(LifeSiteNews) — James Martin’s raving proposal is not a provocative jest, but the final step in a long series aimed at legitimizing sodomy not only among the laity, but even among the Clergy.
It constitutes a blatant and intolerable contradiction with the perennial doctrine of Holy Mother Church, with Sacred Scripture that unambiguously condemns homosexual acts as an abomination against nature (cf. Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10), and with the Magisterium.
The argument put forward by James Martin—”the presence of many holy and healthy celibate gay priests”—is a deceptive sophism and a lie: holiness, when it is authentic, combats disordered tendencies with sacramental grace and asceticism, in horror at offending God with detestable sins.
Holy Church teaches that sodomy is a most grave objective disorder, not a neutral or positive reality. To claim to found an “opening” to Ordination upon it implies a denial of the natural law, as well as a violation of God’s Commandments.
Ordaining men with deep-seated homosexual tendencies would not only violate ecclesial norms, but would expose the flock to most grave scandals, would fuel the already widespread gay lobby within the Clergy, and would offend the sanctity of the Sacrament. The Priesthood is not a subjective right nor an instrument of ideological “inclusion”: it is a divine gift that requires full correspondence to the will of God and holiness of life.
It is likewise evident that this operation—widely supported by high-ranking exponents of the conciliar-synodal Hierarchy and by Prevost himself—serves first and foremost to subvert the moral judgment on sodomy, turning a sin that cries out for vengeance before God into a state of election worthy even of the Priesthood.
In short, here we are at “Cicero pro domo sua”: a lobby of perverts encysted in the ecclesial body is inexorably leading the neomodernist Hierarchy to line up openly in favor of sodomy, for personal advantage. The modus operandi is always the same: those who legitimize certain sins (in the religious sphere) and certain crimes (in the civil one) do so only because those are the sins and crimes that they themselves practice with impunity.
The conservatives observe—with the cynicism that distinguishes them—that these absurdities come from a Jesuit notoriously “on the borderline,” and that the Magisterium has not changed. They pretend not to understand that James Martin is merely a court jester whom those in power allow to say explicitly what they have already unofficially decided to do.