Friday, September 29, 2017

When Baptists defend the Catholic Faith against Catholic leaders

My old seminary president, Dr. Albert Mohler, has weighed in on the Fr. James Martin debate.  Dr. Mohler will forget more today than I'll ever know about theology and philosophy.  Marcus Grodi once told me that Baptists think they're intellectuals, but they're not.  I didn't say it, but an academic match between him and Mohler wouldn't last two seconds. 

Though I rejected Mohler's Calvinism, and some of the tactics used to overtake the leadership of the seminary, I could never dismiss Mohler's brilliance as a scholar, intellectual and theologian.  Plus he's a good guy. I had the pleasure of having dinner with him years ago, and he was genuinely fun to be with.  He was also a humble fellow, the kind of person who would open the door for, and converse with, a janitor despite being a college president, while the others he was with just walked on through.

So let it be established that Mohler is not a villain, a beast, a person who throws banana peels in front of nursing homes or college campuses.  And he is quite brilliant. 

Therefore, his rebuke of Fr. Martin and defense of Catholic doctrine is one that is based on careful analysis and thoughtful consideration.  It's also worth noting that he is correct.  Right now, it's impossible to miss that the Church is working overtime to find ways of compromising with the modern secular left.  Why is up for grabs.  But that it is happening is difficult to deny. 

Fr. Martin assumes the narrative of the LGBT movement, that telling the truth is offensive and hateful, therefore we must not tell the truth.  We must change our definitions to conform to those embracing sin.  Those who are embracing sin who matter at least.  That's a very common, modern viewpoint.   Yet one that will ultimately lead to changing other definitions, and others, and others, until like many liberal expressions of Christianity, it will barely be recognizable to those who knew it only decades ago.

22 comments:

  1. Mohler is right. Should this sea change really happen — and everything indicates that it is happening — then the effects will be catastrophic. Catholicism will associate itself with leftist liberalism. This means that the silent Catholic-Evangelical alliance on morality issues and political conservatism will be finished and that the Church again will become a dangerous persecutor of faithful Christians, including her own traditional and traditionalist members. Moreover, Catholic culture and liturgy will be transformed to a kind of neo-Paganism composed of sexual rites and environmentalism: "Gaia" worship and what not all. In the end, they'll sell the celibacy of the priesthood and the religious as the true homosexualism, meaning that you can only be a priest if you're a homosexual. This will become the complete end of the Church and the final destruction of the Christian West in a moral chaos of sexu and violence which will be literally comparable to Sodom and Gomorrah.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes he is right, and I give credit where it is due. If it takes a Calvinist Southern Baptist to defend the Faith, who knows where that could lead? On the other hand, if it takes a Calvinist Southern Baptist to defend the Faith, that alone should say something.

      Delete
  2. And next up on the agenda will be "Transgenderism", and shortly following will be "Intergenerational Love" (Often known as pedophelia). We are going to be told that we should "welcome all", which is half of the truth. The other half of the statement is "and allow them to be who they are and do what they choose to do". This we cannot do, any more than we can Welcome Tax Collectors and Prostitutes (as yesterday's Gospel stated) and not challenge them to change their lives and follow Christ, not the empire nor lust for money.

    The liberal mind achieves much by stating half-truths.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All we have to do is remember when it was just 'let's let everyone live and let live. We just ask that we stand against the violent persecution of Homosexuals. That we stand against discrimination against Homosexuals. That we put an end to barring Homosexuals from jobs that people once thought would preclude them, such as being in intimate conditions with children of the same gender. That we acknowledge the right of Homosexuals to have the same rights as people in other intimate relationships. That we allow Homosexuals to be married in the same was as heterosexuals. That we mandate support for Homosexual marriage by anyone trading in the open markets. That we punish anyone, and on and on. It's quite a twist and turn, and you're right, I doubt it will stop with homosexuals. In fact, we know from Obama's federal mandate of conformity to Transgender normality, that the movement has no intention of stopping, and no intention of tolerating dissent.

      Delete
    2. Hmm. I conclude that acquiescing to the initial "let's let everyone live and let live" plea was a failure to avoid the near occasion of sin. Now here we are.

      Delete
    3. I think the problem was, we assumed good faith with things like 'live and let live' and 'you can't impose your values on others' or 'you can't say someone's religion is wrong.' So when Christians lived by those new values, it ended up that we were the only ones doing so.

      Delete
  3. The easy availibility of food means people are not as busy and occupied as they used to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A friend of mine from Nigeria was with me on a panel discussing gay rights back in the early 90s. During the entire discussion, he said nothing. After it was over, I asked why he didn't say anything. He said 'this is a rich person's argument, it's not an issue for us.' Of course over the years, it has become one as the LGBT movement has been pushed into Nigeria and reactions have pushed back. But that always made me think about the issues that people with leisure time focus on.

      Delete
  4. You can add Pastor Robert Jeffress of the First Baptist Church of Dallas to those who defend Catholic moral doctrine when there seems a shortage of Catholic clergy to take up the task. He appears regularly on news programs to defend what most would call traditional morals against today's hedonism. A blessing that there are those who will stand up for the right thing and a shame we do not have more in our own Church.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pueblo Southwest: There is no shortage of Catholic clergy taking up this task. Father Martin's 'opinion' is not shared by the Catholic Church, nor is it a popular opinion. Catholics are not happy with Father Martin's liberal views and the notoriety he is gaining for his own agenda. It is wonderful that our Baptist brothers and Pastors are in agreement and support the Catholic position on these issues. These Pastors have demonstrated how well Christians support each other. Nothing has changed in terms of Catholic doctrine or beliefs, so I'm hopeful this Priest's views will not be taken as common belief for us Catholics. Thank you my wonderful Baptist brothers and sisters. God bless you.

      Delete
    2. Janne: Unfortunately Fr. Martin's "opinion" has affect mainstream portions of the Church. See this week's Our Sunday Visitor" editorial. The rest of your comment is well taken.

      Delete
  5. Replies
    1. As they say, a logical fallacy, yet a historical fact.

      Delete
  6. Did you really mistake Fr. James Martin for a Catholic Leader? Here is Catholic leadership for people with Same Sex Attraction. https://couragerc.org/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stephen: EWTN has had programs on Courage. Very, very good for those struggling with their own same sex attraction to hear others who have addressed this in their lives and have found personal and spiritual peace and happiness.

      Delete
    2. I mention that because he has also brought out much support from Catholic leadership who have weighed in on the subject.

      Delete
  7. I appreciate anyone who speaks truth regardless of denominations. That being said there are many Catholics who are pointing out the errors of Fr. Martins statements. It is truly disturbing that there are also many Catholics who are promoting him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous: Yes, the only 'catholics' (small 'c') who may be supporting Father Martin are those who are not living their faith. Catholics for Choice is a liberal group of people, such as Tim Paine, who believe their own perception of Catholicism, not what Catholicism and the Catholic Church truly is, and think they are going to change the Catholic Church. Let's not hold our breath!

      Delete
    2. Yep. I take defense of truth where I can get it.

      Delete
  8. I have a problem with Fr.Martin's message and the confusion it causes among Catholics like myself who are practicing our faith on a daily basis. However, I am also confused about how the same institution, the Catholic University of America, one of a very few universities that organizations like the Knights of Columbus approve of as following the papal magisterium, cancels a talk by Fr. Martin, yet lauds industrialist Charles Koch as the headliner at a presentation hosted by the university's business school. Many of you will wrinkle your noses at the thought of reading an article in Commonweal, but read "Bad Business: Why Would Catholic University Host Charles Koch?" How can conservative Catholics find James Martin so detestable while looking to Koch for ethical and moral advice when Koch is specifically working against two themes of Catholic Social Teaching--Care for God's Creation and the Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand that issue. On one side, I'm not a fan of shutting down people at universities because they hold controversial views. On the other hand, ours is a faith that proclaims Truth, not options. Fr. Martin skates dangerously close to saying all but the Church is wrong. How does that fly at a Catholic university? But, on the other hand, it is a university. That's where we want the free flow of ideas and the ability to hear those views we don't agree with. Just like others who are likewise push the Church's teachings past the limit, I think there was room to have him, perhaps with disclaimers that being a priest (which could have made a difference), he is not necessarily expressing Church teaching.

      Delete

Let me know your thoughts