Pope Francis once again receives pro-LGBT Fr. James Martin in meeting at the Vatican

[Stone]

Pope Francis once again receives pro-LGBT Fr. James Martin in meeting at the Vatican
Pope Francis received Jesuit Fr. James Martin at the Vatican in a 45-minute audience in which the pair discussed 'LGBTQ Catholics.'



Fr. James Martin meets with Pope Francis at the Vatican on November 11, 2022
Twitter/Vatican Media

Nov 11, 2022
VATICAN CITY (LifeSiteNews) — Notorious LGBT activist and Jesuit priest Father James Martin has again been received in audience by Pope Francis.

Martin met with the Holy Father on Friday morning after attending the Thursday plenary meeting of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Communication, for which he has served as a consultor since 2017, reportedly speaking with the Pontiff for 45 minutes, during which time the pair covered topics including “the joys and hopes, the griefs and anxieties, of LGBTQ Catholics.”

“It was a warm, inspiring and encouraging meeting that I’ll never forget,” Martin wrote to his 300,000-plus followers on Twitter.

In a follow-up tweet the celebrity priest, whom Pope Francis recently reappointed as consultor to the Dicastery for Communication for another five-year term, said he was “[d]eeply grateful to meet with the Holy Father in the Apostolic Palace this morning [November 11],” adding that their discussion of the experience of “LGBTQ Catholics” was “punctuated by laughter.”

No details about what was said by either of the clerics during their meeting were published.

The dissident priest has been received by Pope Francis numerous times since joining the Roman Curia, despite his open advocacy for homosexuality and confusing remarks on when life begins following the overturning of Roe v. Wade by the U.S. Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the persecuted former Bishop of Hong Kong, Cardinal Joseph Zen, has been ignored, side-lined, and even castigated by the Pope over his ongoing trial.

Earlier this year, through a hand-written letter sent to Martin, the Pope addressed “LGBT Catholics” with a statement decrying their apparent “rejection” from among “a sect” within the Church. Published on Martin’s “Outreach” website, a “new LGBTQ Catholic resource,” the letter added that for supposedly LGBT individuals, “I would have them recognize it not as ‘the rejection of the church,’ but instead of ‘people in the church.’ The church is a mother and calls together all her children.”

After his last meeting with the Pope in September, Martin took to Twitter to thank Francis for his “love and affection for LGBTQ people” and his “support for all who minister among them.”

Missing from Martin’s praise for Francis, and indeed the Pope’s embrace of so-called “LGBT Catholics,” is any call to chastity, as is taught by the Catholic Church for those living with deep-seated homosexual inclinations.

The Catholic Church teaches that “‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered’ and “are contrary to the natural law,” adding explicitly that “under no circumstances can they be approved.”

Despite the Church’s clear recognition of homosexual acts as “disordered,” Martin has explicitly defended the homosexual lifestyle as “the way that God created a part of the human race.”

In September, the Jesuit priest took to social media to criticize Bishop Donald DeGrood of the Diocese of Sioux Falls over his pastoral guidelines banning Catholic students from advocating, celebrating, and expressing “same-sex attraction” and transgenderism.

“[P]eople should be able to, and encouraged to, ‘celebrate’ who they are and, more importantly, how God made them, including LGBTQ people,” Martin argued, adding that “[t]his is crucial for young people, and especially for LGBTQ youth, who feel [thanks to the bishop’s statement] ignored, rejected, condemned, marginalized and completely unwelcome in their own church.”

In a 2019 meeting with Martin, Pope Francis encouraged the dissident priest in his ministry, stating that he should “continue this way.”

[Stone]

Again, as contrary to traditional Catholic teaching this immorality is and seemingly promoted by Pope Francis, he only has to point to Vatican II for the excuse for his actions. 

Taken from the SiSiNoNo study on the The Errors of Vatican II:

So, let us now move on to speak of the first three doctrinal errors of Vatican II, beginning with its errors concerning ideas of Tradition and Catholic truth.

1. Errors Concerning the Ideas of Tradition and of Catholic Truth

Vatican II sports an erroneous concept of Sacred Tradition as a complex of teaching, thanks to which as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her (Dei Verbum§8).

This is to make it sound as though Tradition, which guards the deposit of faith from the time of the Apostles' preaching, does not already possess "the fullness of divine truth!" In the reading of the above, one is led to believe there might be something else to be added or that what is already there can be modified.

This idea of the Church being in "incessant tension" with the "fullness of divine truth" openly contradicts the Church's idea of the "deposit of faith" (I Tim. 6:20). In turn, this error is connected to "subjectivism"-the signature of modern thinking-typified by the "New Theology," of which the reigning idea is that everything is always moving in a continual upward progression, and that absolute truth does not exist, rather, only the endless tending of a subject toward a truth whose endpoint is himself.

Further, Vatican II teaches the incredible assertion, contrary to common sense, that all of Tradition, should be subjected to a "continual reform." Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated-to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself-these can and should be set right at the opportune moment (UR §6; Gaudium et Spes [hereafter GS] §62). This last statement, proclaimed in the vernacular version of John XXIII's October 11, 1962 Inaugural Address and which Pope Paul VI confirmed to the letter, is a principle condemned by St. Pius X (Pascendi §11; Lamentabili§§63,64} and Pius XII (Humani Generis).

[Stone]

Another error of Vatican II regarding 'moral consciences': 

An idea of "moral conscience" tainted by Pelagianism, viewed as the basis of the idea of "truth as inquiry," which in turn is founded on "religious liberty," defended by the Council. Gaudium et Spes §l6 [hereafter abbreviated GS -Ed] reads:

In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more that a correct conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality.

What truth is this? In all likelihood, truth concerning religion and customs. Yet, wouldn't truth have to come from the infallible teaching of the Church, of Tradition? But, for the sure possession of the truth of faith and customs, established over the course of the centuries by the Magisterium, the Council substitutes "inquiry" into the truth as a general criterion of a general truth, something indeterminate. However, we know that this conforms to the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the times, which loves "inquiry," experience, novelty, and perpetual motion.

But that is not all. Always conforming to the spirit of the age, this inquiry ought to be done in union "with other men" and thus also and above all with non-Catholics and non-Christians, with those who deny all or almost all of the truths taught by the Church. How can this type of inquiry arrive at positive results for the faith and believers, in as much as it must also be applied to "moral problems"? Henceforth, "Christians" and Catholics ought to resolve these "moral problems" ecumenically through dialogue, and not by applying the rules transmitted by their faith and morality. In effect, an entente "with other men is entrusted to the certitude of the existence of objective norms of morality" which can be generally found by all men of good will who are faithful to their moral conscience.

The absurdity of this thesis is obvious. For example, it is impossible to understand how a general moral norm for healthy family life might be found by Catholics, for whom the indissolubility of marriage is a dogma of the Faith, and by Protestants and the Orthodox who, on the contrary, deny it. Here we have not even included those allowing polygamy, concubinage, repudiation, and trial marriage. But, above all, what is important is the stated principle: the "objective norms" of morality no longer depend on Revelation, but on "moral conscience" which finds these objective norms of morality through inquiry done with "other men."

Naturally, GS §16 also refers to the law written by God in "man's heart," in the "objective norms" of morality, man will verify the truth of this law. However, it is not revealed Truth, but (dialoguing) conscience that causes the law to emerge from the depths of "the heart." Thus, conscience is the authority determining the end applied to moral norms: again, Rousseau's shadow emerges, the Savoyard Vicar's "profession of faith," a faith that is both Deist and Pelagian.

The conciliar text specifies that, when "right conscience" leads him, man moves away from "blind choice." But in order to resist the "blind choice" of the passions and temptations, mustn't man be aided by grace? That's what was always the Catholic truth, founded on Tradition and Scripture: without grace, without the help of the Holy Spirit, man does not come to observe either natural or revealed morality. But the Council makes no allusion to this grace. "Conformity" to "objective" norms of the moral law, placed in our hearts by God, now exclusively depends, for Catholics too, on "right" conscience, and therefore on the individual being plunged into his "search for the truth" along with everyone else. So, as with the Deists, it is in fact stated that "moral conscience" unites men above and beyond revealed religions. In fact, then, to a greater degree, isn't conscience represented in what is human, in these "human values" so dear to Vatican II's progressive wing? So, this amounts to asserting that we no longer possess the "truth," even the truth that ought to apply to practical moral questions. Thus, this arrives at asserting that we can no longer know the "truth," even that truth that applies in practical moral questions. Rather this truth must result from communal and communitarian effort involving each person's "conscience."