In 2010, when Cardinal Newman was beatified, there was a controversy created by (surprise!) homosexual activists — people, that is, who specialize in professional trouble-making. In this case, the trouble centered around the exhuming of Cardinal Newman’s body — a standard part of the beatification process — which entailed his being moved from the man next to whom Newman was buried at his express will, Father Ambrose Saint-John, a very intimate friend of the Cardinal’s.

The queer activists called foul, and went nuts on the Church for the “moral vandalism” of separating “gay lovers.” Moreover, it was all “an act of shameless dishonesty and personal betrayal by the gay-hating Catholic Church.”

That’s right, the historical revisionism was that two men who were close friends must have been sodomites. Thankfully, there was Catholic push-back against the queering of Newman: among others, a man named Jack Valero admirably defended the Cardinal from these base accusations.

Fast-forward to just two days ago. On the eve of Newman’s canonization, James Martin propagated the same lie on Twitter in a couple of odious tweets:

This doesn't imply that the man who will become a saint tomorrow ever broke his promise of celibacy. And we may never know for sure. But his relationship with Ambrose St. John is worthy of attention. It isn't a slur to suggest that Newman may have been gayhttps://t.co/ak4b4vK7GU

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) October 12, 2019

…and…

Why is the question important to consider? Even if we may never know for sure? Because it reminds us that a gay person (someone with a homosexual orientation, if you prefer) can be holy, even a saint. Holiness makes its home in humanity.

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) October 12, 2019

The queer Jesuit provocateur naturally received lots of rebukes from faithful Catholics, but he’s probably used to that, like Julian the Apostate being publicly accosted by saints who told him off for his apostasy and idolatry (as is related in the Roman Martyrology). The rebukes appear to do Martin about as much good as they did the Apostate.

Note Martin’s method: Accuse by indirection, say that the potentially homosexual (and by implication, possibly physically erotic) nature of of the relationship is “worthy of attention,” but be otherwise non-committal. That way, the propagandist looks detached, and keeps up the appearance of being objective. Meantime, he has calumniated a Saint, raising the specter of disordered attractions and gravely sinful acts without a shred of evidence.

If I were interested in normalizing the unnatural sin associated with Oedipus at James Martin’s expense (which I’m not!), I might say something similar: “I’m not saying James Martin violated is canonical obligation of celibacy as a priest, or his vow of chastity as a Jesuit, but his very close relationship with his mother is worthy of attention.” Sick, isn’t it? So, too, is James’ insistence on sliming Saint John Henry Newman in order to forward his own base agenda.

The deeper issue here is something I wrote about seven years ago on Catholicism.org, namely, the loss of authentic male friendship, and the “eroticizing” of all love in the name of the sexual revolution.

Please consider giving that piece a read:

The Love of Masculinity