synodal experiment claims to find its authorization in the International Theological Commission (ITC): “Synodality in the Life and Mission of the Church” (March 2, 2018). Two points and a question:
FIRST, from the ITC:
“…It is essential that, taken as a whole, the participants give a meaningful and balanced image of the local Church, reflecting different vocations, ministries, charisms, competencies, social status and geographical origin. The bishop, the successor of the apostles and shepherd of his flock who convokes and presides over the local Church synod, is called to exercise there the ministry of unity [!] and leadership [!] with the authority [!] which belongs to him” (n. 79). https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20180302_sinodalita_en.html
SECOND, from the synodal script:
The synodal script, the “vademecum,” cast-rated the bishops too much with the loss of institutional authority and personal responsibility and leadership. Instead, they remain neutered “primarily [only?] as facilitators.” Facilitators like any secular and off-the-shelf consultants for hire…beware, the script warns, of the “scourge of clericalism!” What then of the apostolic and “hierarchical communion” of the Church (“Lumen Gentium”)?
Small wonder that photo-op Jimmy Martin was seated, so to speak, at the synods—while Courage International was shunned like a leper. Very biblical, that! In the hands of stage managers from miniscule Luxembourg and Malta, is even the content of the 21st Ecumenical Council at risk of being replaced by a start-up and self-authenticating process?
QUESTION: For all its legitimacy and value, has the synodal “style” been cast as a booster rocket to launch Study Group #9 agenda in permanent orbit?
#1. I REJECT the brand of the Catholic Church that seeks, inch by inch, to normalize the sin of the ACT OF homosexuality.
#2. I REJECT these Synods instituted by the Bergoglian Papacy to introduce heresy into Church teaching and practice regarding the meaning and purpose of our sexuality, what the Church teaches about Holy Matrimony and, lastly, what the Church teaches about who Man is, why he was created and his rightful relationship to God.
#3. I REJECT clergy and any lay people in the Church such as New Way Ministry to deceive faithful Catholics on true moral living. They must be identified and called out publicly by name for the harm they are doing to the Church.
#4. I believe the Church is in need of a thorough purification by the Holy Spirit and the faithful need to call the Church to a Spirit of Penitence.
#5. I believe we ought to be offering fervent prayers for the intercession of St. Peter Damian.
Hear hear, thank you.
And the intercession of St. Charles Lwanga and Companions as well.
Very well stated. Everyone involved in the Synod seems to forget that Scripture is the inspired word of our immutable God, Who said very plainly, “A man shall not lie with a man as with a woman.” No equivocation, no wiggle room. Morality is morality. Jesus always said, “Repent, and sin no more.” The synodalists seem to have forgotten what repentance means. I have enormous respect for anyone with same sex attraction who carries that cross with dignity and lives chastely.
To me, Francis was the most vindictive, destructive, and morally confused pope in the past 500 years. He and Tucho have done more harm than I ever thought possible, and Leo is continuing to carry their water.
Horrific. The bias of “Group 9″ is blatantly obvious”. Group 9 follows Orwellian tactics making “lies sound truthful . . .” It twists the Word of God. The issues presented are of submerging self-indulgence. The Word of God opposes unnaturalistic spiritual annihilation.
A thoroughly documented discernment of devil’s work in The Church today.
Over the millennia, Satan has often used the same duplicitous strategy.
As Saint Paul the Apostle [Acts 20:30-31] warned:
“Even from your own (Episcopal) ranks there will be some coming forward with a travesty of the truth on their lips to induce the faithful to follow them (in their corrupting heresies). So be on your guard . . ”
Around the world, millions of good Catholics are puzzling:
How could this wretched perversion of a Vatican report (‘Synodal Study Group 9 on Homosexuality’) have ever gotten past our Pope . . ?
What a blatant ‘deceptione ex Roma’; in world-wide public view . . !
Some wonder who’ll get the boot – Grech? Fernandez? James Martin? . . .
“How could this wretched perversion of a Vatican report (‘Synodal Study Group 9 on Homosexuality’) have ever gotten past our Pope . . ?”
Because the current pope supports its basic assumptions. Leo is complicit in all of this.
St. John Crystostom, in the fourth century, predicted that the road to Hell would be paved with the skulls of priests and bishops. We see this unfolding in our midst.
Pastoral care must always remain anchored in the fullness of Truth — teaching it clearly, recognizing it humbly, and conforming personal lives to Christ’s Gospel. True charity never separates mercy from truth; to do so risks leaving souls stagnating in their carnal condition rather than calling them to conversion and grace. The current direction of Study Group 9 seems to prioritize accommodation over the transformative power of repentance. As St. Paul warns us, ‘For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and be diverted to myths’ (2 Tim 4:3-4). We must pray that our pastoral efforts lead souls to the freedom found only in the Truth rather than pursue that practicing the lifestyle of same sex attraction is acceptable in any degree. Apparently, Study Group 9 reflects a number of individuals that prefer myths rather than the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Very interesting that the author is using quotes from Pope Francis to supporting their argument. I agree.
Yeah. Francis brought in the destruction.
That Courage was demeaned by Study Group 9 [ST9] speaks to their preset direction. Whereas allowing ST9 to focus on all the presumed good regarding a life of acting out homosexuality within the Church, allows the Church to have these proposals laid out, correctly interpret the data and offer a final verdict against within a studied context.
Nevertheless, while these ST9 discussions continue the Laity and clergy are given the impression that the Church is open to the normalization of some sex relations. That a final verdict against may not be received as binding. Instead simply another opinion.
The best approach may well be the dissolution of ST9 and a Church pronouncement in support of Apostolic Tradition. Compassionate love, a life of holiness is never achieved by half measures – rather by commitment to what is good and holy.
some sex relations should read same sex relations.
Solid. Thank you, CWR. The Sensus Fidei dissented to the ‘Report of Study Group 9’ from its dastardly release. We voiced outrage. We did not or could not analyze or coherently depose our opposition as CWR has deftly done.
“The appearance of radical openness masks a radical evasion.” This cuts to the quick, reminding of Genesis. The serpent seems to speak reason to Eve. She is open, agreeing and consenting to his lies. The serpent and Eve obscure and deny the command of God for Eve’s good and the good of her children.
Final Report of Study Group 9 is like Zyklon B, capable of debasing the body, denying human dignity, killing the soul, and offending God who wants only Goodness for his creation. It is a Serpent, a Vatican endorsed abomination. Shame on the synod of bishops. May God have Mercy.
I reject Pontiffs who orchestrate and/or participate in the worship of Pachamama. They are spiritual enemies of Christ, who commands Christians that we pray for them.
I reject the Synod-for-the-Promotion-of-Sodomy, and I consider it established to oppose Christ.
Thank you, another excellent piece on this subject.
Appreciated being reminded of the statements of Pope Francis, which unfortunately were thoroughly compromised by his endorsement and empowerment of Lavender Mafia clerics.
Depressing to me that this stuff comes from the Vatican but never a comment about the continuing disgrace of Diocesan bankruptcies due to the pederasty of gay clerics.
St Peter Damien, St Charles Lawanda pray for us.
From reading the article Group 9 said nothing I hadn’t already heard; and I heard it all the way back in the 1990’s. It is unclear what Pope Francis intended since he seemed to be reintroducing an idea that homosexualism could and should be legalized “that he once held to” where it is possible Group 9 was a presage to doing that. Which would be all wrong since it is not the Church’s proclamation.
What Group 9 has in its summarization doesn’t speak and can’t speak for all homosexualists. What the Church has to say about the condensed points coming from Group 9 could have been addressed without a Group 9; and what else the Church has to address would never have had to have been conditioned by a Group 9.
So many things subsisting in my milieu more than 3 decades ended up in Rome in this concentrated conditioning. Yet they never needed to be given so much organization but could have been discovered and dealt with via totally different “attentions” such as befitting Holy Church and good witness at the same time (in my opinion).
In Magnifica Humanitas the Holy Father is trying to make the 4 EG principles workable. Group 9’s agenda and its very existence show how the 4 “principles” defy universality and even unity. The one to do with conflict he was unable to bring to any cohering formulation, search the document and check how many times “conflict” is mentioned, you see the Holy Father does not “reconcile the principle” to do with that, “unity” ends up being forced to remain unsatisfied.
We read: “…trying to make the 4 EG principles workable.” This is a reference to the four “principles” superimposed in italics upon the Gospel (Evangelii Gaudium, 2013).
Ambiguities capable of question:
FIRST, when does “realities are more important than ideas,” risk/enable concrete Nominalism?
SECOND, when does “time is greater than space,” risk/enable amnesiac Historicism?
THIRD, when does “unity prevails over conflict,” risk/enable harmonizing/word-game Clericalism?
FOURTH, when does “the whole is greater than the part,” risk/enable (im)moral proportionalism and plebiscite Globalism?
Recall the sweeping assignment slipped to “expert” Study Group 9 (all genuflect!): “Theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues (summary report 15)”! What need for the Magisterium, or for Church Councils, or for the intact Gospels, or for the Catechism and Veritatis Splendor, now that the Study Group 9 illuminati have discovered that horizontal experience alone IS the criterion for (mis)handling everything from what is doctrinal, or pastoral, or ethical. (Who omitted the kitchen sink?)
How can any bishop, now, admit that he’s been gamed by the likes of Hollerich and Grech for twelve years? The “fraternal collegiality” thingy. And, what better way to bypass binary Humanae Vitae and Veritatis Splendor altogether than to mainstream the alphabetical Jimmy Martin roadshow?
There’s a benign-ish behaviour to it but it’s not benign. And the process being used is not necessary to identifying who is benign and who is not. The process being used complicates it.
Wow 30 years.
Now there are different types of bridges. I’m am glad to have been able to say this at last. But listen, some structures are bridges that are badly damaged or unfinished or they’re leading to bad places.
Some things are structurally makeshift like scaffolding and its planks.
Some bridges got taken over by bandits exacting tolls this way and that!
Fr. a bridge is just another causeway! with the feature of inter-spatial linking. By their nature their DEPEND on space.
Also, may I point out to Holy Father, the passage not only “alludes” to the mediation of the Saviour, it recounts an actuality of His insertion.
Not taking on the burden of faith CAN entail ITSELF a necessary interior incurvatus effect. It depends on the circumstances and those involved.
Attacking/berating ideals as idolatrous, just so, BADLY reflects philosophy, theology, Scripture, evangelical promise, etc.
The meaning of this Eucharist in our faith, is not reducible to merely, “Unity prevails over conflict” -:
‘ Pope Leo urged, “I would like to encourage you to continue to promote a Eucharistic spirituality within your local Churches, that is, a spirituality of ecclesial unity grounded in the charity that flows from the gift of our Lord in the Eucharist.” ‘
https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2026-07/pope-leo-xiv-video-message-fabc-12th-plenary-assembly-jakarta.html
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2016/04/05/cardinal-sarah-there-is-no-forgiveness-if-there-is-no-repentance/
“Any fair critique of the Final Report of Study Group 9 should begin by acknowledging its genuine pastoral impulses.”
Why??
Giving lip service to human dignity is no indicator of an actual sense of dignity. Progressivists always cloak their evil intentions in the language of benevolence and Catholics will even throw in a pretentious recognition of orthodoxy. This is precisely how they sway the positive opinions of everyone else who hold fantasies of couch potato compassion.
The “impulses” are clearly intended to recreate human nature in their own image.
Yes. If I remember my history right, there were an awful lot of people teaching that contraception isn’t *really* immoral, all compassion and false pastoral care, long before Humanae Vitae was released. It was accordingly met with widespread rejection. Couch potato compassion indeed.
Tolerate false teachers, and people start believing false teaching.
Amanda, I remember reading it was almost allowed, after one mother of a large Catholic family told the pope she needed to have make-up sex with her husband to help heal their differences encountered in every day life. Perhaps someone else on this forum recalls the specifics.
The pill’s chemicals don’t break down and the estrogen is in the water supplies especially in the cities.
I have never heard this story, but whather it is true or not, the Holy Spirit intervened.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t force us to listen though. One might see some poetic justice in the lack of clarity in Church teaching, following this widespread rejection of clear teaching.
The estrogen in the water doesn’t do nearly the amount of damage that actually taking birth control does – especially for teenagers, often talked into it by doctors. People like to think that they’re just shutting off the woman’s reproductive system for a bit, but the reproductive system is intertwined with the immune system, brain function, energy levels, etc. You mess with it, and you mess with the woman’s whole body.
Definitely,not solving/preventing the problem and making it worse; violates the hypocratic oath
Pastors lead their sheep and look for the lost ones.the prodigal sons brother was mad about that too.
The Church has been infiltrated and pope Leo continues it’s synodality.
The document ‘Final Report of Study Group 9’ is not written out of “a genuine pastoral concern” but out of a covert attempt to normalize homosexuality in the Church. Since the % of homosexual clergy is abnormally high in the Roman Catholic Church (many times more than about 5% in a population), whoever wrote it simply wrote about the new church they wanted to be in. Putting it bluntly, the document was not created by heterosexual pastors who are concerned about the well-being of homosexuals; it was written by homosexual activists (not by regular homosexual Christians) and those who share their agenda.
A regular priest does not need this document to direct a person who happened to be a homosexual. The Church has been doing this for centuries, via assisting individuals in their battles with their peculiar crosses (disorders, illnesses etc) in accordance with its teaching.
Another revealing point: I am yet to see the Church council addressing “suffering, solitude, and exclusion” of the victim of the abuse within that very Church AND examining own pastoral practices (silencing, cover ups, lack of support which resulted in broken lives, mental illnesses and even suicides of many victims) AND proclaiming “a new synodal course” for the purpose of never repeating what happened.
The aforementioned synodal document has many sides and shades but just now it occurred to me that instead of speaking of the true victim (of abuse) and true problems (sexual abuses within the Church with a very significant proportion of victims being early teen boys abused by homosexual clergy) it swapped the interests of the abused ones with the interests of those who abused and covered the abuse up. This is highly symbolic.
What we have now in that document is a hypothetical Fr Martin with McElroy recreating the Church in their own image but presenting it as “the plea of the oppressed”. Noteworthy, the experiences of lesbian women are entirely absent in that document – so as women as such. It gives an additional clue to who wrote it.
My analysis of ‘Final Report of Study Group 9’ can be found here:
http://www.orthodox-christian-icons.com/vector-of-synodal-journey-re-final-report-of-study-group-9.html
This shows that the lifestyle so supported by the likes of James Martin and co, is from the bowels of Hell; to delegate an organisation that tries to support in a Catholic way as somehow evil shows not only this but the whole synodal rubbish is from the Devil!
“Nowhere in the document is there a testimony from one of the many Catholics who have lived chastely with same-sex attraction and found therein fulfillment, spiritual depth, and peace. The “listening” the Report performs is attuned only to one particular register of human “lived experience.”
This is because eventually, if one lives chastely with any type of disordered inclination, including a disordered sexual inclination, one should be able to overcome one’s disordered inclination if one’s desire is to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds through our acceptance of Salvational Love, God’s Grace and Mercy, and thus have the ability and desire to develop healthy and Holy relationships that are grounded in authentic Love and thus, being respectful of oneself and others in private and in public, can only serve for human flourishing.
This synod, by identifying persons according to sexual desire/inclination/orientation, which ipso facto sexually objectifies the human person in direct violation of God’s Commandment regarding lust and the sin of adultery , denying the inherent Sanctity and Dignity of all persons, intentionally left out Courage because Courage does not use the grooming techniques necessary for accommodating the engaging in or affirmation of sexual acts that first and foremost no person who respects the Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life should be engaging in, including a man and woman existing in relationship as man and wife, because such acts demean our inherent Dignity, and being devoid of Love do not serve for human flourishing. Courage is an obstacle for this synod, and thus the fact that the Courage apostate was dismissed illuminates the false claim of the synod groomers who claim this synod is serving out of a genuine pastoral concern for God’s Universal Call to Holiness, God’s Divine Will and Divine Law that we be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds and thus be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences.
This synod anti Christian way is certainly not God’s Way.
Meanwhile, back at the parish, the pews are not being utilized.
Does this wishy-washy help recruit straight seminarians? Doubtful.
“My analysis of ‘Final Report of Study Group 9’ can be found here”
https://www.cal-catholic.com/mcelroy-welcomes-gays-to-georgetown/
“His honor rooted in dishonor stood”, and Faith unfaithful will always keep one falsely true creating a tangled web that in denying Sacred Tradition, and thus Sacred Scripture, and thus The Teaching of The Magisterium, and thus The “forever” Office of The Munus and thus the Ministerial Office, denies The Deposit Of Faith that Jesus, The Christ, The Word Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Incarnate Has Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, For The Salvation Of Souls, and thus, we can know through both Faith and reason, that those whose competence it is, who claim that Vatican II changed no Dogma or Doctrine of The Catholic Church, and are now claiming that The SSPX are in a state of schism, for failing to have received a Papal Mandate from the Pope, and thus, in their denial of the authority of the Pope, are excommunicated, I suppose one needs to ask the question, “Who do you say that IAm”, in order to determine exactly which Church they are being excommunicated from, for certainly if it is true that Vatican II changed no Dogma of The Catholic Church, then why has the anti Christian Synod , and those members supporting the anti Christian Synod, been Charitably Anathema?
The only possibly explanation is that Vatican II, by its anathema of Christ’s Charitable Anathema by those who denied God’s Universal Call to Holiness Is A Call to be chaste in our thoughts, in our words, and in our deeds, and thus be Temples Of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences, is what set the Great Apostasy in motion, through a false spirit that denied The Unity Of The Holy Ghost in Sacred Tradition and thus…, denying our Call to be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences as members of The One Body of Christ, In The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ.
How then can anyone claim to be defending The Papacy by defending Vatican II, which in essence, although it ended up, in its errors, illuminating, the false magisterium that was attempting to subsist within The True Traditional Magisterium of Christ’s Church, by not using Christ’s Charitable Anathema against these errors, set the Great Apostasy in motion.
Think about all this Synoidal Nonsense and the promotion it gets from the Vatican leadership.
Think of the antics of Homosexualist Jesuit James Martin.
Think about Rupnick the Accused Predator
Think about all the disrespectful, irreverent, heretical liturgies you’ve been subjected to.
Think about the sexual perversion of those in the clerical state over the past 60 years.
These are only some of the reasons why we’ll be seeing an explosion of Catholics attending Holy Mass at SSPX chapels. They are the Catholics who love the Catholic Church and desire to remain faithful to Christ.
(By the way: Don’t bother attacking the messenger. It will get you nowhere)
Well discerned.
This Thursday Holy Mass, the First Reading was from Jeremiah 2, including:
“It is The LORD who speaks:
You Heavens stand aghast at this!
Stand stupified and utterly appalled!
The priests have never asked: ‘Where is The LORD?’
The lawyers have no knowledge of Me!
The Shepherds have rebelled against Me!
The prophets prophesy in the name of the devil!
My people have committed a double crime!
They have abandoned Me, the Fountain of Living Water, only to dig cisterns for themselves, leaky cisterns that can’t hold water!”
The abomination of turning away from GOD’s ways, so as to do our thing, only to fall into the claws of the evil-one seems to have a long history!
Ever seeking to loving obey King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
The SSPX are heretics. I have never been subjected to a Mass that wasn’t reverent at my parish. I don’t keep my mind in the gutter. So I won’t be thinking about the things that disturb you. The fact that some folks have SSA doesn’t occupy my head space or separate me from God.
A brilliant critique, well worth the wait and much appreciated.
A key point is this:
‘Pope Francis stated that “the Church is a mother [that] preaches in the same way that a mother speaks to her child,” (Evangelii Gaudium, Section 139). Mothers do not turn their children away.’
Unfortunately, PF must have had a mother who never corrected him. His libertine world view did not form in a vacuum.
Jesuits are often Antinomians.
No Jesuits are not antinomians (a word coined by Martin Luther to describe some protestants during the Reformation who were “anti-law”). Jesuits are an official, vowed order within the Roman Catholic Church, which officially condemns antinomianism. They use casuistry (applying general moral principles to specific, complex cases), which tries to interpret laws carefully rather than reject them and has often been the basis of accusations of moral laxity.
Dear ‘Gerard’, observations for 70 years plus, in many countries, show that ‘The Pitchfork Rebel’s comment is spot on!
You, beloved ‘Gerard’ may be a genuine non-antinomian Jesuit or maybe are cognizant with such, but the majority of Jesuits I’ve known have taken bloodcurdling oaths in Freemasonry (apart from many other deliberate breaches of New Testament instruction).
As such they have flouted the law of The LORD Jesus Christ strictly forbidding all oaths as of the devil. See Matthew 5:37 and James 5:12.
The Holy Spirit departs from such treachery. Without The Holy Spirit they can not know our LORD Jesus Christ. As scripture says, their religion is simply a charade, of the world, divorced from Christ.
Many Jesuits plumb depths of antinomian, anti-Apostolic spirituality.
Being selected for their educability & steeped in philosophy, Jesuits are expert casuists who can lead the less educated by their noses!
If Jesuits were truly godly wise (rather than worldly clever) then they’d allow Saint Paul (1 Corinthians 2:4) to correct them:
“In my speeches and the sermons that I gave, there were none of the arguments that belong to philosophy; only a demonstration of the power of The Holy Spirit.”
One might conclude then: having driven way The Holy Spirit of GOD, many Jesuits only have recourse to pseudo-Catholic worldly philosophy.
Fr James Martin SJ flagrantly manifests this on the world-stage today; as did Pope Francis 1 (Jorge Bergoglio SJ).
It’s not my intention to say this applies to all Jesuits without exception. The same critique also applies to non-Jesuit, antinomian prelates, like Víctor Manuel Fernández and Mario Grech; and far, far too many others.
In the eternally definitive light of *New Testament Apostolic* instruction and *The Catechism of The Catholic Church*, today’s Catholic leadership, especially at the highest level, is largely antinomian.
May King Jesus Christ have mercy on us.
You keep using that word, antinomian, but it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
I attended graduate school at a SoJ school that had Abbie Hoffman as a guest (commencement?) speaker (before he snuffed himself, it wasn’t one of those weird holographic things they do with Tupac Shakur-and erected a Mosque on campus. It’s mostly a pseudo-Catholic cult.
For all their sanctimony about serving the poor, my alma mater fleeces their undergrads and the government for tuition that’s approaching a cool $60K/year now.
Straw man alert.
I said Jesuits “are often” not “all Jesuits” or “Jesuits are always”. I wouldn’t apply it to the late Father Schall or Father Mitch Pacwa. Jimmy Martin, definitely. Ditto the late Bobby Drinan.
I don’t care who coined the phrase. (argumentum ad hominem). It has acquired a meaning.
Luther who said “sin and sin boldly” was not only a heretic but a hypocrite.
Well said, dear ‘Pitchy’ in response to dear ‘Gerard’s’ somewhat shy reply. From the web, this may help clarify –
“Here are the ways I’ve (Ryan Reeves) seen the word Antinomianism used:
1) ‘Antinomianism’ is applied to those who preach sex, drugs, and rock and roll — a neo-Corinthian; living in ‘chambering and wantonness’ (old KJV). This first use of Antinomianism, then, pins those who wish to still live as prodigals.”
That seems to fit the antinomian Jesuits already referred to.
“2) Others use ‘Antinomianism’ for those who seem to denigrate the Law itself. This set of beliefs ends up lessening the grace of the cross, as it jabbers on about how Christ overthrows the entirety of the Old Testament instead of keeping the Law for the sake of justice. The cross becomes a mere demonstration of love not atonement. Pushed to an extreme, this teaching has caused some to teach an antisemitic and modern form of Marcionism (the idea that the OT God is wrathful, but the NT is grace).”
This second application fits many Jesuits & other anti-Apostolic Catholic leaders. “We ARE the church; we can do anything we want!”
“3) A third option, equally confusing when you see these side by side, is the positive use of the term. We’ve heard the slogan: ‘If you preach grace well, you will at times sound Antinomian’. The earliest person to say this, as far as I can tell, was Martin Lloyd Jones in his work on Romans. Here the term is used bracingly, as a way to shake us awake to the radical nature of grace; the radical way Christ fulfilled the Law. Given the two uses above, there is clearly a potential for confusion in this third case, as it could sound as if we are affirming the first two options.”
So, there-you-go, beloved brothers ‘TPR’ & ‘Gerard’: wisdom from among our Protestant Separated Bretheren, who first introduced the contentious designation we Catholics are ruminating on.
Catholics generally use ‘Antinomian’ to label those we perceive to live & teach according to their own will rather than according to The Holy Spirit inspired Apostolic witness to King Jesus Christ, who came into this world to witness to the truth (John 18:37).
Those who have The Holy Spirit of Truth are recognised because they pay careful attention to & prioritize the witness of Christ.
Could there be anything better? Love & blessings from marty
Word origin is important to its meaning. Jesuits cannot be antinomians as the terms have opposite meanings. It is important to understand logic before attempting to understand logical fallacies.
Group 9 is abusing the meaning of passages in Scripture. This is its own problem.
This style of abuse, that is to say, of any canon, was being applied to VATICAN II, over so many decades, ongoing; which was never the fault of the Council.
Anyone can perpetrate this style of abuse on anything already given or coming in Revelation.
VATICAN II does not prevent or alter the preaching of repentance. The Council predicates all its proposals and intended developments on the authentic advance of the Gospel.
So-called “synodality”, synodalism, is not how the call to repentance is preached.
Formulating notions about elements of faith, as eg., discernment, a) in wrong ways, b) according to silencing truthful disputation, c) convoluting hierarchy, d) calling Pope to novel arbitrations, e) even to producing new prodigy prescriptions some denying other prescriptions -are evil things not redeemable in (true) synod nor otherwise.
Naming that “synodality” and “going in priestly pursuit” of it so as to give off “spiritual essence” / “spiritual legitimacy” is yet another level of evil evil.
J.M.J.
Listening but not Hearing that God’s Universal Call to Holiness is our Call to be chaste in our thoughts, in all our words, and in all our deeds, and thus be Temples of The Holy Ghost in all our relationships and experiences, was no doubt, a lifting of The Holy Veil that illuminated the fact that this synod, is , in essence, anti Christ, by its denial of God’s Universal Call to Holiness, and thus having already, ipso facto, been Charitably Anathema by The Word Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love , Our Savior, Jesus The Christ, must be officially declared to be anathema for The Salvation of Souls and in order to restore The Ministerial Office of The Papacy, which is being eclipsed by a counterfeit magisterium that denies The Forever Office Of The Munus, in its denial of The Unity of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And The Son.
“The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the Revelation, the Deposit of Faith, delivered through the Apostles. ”
Anyone can be antinomian. Antinomian Catholic whether Jesuit or otherwise, indicates errors practised of a particular nature in the area of moral law. Being in a vowed order does not mean its members or one of its members, can’t fall into error or are immune from falling into antinomianism. And in error the casuistry followed gets affected. This question helps to show that Pope Francis didn’t properly grasp the spectrum of the dangers in Gnosticism and how they inter-relate.
‘ Although the term designating this error came into use only in the sixteenth century, the doctrine itself can be traced in the teaching of the earlier heresies. Certain of the Gnostic sect – possibly, for example, Marcion and his followers, in their antithesis of the Old and New Testament, or the Carpoeratians, in their doctrine of the indifference of good works and their contempt for all human laws – held Antinomian or quasi-Antinomian views. In any case, it is generally understood that Antinomianism was professed by more than one of the Gnostic schools. Several passages of the New Testament writings are quoted in support of the contention that even as early as Apostolic times it was found necessary to single out and combat this heresy in its theoretical or dogmatic as well as in its grosser and practical form. The indignant words of St. Paul in his Epistles to the Romans and to the Ephesians (Rom., iii, 8, 31, vi, 1; Eph, v. 6), as well as those of St. Peter, the Second Epistle (II Pet, ii, 18, 19), seem to lend direct evidence in favour of this view. ‘
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Antinomianism
Further, as I understand it, you do not yourself have to be a “loose morals”, a libertine, a philanderer, in order to be antinomian. You could be antinomian at the level in which you govern, if you’re in decision-making position; or influence, where you animate a misdirecting. The original French débauché means to distract or tempt a person away to excess or immorality.
“By their fruit you will know them.” [Matthew 7:16; Luke 6:43; Galatians 5:19-21].
Information regarding blatant, persistent, and world-wide flouting of the will of GOD by individual Jesuits and their superiors (demonstrating their profoundly antinomianist culture) can be found in many places on the web, such as:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_abuse_scandal_in_the_Society_of_Jesus
As president of ‘The Catholic Student Society’ of my university I was scandalized by Fr George Fortune SJ, our chaplain, finding no time to assist us in the pursuit of sanctity but finding plenty of time to fornicate with the wife of a well-known surgeon. Add to that the homo-sexual advances from the Archdiocesan youth pastor – Fr Viktor Reiderer SJ – and you’ll see why I smile about those who think Jesuits can’t possibly be antinomians.
One agonises over the question: “Why don’t the godly Jesuits deal with the ungodly, well before they perpetrate their crimes & besmirch the Order?”
Always seeking to lovingly follow King Jesus Christ; blessings from marty
‘ The problems that will face [ the next Pope ] are immense: the twin anti-Christian challenges of militant Islam in Africa and the Middle East and militant secularism in Europe and North America, very much including the United States; the apparent disarray within the Roman Curia that at times seemed to place it at odds with Benedict; and the continuing efforts of progressive Catholics, many operating from tenured positions of influence in Catholic academia, on behalf of their suicidal program of decentralization and decline.
…..
So what in fact should the pope do? Opinion polls notwithstanding, the answer to that one is not up for grabs. A pope–any pope–can and no doubt should do many different things, from naming bishops to flying around the globe making pastoral visits. But underlying virtually everything that a pope does or might conceivably be imagined doing is one fundamental duty: to preserve, teach, and transmit intact the body of revealed truth entrusted to the Church by God together with the body of authentic teaching drawn from and based upon that source.
The First Vatican Council (1869-70) made this point with commendable clarity in saying this: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter that by his revelation they might disclose new doctrine, but that by his help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth.” ‘
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2013/03/07/the-pope-we-need/
Does this report demonstrate the power of our “Lavender Mafia” within the Vatican? The Lavender Mafia seems also to have supressed the initial Dallas Charter findings that the vast majority of sex abuse victims were male and post-pubescent, i.e., had already formed sexual maturity; so the crisis was not a case of pedophilia.
I agree, dear ‘Jack’. Further: we need to ban use of ‘pedophilia’ because there is zero ‘philia’ (love) in what is hellish clerical exploitive *sexual molestation* of naive, vulnerable youths & children.
In 2014, I was invited to present a paper at a conference on Star Island, New Hampshire. A Jesuit priest theolgian/scientist was also there: Fr Javier Leach Albert SJ. I’d hoped to have his critique of my science/theology work on the ‘Ethical Encounter Theology’ worldview.
Shockingly, Fr Javier preferred to talk about the joys of pubescent young men, who he said appeared to him as beautiful young girls. He was excited to be going to stay with the Chicago Jesuits after the conference. He left no doubt in my mind that his excitement was not about theology or science but about the perverted sexual experiences he expected to enjoy in Chicago.
Charitably, it may be that Fr Javier SJ had simply lost his mind.
Even so, the feeling remains that he may have represented the contemporary state of ethical decay among many Jesuits.
Pope Francis’ embracing of pornographers; Fr Marko Rupnik’s numerous sexual exploitations of holy sisters; and Fr James Martin’s flagrant embracings of sodomy have done nothing to lesson that perception.
Saint Peter Damian – please pray for us.
“Nothing can separate us from the love of Christ Jesus “ but sin. WHAT IS MAN?
Man is the image of GOD, namely the manhood and manliness especially the Eternal Father whose maleness is his prime divine godly attribute, that is why Moses called “if a man sleeps with another man as a woman it is a abomination to God the Almighty Father, whom we owe life and soul and his only begotten Son our Redeemer who became our Savior planned in the merciful Heart of our Father in heaven. May the Lord Jesus bless especially the men in Courage. Have you ever heard of an angel in scripture that was not male ! Angels were made solely for the glory of God .!
Some of the above commentators confuse homosexuality with homosexual acts. They are different words with different meanings and this distinction is crucially important in understanding the homosexual situation. The careless use of these terms leads me to believe these contributors haven’t carefully thought through their thinking about the homosexual condition, and/or their use of English is sloppy.
Is there a difference? Jesus said if you listed after someone in your heart you’ve basically committed adultery. Why are you trying to minimize the sinfulness of homosexuality?
There is a distinction between temptations, a.k.a. thoughts which we do not voluntarily produce, and sinful thoughts, which we voluntarily produce, sustain, or otherwise consent to.
A person may be subject to tempting thoughts, long-term, without deliberately producing them. Causes may include circumstances that bring it up (e.g., a child in a liberal sex ed class… or an adult being similarly brainwashed), demonic temptation or obsession, and psychological problems (such as tend to result from child abuse or neglect, or past sins that the person now rejects, as in alcoholism). None of us is in complete control of our thoughts. The effects of original sin continue to cause us difficulties, even after Baptism, and so do all the other wounds we pick up on the way. Those effects are not sinful in the sense of producing guilt, as sins do.
“avoid all occasions of sin’ isn’t that in the catechism?
Dear Athanasius, surely it’s not complicated. Temptations are felt by every human being.
Recall, please, how Jesus was severely tempted by satan in the desert, before His ministry began (see Luke 4).
James 4:7 instructs us to resist the devil and he will flee. That’s what Jesus did.
The internal sins that Jesus says are as bad as those we commit, are the temptations we don’t fight against and, instead, ruminate on the prospects of enacting. The failure to abjure sin is just as spiritually corrupting as doing the sin.
Most obvious: viewing pornography is as spiritually devastating as doing the sins.
How much of our tv, movie, & media-watching is voyeuristic enjoyment of behaviours that flout GOD’s commandments . . ?
There are 3 categories here:
1. Experiencing the temptation to sin. By all accounte this gets more severe the more sanctified a person becomes. Hence, our daily prayer in *The Our Father*: “Please don’t put as to the test dear Father GOD; but deliver us from the evil one.”
2. Instead of asking for GOD’s help in resisting the sinful thought, we ruminate on it. This is as spiritually damaging as actually committing the sin.
3. Actually enacting the sin that we are being tempted by.
It’s not sinful to be tempted; unwillingness to fight against the temptation is sinful.
It’s mainly Catholics anointed with healing & deliverance ministry, who are skilled in teaching others how to fight. Yet, in Catholic parishes around the world that I’ve belonged to, the healing & deliverance ministry is generally misunderstood as competing with the clergy.
Surely, every parish needs adult men & women elders, under leadership of their bishops & priests, who are anointed & experienced to pray & teach the very necessary skills of fighting off the devil’s everyday works.
This is NOT exorcism; that requires an entirely different ministry.
Homosexuality is not sinful. It is a condition or state of being over which the victim has no control. It is for such a person a heavy rugged cross; but when embraced with chastity can lead to great sanctity. Homosexual acts, on the other hand are sinful, and can lead to eternal death. These are two different things, and should be carefully distinguished. The Catechism of the Catholic Church differentiates and explains this important difference and why it is important.
Tom: I agree with what you’ve written but I prefer to distinguish between the two by saying one is Same-sex attraction and the other is Homosexuality. One is not sinful while the other assumes actions executed under free will. As an aside I also disagree with the term “homosexual person” as “personhood” doesn’t accrue to one’s mere actions. There’s no such entities as “idolatrous person”, “thieving person”, “adulterous person”, “lying person”, etc.
Nothing that we face as human beings, nothing whatsoever, is totally out of our control. We always have the ability to choose how we respond to whatever life brings to us. There is no “pass” for homosexuality.
This subgroup was highjacked by James Martin and his desire to allow same sex couples to continue in their relationships without repentance and getting the Church to change the rules. He has publicly stated that St. Paul and the Church got it wrong.
Dear Pat Nunan: “He (Fr James Martin SJ) has publicly stated that St. Paul and the Church got it wrong.”
Showing that he (a very ambitious cleric) is sure Pope, Curia, Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Sisters & Brothers approve of his brazen anti-Apostolic perversion of truth.
“Anyone who infringes even one of the least of these commandments & teaches others to do the same will be considered the least in The Kingdom of Heaven.” In Matthew 5:19 King Jesus Christ warns such anbitious clerics they will lose-out in eternity if they flout His directions.
As Saint Peter proclaimed (Acts 5:29): “Obedience to GOD comes before obedience to men.”
So: Who is the god of Fr James Martin SJ?
the sad reality of this 9 is the sad reality of a disordered church, believing it can succumb to worldly thinking and social affirmation without affecting the real purpose and life of the church as given to Peter with the keys to the kingdom of God.