Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Welcome Information Connoisseurs

Saturday, July 23, 2022

Jesuit Priest James Martin: A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

 Jesuit Priest James Martin: 

A Wolf in Wolf’s Clothing

The pope's media ambassador advocates in national forums for Communion for abortion-enablers

He's an elite spokesman for the dissolution of the last vestiges of the Bible’s authority in what remains of Catholicism. Our study reveals the depth of his intellectual dishonesty.

By Michael Hoffman


“Could my spoken words have checked, That whereby a house lay wrecked?” —Yeats

Pope Francis and Fr. James Martin, S.J.

St. Augustine wrote of the conflict between cupidity and charity, between the love of the world and the love of God. Cupidity seems to have overtaken the career of Vatican communications agent James Martin, S.J.

Jesuit priest Martin is the Vatican’s top English-language ambassador to those smitten by popular culture, “the most influential priest in the English-speaking world.”

He’s “really with it” and “helps to make the Church relevant.” One aspect of this “relevance” is his advocacy of what he calls “LGBTQ Catholicism.” Martin Scorcese, the Hollywood director who gave the world the movie, “The Last Temptation of Christ” portraying Our Lord as a demented sex freak and coward, is the executive producer of a 2022 documentary extolling Father Martin, “Building a Bridge” (Martin wrote a best-selling book of the same name). 

Jim Russell in Crisis Magazine observes Martin’s sly casuistry: “James Martin is a flagrant dissenter from Church teaching, flagrant in regard to his actions, but subtle in regard to his words. He verbally hides his rejection of Church teaching behind the façade of ‘not challenging’ it.” 

David Laidlaw in “Catholic World Report” writes, “Fr. James Martin plays rhetorical games with the truth about transgenderism.” 

Some of Martin’s mask fell off last May on the website, “Outreach: An LGBTQ Catholic Resource," where Fr. Martin wrote:

“I’ve become friends with several transgender Catholics…I have also accompanied parents and families who have had a child (or sibling or spouse) announce that they are ‘transitioning’…(W)hy (did) so many Catholic leaders began using the language of sin and repentance so quickly for a phenomenon that, at least publicly, is still so new, so little understood and still the source of so much scientific debate? How did the church move so swiftly to condemnation regarding a group who often say that they are striving to be whom God calls them to be, and who are severely at risk of suicide and self-harm, as well as violence and harassment, according to almost every report?

"…major medical organizations, including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association, have concluded that ‘gender-affirming care is medically necessary for transgender youth and is backed by decades of research.

“…Among the more controversial treatments are hormone therapies for youth, sometimes called ‘puberty blockers.’ Many argue strongly against their use, primarily because the long-term side effects are still unknown. Others point out that they are reversible, “largely considered safe for short-term use” and an alternative to surgery, giving parents and youth more time to wait and discern. They also reduce rates of depression and suicide. A study in the Journal of the American Medical Association indicated that they reduce depression by as much as 60% and suicide by as much as 73%.” 

Martin neglected to mention that administering puberty blockers and mutilating surgeries increases profits for unscrupulous physicians by as much as 100% to 200%. 

 There's a new sin, according to Martin:

"Biological Reductionism"

In response to a 2019 Catholic theological document, “Male and Female He Created Them,” attempting to frame the controversy in Biblical terms, Fr. Martin implies such teaching is obsolete in light of recent “scientific” findings:

“…the document…neglects to engage in discussions about new scientific understandings and discoveries about gender. It relies mainly on what one Catholic moral theologian described to me as 'biological reductionism': the belief that gender is determined solely by one’s visible genitalia, which contemporary science has shown is not always an accurate way to categorize people. Gender is also biologically determined by genetics, hormones and brain chemistry—things that are not visible at birth. The congregation’s document relies heavily on categories of male and female that were shaped centuries ago, rather than with more contemporary scientific methods.”

Fr. Martin advances the legitimacy of those who bear xy chromosomes impersonating people who possess xx chromosomes. He counsels the Church’s cooperation with this delusional mockery as “a pastoral approach.” Those opposed are guilty of a new Orwellian sin, "biological reductionism."

Martin is a personal friend of Pope Francis and part of the Vatican’s worldwide communications team. He is considered an astute spokesman for Newchurch and the ongoing dissolution of the last vestiges of the Bible’s authority in what remains of Catholicism. 

This slick Jesuit media operator revealed the depth of his intellectual dishonesty in a July 22 op-ed column in the Wall Street Journal. We excerpt some of his argument below. To read this editorial in its entirety access the original essay.

Abortion and the Grumbling Crowd 

The case against denying communion: 

Jesus broke bread with sinners

By James Martin 

The Wall Street Journal, July 22, p. A13

Should a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights receive communion? …The communion question, at least for Mr. Biden, seemed settled. Cardinal Wilton Gregory, the archbishop of Washington D.C., said he wouldn’t deny communion to Mr. Biden. The pastor of Holy Trinity Parish in Georgetown, where the president often attends Mass, agreed. But earlier this year, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone of San Francisco declared that Speaker Nancy Pelosi would be barred from receiving communion in his archdiocese. 

Archbishop Cordileone…has written that a Catholic legislator who supports “procured abortion” commits “a manifestly grave sin which is a cause of most serious scandal to others.” Universal church law, Archbishop Cordileone pointed out in his declaration, provides that such persons “are not to be admitted to Holy Communion (Code of Canon Law, can. 915).”

But there is another approach. Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego, recently nominated by Pope Francis to become a cardinal, has argued against the “weaponization” of the Eucharist. After all, could any Catholic pass the test of worthiness for communion? “It is the moral obligation of Catholics to embrace all the teachings of the church in their entirety,” he writes. “But failure in fulfilling that obligation in its fullness cannot be the measure of eucharistic worthiness in a church of sinners and questioners, who must face intense pressures and complexities in their daily lives.”

Bishop McElroy also notes that the focus of these restrictions is often highly selective. Why target only abortion? There are other important “life issues.” Consider former Attorney General William Barr, who supported the death penalty, which the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” clearly declares “inadmissible.” Yet there was little outcry about Mr. Barr’s receiving communion. By focusing only on abortion, pastors risk politicizing something sacred. “The Eucharist must never be instrumentalized for a political end, no matter how important,” Bishop McElroy says.

Amid these controversies, Pope Francis offers the church guidance. The pope, like me and like virtually all Catholic clergy, is pro-life.…But he recognizes that abortion isn’t the only life issue. (In his apostolic exhortation “Gaudete et Exsultate he wrote), “Equally sacred…are the lives of the poor, those already born, the destitute, the abandoned and the underprivileged, the vulnerable infirm and elderly exposed to covert euthanasia, the victims of human trafficking, new forms of slavery, and every form of rejection.”

Pope Francis also is clear about the best on-the-ground applications of these teachings. “I have never denied communion to anyone,” he said last year. As for Mr. Biden’s receiving communion despite his “inconsistency” with church teaching, the pope deemed it a question for Mr. Biden’s conscience and his pastors. 

The best solution may be to observe Jesus in the Gospels...during his public ministry, Jesus also regularly dined with “tax collectors and sinners,” much to the consternation of not only the crowds but his disciples. 

In the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus invites himself to dine at the house of Zacchaeus, the chief tax collector in Jericho, “all who saw it began to grumble” (Luke 19:7). The crowd disapproved of Jesus’ breaking bread with Zacchaeus, who probably would have been seen as the “chief sinner” in the town thanks to his collusion with the Romans. 

When I asked the late New Testament scholar Father Daniel J. Harrington about this passage, he pointed to the Greek word panta, which means “all.” He says the grumblers “would have included the disciples.” Even Jesus’ closest advisers were against breaking bread with sinners. He wasn’t. It’s no surprise that the controversy, and the grumbling, continues. 

(End quote from Fr. Martin)

If Nancy Pelsoi or Joe Biden want to have a meal ("breaking bread” as Martin calls it), they can do so with the pope, the bishops, their pastor or this writer. That’s what Jesus did and unless you are a Holy Roller of the Four Square Church, you understand that such repasts have nothing to do with the Eucharist.

I was a visitor at a Protestant chapel which is in many respects commendably faithful to Scripture, although not with regard to the declaration of Jesus in John 6:53. On the Sunday we were present, in the midst of the service the supply of the communion bread the ministers were distributing was depleted. One individual called out, “Use the doughnuts” — the after-the-service snack provisions. Some in the congregation laughed. There was no admonition from the pastor. I was saddened by the profanation of what Communion embodies according to the scriptures.

As Catholics, Father Martin, Speaker Pelosi and President Biden are of course required to submit to the tenets of the Faith, according to which the Holy Eucharist ("Communion") is something entirely different from “breaking bread.” Martin conflates the two. The Eucharist is not a mere meal. It is the body and blood of Jesus Christ instituted at the Last Supper, and not before

In 1 Cor. 11:27-30 St. Paul solemnly warns of the consequences of receiving it unworthily: “Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” 

Confession exists to restore sinners to a relationship with God when they repent of their transgressions and demonstrate true contrition (James 5:16; I John 1:9; Matthew 18:18). Fr. Martin omits vital information and engages in deceptive word games to justify the sacrilege of receiving the Eucharist when not in the state of grace.

Furthermore, Martin writes, “Bishop Robert W. McElroy of San Diego, recently nominated by Pope Francis to become a cardinal, has argued against the ‘weaponization’ of the Eucharist.” 

McElroy is Martin’s paradigm of a truly pastoral shepherd of the flock.

According to Monsignor Gene Thomas Gomulka: “The hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church is partially responsible for why bishops, including the pope, are not investigated or accountable to any external oversight body. As a consequence, one should not be surprised that only 7 out of 150 bishops credibly accused of abusing minors or vulnerable adults have actually been laicized. In the United States, with less than 200 dioceses, ‘more than 130 U.S. bishops’ have been accused of ‘failing to adequately respond to sexual misconduct in their dioceses.’ 

"The question of holding bishops accountable who engage in or cover up abuse has become all the more pressing in recent weeks following the announcement that San Diego Bishop Robert McElroy has been chosen by Pope Francis to be awarded the red hat despite his scandalous track record."

"In addition to being reported years ago for covering up the ritual rape of Rachel Mastrogiacomo by the San Diego priest Father Jacob Bertrand, McElroy is also alleged to have covered up ex-Cardinal Theodore McCarrick’s sexual predation of seminarians and young priests…McCarrick, who is believed to have helped orchestrate McElroy’s appointment to San Diego, is very similar to the relationship between Pope Francis and the late British Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. As a member of the ‘St. Gallen mafia,’ Murphy-O’Connor was viewed as playing a pivotal role in getting Jorge Bergoglio elected pope in 2013. It was reported how Pope Francis did not want Cardinal Gerhard Müller investigating abuse allegations involving Murphy-O’Connor anymore than it appears McElroy wanted an investigation into the abuse allegations involving McCarrick…

“If there were a…board of trustees investigating McElroy and Francis for covering up McCarrick’s abuse, both McElroy and Francis might be convicted and laicized not only for covering up for McCarrick, but perhaps for countless other abuse victims in San Diego and Buenos Aires. Unfortunately, like most abuse cases handled within the Church, an ‘internal investigation’ was convened by Francis who, in this case, just happened to be the defendant accused of covering up McCarrick’s sexual predation. Francis was assured of being found innocent owing to the fact that his own defense attorney, Jeffrey Stanley Lena, researched and wrote the final whitewashed report without ever having deposed the plaintiff, Archbishop Viganò.

“…McElroy is betting mainstream and ‘Catholic’ media sources will continue to keep quiet about how he covered up the sexual predation of McCarrick; the rape of Rachel Mastrogiacomo; and the abuse of other victims in the San Diego Diocese. McElroy’s confidence in being able to avoid media scrutiny stems in part from how most media outlets throughout the world never reported on how Pope Francis covered up thousands of abuse cases in Buenos Aires despite having said ‘It [sexual abuse] never happened in my diocese." 

(End quote from Msgr. Gomulka)

Another of Martin's specious arguments centers on establishing an equivalence between legalizing abortion on demand and advocating for the execution of murderers. 

He writes, “There are other important ‘life issues.’ Consider former Attorney General William Barr, who supported the death penalty, which the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly declares ‘inadmissible.’ Yet there was little outcry about Mr. Barr’s receiving communion. By focusing only on abortion, pastors risk politicizing something sacred.”

The death penalty is Biblical when applied with the safeguards Scripture demands: testimony from at least two witnesses to the crime (Numbers 35:30; Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15), and in cases where there has been perjury, the perjurer is to receive the punishment he or she sought to impose on the falsely accused (Deuteronomy 19:16-19.) 

Where there is obedience to these divine precautions against execution of the innocent, the death penalty is permitted by the Word of God

Since the Renaissance, in certain respects Rome has been seduced by situation ethics and apportioned to itself the authority which belongs to the Bible alone. No ecclesiastical hierarchy has the right to contradict or usurp Scripture.  The hierarchy of the Church only has a valid claim on our conscience when it upholds the statutes and judgements of the Bible. The papal ecclesia cannot rightly ban someone from Communion for holding to a Biblical standard. Martin and McElroy’s objection fails.

What is depraved about Fr. Martin’s statements in the Wall Street Journal is that he knows he is not telling the truth. His shoddy analogies are all in bad faith—blatant and deliberate misrepresentations of Jesus and the gospels. 

If Biden and Pelosi were white supremacists they would be refused the Eucharist by the pontiff and the entire hierarchy without delay, and rightly so. Yet, in most Catholic dioceses those who legalize the murder of unborn human beings unto the ninth month of pregnancy freely receive the body and blood of Our Lord. 

Jesuit Fr. James Martin no longer has the status of a dexterous, clandestine infiltrator, “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.” The transparent falsification he employs in soliciting for the reception of the Eucharist by infanticide-enablers shows him to be a wolf in wolf’s clothing.

Historian Michael Hoffman is the author of Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin That Was and Now is Not, and The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.


Michael's writing is supported by donations from truth-seekers

Independent History and Research

Box 849 • Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83816



Michael Hoffman said...

We received the following comment by e-mail from Greek Orthodox believer Daniel. These are excerpts:

PART ONE Dear Michael,

...Coincidentally, the very next day after your article arrived in my email I received a link to this article: https://www.tfp.org/pope-franciss-warm-welcome-to-nancy-pelosi-a-not-so-subtle-message-of-support-for-abortionists/?PKG=TFPE22250P

..."Traditionalist catholic" Talmudic wrangling is a problem not a solution...the traditionalists whine and never solve their problem. They can't solve it. Their pope has the power to legalize usury, and authorize giving their novus ordo bread to unrepentant advocates of infant murder and the most depraved sexual abominations. They can do nothing except whine. If I can't kill the rattler I'll avoid it. I leave it to the "catholics" to argue about it, gnash their teeth and rend their garments. They can steal the name, the office, the buildings, etc., but like St. Athanasius the Great said although he was excommunicated by pope Liberius of Much Duress, "we have the Faith."

And leave us not forget for some three centuries every new pope upon taking office was required to formally condemn his predecessor Honorius. Aquinas conveniently omits such facts of history. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You won't get it from them. Jesus Christ is the Theanthropos, God becoming man via the Incarnation and such a mystery cannot be rationalized, Aqunias. Catherine of Siena's calling a pope her "sweet Christ on earth" is profane. Pope St. Gregory the Great refused and denounced the title "universal bishop." His honesty and humility is scare as hen's teeth in the "catholic" so-called "church." Vatican based criminal mob...

It has been said that it is acceptable to complain as long as the complainant proposes a solution to the problem he is complaining about. But to complain incessantly while never offering a solution is whining.

"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose his virtue, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast forth, and to be trodden by men."

...St. Paul, defending the purity of the doctrine of Christ, and with fraternal charity for Peter, took him to task for teaching false doctrine by way of his bad example, and corrected him. Galatians 2:11-21. How did Peter react? Did he claim to be infallible? Did Peter say he judged all on earth but no one on earth, no one including St. Paul, could judge him? Did Peter declare Paul a schismatic, or an heretic, or excommunicate Paul? E.g., in the Dictatus papae found in the official register of the correspondence of pope Hildebrand, # 9 is "That the pope is the only one whose feet are to be kissed by all princes." We learn from the Acts of the Apostles 10:25&26 that Peter forbade Cornelius who fell at his feet to adore him. Peter physically lifted Cornelius up saying "Arise, myself also am a man." #19 of the Dictatus papae is: "That he himself (i.e., the pope) may be judged by no one." Innocent III would state this about himself.


Michael Hoffman said...


Poor Saint Paul, he would not recognize what the papacy morphed into, would he? Here is St. Paul's Apostolic description of the Church: "Now then you are not strangers and foreigners : but you are citizens of the saints, and the domesticals of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the highest corner stone : in whom all building framed together, groweth into an holy Temple in our Lord, in whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Holy Ghost." Ephesians 2:19-22.

What of the pope, St. Paul? What of Peter and "his successors?" Why do you fail to mention that special, infallible office? Was St. Paul so ignorant that he did not know he could neither judge nor correct Peter and/or any of "his successors?" So ignorant as to not even make mention of the office? Yet true Christians observe the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul on one and the same day. Search in vain for the words of Christ giving any special privilege to "Peter's successors." First among equals okay, but somehow "more equal than the others" is reminiscent of George Orwell's "Animal Farm" in that "all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Our Apostle, our bishop, is more equal than others bishops! What arrogance...

My best always,