Talk:James Martin (priest, born 1960)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Celibacy[edit]

I just deleted the following paragraph:

Father Martin has said that he believes that clerical celibacy can and will become mandatory, in response to statements made by Cardinal Edward Egan. [1]

However, that's not what he said according to that article.

Should priests be allowed to marry? ...
[Cardinal Egan] pointed out that some eastern Catholic churches allow married priests, and since 1980 Episcopal priests who became Catholic priests are allowed to stay married.
"I think it could happen and will happen," said Rev. James Martin Jr. of America Magazine.
Martin, an associate editor of America Magazine, said any such remark from Egan carries some weight.

So, what did you actually mean here, ADM?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

"Could happen and will happen" is pretty much the same as "Can happen and will happen". In that case, it's really just a question of words and it means that we have to try and re-phrase it. ADM (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you mean to say that clerical _marriage_ can and will become mandatory? Because I don't think he said _that_ either, but clerical celibacy is _already_ mandatory.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
He didn't say that it wasn't mandatory now, he said it might eventually become mandatory, in the future, in a few years or decades from now. He was definitvely talking about something that does not exist right now. In any case, it's only his opinion, it's not like currently the Pope or something. ADM (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
No, he said that in the future, priests might be allowed to marry. Saying that clerical celibacy would become mandatory is incorrect, because priests are already supposed to be celibate, and he says nothing in the ref above indicating that priests aren't currently celibate. Or are we talking at cross-purposes here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Maybe obligatory would be a better word for this, I think I am mixing up mandatory with non-mandatory. ADM (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
Mandatory = obligatory, more or less. Are you thinking of "optional"?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Disambig[edit]

Since James A. Martin was also a Jesuit, perhaps something else should be used for disambiguation. I think "author" or "writer" would be suitable. James Martin isn't notable for being a Jesuit per se, but for his books and other writings. --90.236.115.252 (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so there are other writers named James Martin (of course). Then probably "Jesuit writer", as was used in the article up to 2009 [1] actually would be best. --90.236.115.252 (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Martin (priest). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism/controversy regarding Father Martin in the Catholic Church:[edit]

The below sentence in the previous version of the article is not supported by the sources given:

"Some of Martin's theological views, especially on homosexuality, are controversial among Catholics.[1][2][3]"

The first two articles do not mention any "theological views" nor do they mention any "controversy" regarding Father Martin among Catholics. The third source states, "Fr Martin’s more liberal views are controversial within the Church, and a lay Catholic group had called for him to be removed from the speaker line-up for the World Meeting of Families event. The Irish branch of Tradition, Family, Property (TFP) had sent a letter to Dublin Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, asking him to remove the cleric from the list of speakers." First, this does not mention any "theological views." Second, the characterization of Father Martin's views as "liberal" is the statement of a single news writer for an Irish newspaper, who never explains what exactly is "liberal" about Father Martin. The only evidence he gives of controversy regarding Father Martin is a letter of protest written by Tradition, Family and Property, an extreme right-wing group whose mission seems to be to engage in controversy. There is no need to mention the views of this and other extremist groups, and per WP:BLPBALANCE, the views of these extremist groups should not be mentioned at all. --PluniaZ (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "In rare WSJ op-ed, Cardinal Sarah says Fr. Martin's LGBT outreach falls short". Catholic News Agency. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  2. ^ "Vatican cardinal critiques Jesuit Martin on homosexuality". Crux. 2017-09-01. Retrieved 2017-09-01.
  3. ^ Power, Jack. "LGBT people made to feel like 'lepers' by Catholic Church". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2019-07-23.

Wikipedia should not repeat the attacks of homophobic bigots[edit]

User:Thucyd is repeatedly attempting to add claims that Father Martin is "controversial" among Catholics due to his "views on homosexuality." The sources Thucyd provides describe the actions of extremist homophobic hate groups such as Church Militant (website) in campaigning against Father Martin's speaking engagements. The actions of extremist hate groups do not make Father Martin "controversial". They mean that those groups are extremist hate groups, and at most are worthy of inclusion on the Wikipedia articles about those hate groups. Those hate groups do not deserve recognition in the biography of the person they are harassing per WP:BLPBALANCE.

The only substantive criticism of Martin's publications that has been provided is an article by Archbishop Chaput that mentions "perceived ambiguities" in Father Martin's general views on sexuality. This is not a direct criticism of Father Martin, since it refers to "perceived" rather than actual ambiguities - the ambiguity is in how certain extremist hate groups perceive Father Martin. I do not think this at best vague and mild criticism is worthy of inclusion in the biography of a living person.

We then have a sentence fragment from Cardinal Sarah, with no context given, supposedly calling Father Martin "one of the most outspoken critics of the church's message with regards to sexuality." However, if we look at the original source, Cardinal Sarah says two sentences later, Cardinal Sarah says, "Father Martin is correct ...", and otherwise Cardinal Sarah does not criticize Father Martin at all. This hardly establishes that Father Martin's "views are controversial among Catholics." https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-catholics-can-welcome-lgbt-believers-1504221027

Then we have Cardinal Burke, who says, that Martin "is not coherent with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality." But this is all he says about Martin. He offers no explanation. Moreover, the source is a fringe far right publication called The Wanderer (Roman Catholic newspaper) whose views are inherently those of a fringe small minority and must be excluded per WP:BLPBALANCE.

We are finally left with an article from Crisis Magazine, another fringe far-right publication whose sole purpose is to create controversy wherever possible in order rouse up its far-right readership and keep them paying their subsriptions. This is again the view of a small minority and must be excluded per WP:BLPBALANCE. --PluniaZ (talk) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

You might ask for help at WP:RSN. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @PluniaZ: You placed a pointer to this discussion on the WikiProject Catholicism talk page, however: (1) because you quoted the exact title of the discussion, instead of just providing a link to it, your pointer was not neutral, as it is required to be by WP:Canvassing; and (2) You failed to put a pointer on the talk pages of the other WikiProjects listed above, which is also a violation of WP:Canvassing.{{parabr}I will correct #2 with 'neutral' pointers on the other talk pages, but this is a warning not to violate CANVASSing rules again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request[edit]

User:Bradv, can you please restore the article to this version, which was the state of the article before a recent edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Martin_(priest,_born_1960)&oldid=907603446

WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE states: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis."

The current version of the article includes disputed material which had been deleted on good-faith BLP objections. Therefore, this material should not be included unless consensus has been obtained to do so. Nor has the disputed material been repaired to address the concerns that have been raised. Therefore, the article should be restored to the version I linked above, which does not include any of the disputed material. --PluniaZ (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

PluniaZ, what BLP issue do you see that's significant enough to warrant deleting the entire section? – bradv🍁 20:12, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Bradv, I explained in detail in the two sections above on this Talk Page how the material is inaccurate and does not reflect what the underlying sources actually say. The only criticism against Father Martin is coming from extremist anti-LGBT organizations that have been waging a campaign of harassment against Father Martin (proof here: https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2017/09/18/bishop-mcelroy-attacks-father-james-martin-expose-cancer-within-us-catholic-church). The article as currently written describes an extremist harassment campaign as "controversy", which is giving these extremists a level of legitimacy they don't deserve. Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." But that is exactly what these paragraphs consist of (once you parse through the misrepresentation of the underlying sources). --PluniaZ (talk) 22:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected Edit Request[edit]

User:Bradv, can you at least delete the portion of this sentence that I have struck out below:

"In it, Martin called for a closer dialogue with the LGBT community and argued in favor of changing the Catholic teaching on homosexuality."

The statement is unsourced and factually inaccurate. Father Martin does not call for changing the Catholic teaching on homosexuality. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done. The latter part of that sentence is not supported by the source, so I've removed it per BLP policy. – bradv🍁 22:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Controversial views" section blatantly misrepresents the underlying sources[edit]

The section on "Controversial views" misrepresents the underlying sources. The underlying sources describe a campaign by anti-LGBT extremists to attack Father Martin, but the article quote mines them for out of context statements that make it seem like there is mainstream, reputable criticism of Father Martin.

The first source is a NYT article that is about "the vitriol to which he has been subjected is breathtaking, a reminder not just of how much homophobia is still out there but also of how presumptuous, overwrought, cruel and destructive discourse in this digital age can be." But the Wikipedia page instead quote mines this source for where it mentions Father Martin's non-rejection of Church teaching in passing, as if the source were a critical review of Father Martin's book rather than a description of the extremist campaign against him.

Likewise, the second source is a Catholic News Agency article about Archbishop Chaput defending Father Martin from "The bitterness directed at the person of Fr. Martin is not just unwarranted and unjust; it’s a destructive counter-witness to the Gospel." Instead of saying this, the Wikipedia article quote mines the source for anything that can be perceived as criticism of Father Martin. The first quote ("perceived ambiguities") is not a criticism of Father Martin at all (it's a criticism of the perception of Father Martin), and the second quote ("lack of engagement") isn't attributed to any specific critics. The source, moreover, Catholic News Agency, is an extremely biased far-right news organization that caters to anti-LGBT elements in the Catholic Church.

The third source, Sandro Magister, is a far-right opinion columnist who misrepresents a column by Cardinal Sarah and lobs a passing criticism of Father Martin without providing any substantive justification for it. Is this how Wikipedia article are supposed to be written? Do we quote-mine articles for every passing criticism of a person and compile them into Wikipedia articles?

The fourth source, an op-ed by Cardinal Sarah, is again quote mined for one sentence fragment that can be portrayed as criticizing Father Martin, but if you read the actual piece by Cardinal Sarah, he never actually criticizes anything Father Martin has said or done. In fact, the only thing he has to say about Father Martin's writing is "Father Martin is correct." https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-catholics-can-welcome-lgbt-believers-1504221027

The fifth source, Cardinal Burke, contains a quote criticizing Father Martin but without any substantive explanation.

The remaining sources are all opinion columns from fringe far-right publications: Public Discourse, First Things and "Crisis Magazine."

What should be done? WP:BLPBALANCE states, "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." I have demonstrated above that the only actual criticism above comes from fringe anti-LGBT organizations, and therefore should not be included at all in this article. If extremist anti-LGBT organizations are waging a campaign against Father Martin, they don't deserve legitimacy by having the victim of their campaign be described by Wikipedia as "controversial". --PluniaZ (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The section which says "critics pointed out" must be rewritten; as per WP:CLAIM, "pointed out" is a phrase to avoid, as it can be viewed as implying that the statement is true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, NorthBySouthBaranof. You are absolutely right. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of "Controversial views"[edit]

The section Controversial views should be rewritten as follows (based on the problems with the current version identified above on this Talk page:

First, the title should be renamed, "Dialogue with LGBT Catholics".

Second, the body should read as follows:

Martin called for closer dialogue with LGBT Catholics in his 2017 book, Building a Bridge. In its review of the book, the Washington Post wrote, "“If Martin’s book, with its biblical reflections on God’s loving creation of us and Jesus’ unconditional welcome, can help LGBT people and our families experience and trust God’s tenderness, he will have laid the foundation stone for social change and spiritual renewal." [1] Publishers Weekly described the book as "A brief, clear guide on how Catholics can heal some of the rifts surrounding issues of sexuality. . . . The surprising places he finds insight highlight the subtlety of his thought and the time he has devoted to considering these questions." [2] The New York Times stated that the the book "Earned him the gratitude of parents of gay children or adults who feel unwelcome at church because of their sexual orientation."[3]

--PluniaZ (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Building a Bridge". Harper Academic. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  2. ^ "Building a Bridge". Harper Academic. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
  3. ^ "Building a Bridge". Harper Academic. Retrieved August 13, 2019.
PluniaZ, the references you include in your paragraph above all point to the same place, which is Martin's book at Harper Academic. I think you, instead, mean to include references pointing to the WP, Publisher's Weekly, and NYT sources, correct? – Archer1234 (talk) 12:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Harper Academic's page on Father Martin contains these reviews. I don't see any reviews calling the book "controversial among Catholics". --PluniaZ (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A book's publisher has a conflict of interest because they have a financial stake in the success of the book. I think they are not likely to publish views critical of a book they publish. They have an incentive not to do so. If we are going to publish opinions (which is what book reviews are), I think we must, at least, attribute the opinions to the specific authors (or editorial boards) and not to the publications in which their reviews are published (see WP:NEWSORG). – Archer1234 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment[edit]

Should the section of this page titled "Controversial views" be rewritten as proposed here? --PluniaZ (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Yes - The current version of the disputed section relies on bigoted and homophobic sources, as explained here. The proposed rewrite describes the critical reception of the book by reputable institutions such as the Washington Post, Publishers Weekly and the New York Times. --PluniaZ (talk) 01:22, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not as written. At no point is "controversy" mentioned and significant portions of opposition/WP:RS are omitted. Furthermore, these reviews are by the publisher which, as noted above, have a conflict of interest. I do not oppose a rewrite in general, but not this. Buffs (talk) 15:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PluniaZ - please read up on WP:FORUMSHOPChed :  ?  — 15:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
    I would concur. Allow ONE process to evaluate the situation at a time (let this one pan out on the talk page). Near as I can tell, you have placed this in 4 different spots...which is too many. Buffs (talk) 16:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The suggested re-write is blatantly one-sided, and doesn't even reference reviews directly, only through blurbs in the publisher's catalog. It may well be that the current section needs tweaking, or even re-writing, but the offered alternative is not anything which should ever be in a Wikipedia article. The editor seems to fundamentally misunderstand what Wikipedia is about, and what WP:NPOV and WP:BLP mean in practice (not to mention WP:RS). Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Fails NPOV and is excessively reliant on affiliated sources. Guy (Help!) 12:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A neutral pointer to this RfC has been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: the present version of the section is not acceptable. The forum shopping by the user who started this RfC is unconstructive and their proposed content suboptimal, but nonetheless, the critical reception in the Washington Post and New York Times undoubtedly belongs in the article. — Bilorv (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Oppose PluniaZ claims that there's no reason to cite the independent reliable sources when we can instead cite the publisher of the subject's book describing what those sources said. If you buy that request, please leave Wikipedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
    That's unnecessarily hostile. Even those with a strong/passionate POV can contribute to WP. However, I agree that a further re-reading/application of WP policies is certainly in order. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of current content, support adding proposed content. I agree that the current section is tilted a bit too heavily towards criticism of the book. But that does not mean that critical reviews should be removed to make way for positive ones. The OP's characterization of the sources in the article as "bigoted and homophobic" is indicative of agenda-driven editing, but I have not heard a well-reasoned argument supported by evidence as to why the content that the OP proposed should not be included in the section alongside what is already there. I think that editors on both sides need to respect Wikipedia guidelines on neutrality by not trying to keep opinions out of the article that they dislike. We should include both favorable and unfavorable receptions to the book. Display name 99 (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support overhaul as the current content is poor. Can I suggest the section becomes more about the book itself and the reactions folded into that with a link to Wikipedia articles about traditional attitudes to gay people and their alleged sins? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE95:57B0:C5F3:2301:6A82:BC89 (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

This article violates the prohibition on No Original Research[edit]

The section on "Controversial views" violates the prohibition on No Original Research. Original research is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." This article claims that "Some of Martin's views, especially on homosexuality, are controversial among Catholics." But none of the sources provided actually say this. The sources describe a harassment campaign being waged against Father Martin by fringe anti-LGBT groups, but that is not a "controversy among Catholics" anymore than harassment campaigns by the KKK are a "controversy among Americans".

The article does provide scattered quotes from some bishops that are critical of Father Martin, but that in and of itself does not amount to a controversy. Everyone has something critical said about them at some point in their life. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a place where people compile random critical quotes about BLP subjects and synthesize them into a supposed "controversy". This is a blatant violation of WP:NOR, and I renew my call for the disputed material to be removed immediately in accordance with WP:BLPREMOVE. --PluniaZ (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

It is not original research to attempt to summarize what the press has written about an article subject. If you don't like the phrase 'are controversial among Catholics' can you propose a replacement that also agrees with the sources? I tend to get the impression that Martin's views are controversial by looking at this 08/17 article in America Magazine or Robert George's article in Crisis magazine. The latter refers to "..the heterodoxy of James Martin, who has quite famously opposed Church teaching on homosexuality". Perhaps you can find something in the NY Times or another mainstream publication that characterizes Martin's thinking, and we could use what they say. EdJohnston (talk) 14:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
It is original research (or downright lying) to claim the press is saying something it hasn't said - and none of the sources provided state that Father Martin's views are "controversial among Catholics". The America Magazine article you cite does not claim that Martin's views are controversial among Catholics. Crisis Magazine is a fringe, far-right publication that cannot be used to establish factual matters (e.g., the existence of a "controversy among Catholics"). At most, the Crisis article can be cited to state what its author claims, but even that would need to be excluded as the view of a small minority per WP:BLPBALANCE - "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."
Again, what the sources do establish is that a fringe group of anti-LGBT extremists are waging a campaign of harassment against Father Martin. That is what the sources say, and they have been misrepresented by this page into suggesting that there is a "controversy among Catholics" regarding Father Martin's views.
Here's a simple challenge: Find a reliable secondary source that (1) states that Father Martin's views are controversial among Catholics, (2) explains the nature of the controversy and (3) explains the arguments on both sides of the controversy. If such a reliable secondary source does not exist, then Wikipedia as a tertiary source should not be making this claim either. --PluniaZ (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's not how WP works...at least not exactly. Our standards are WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV.
@PluniaZ:, I'm here because of your message on WP:AN. Let me assume for a moment that you take issue with the first sentence in the "Controversial views" section:
"The publication of Martin's book Building a Bridge in 2017 has led to controversy among Catholics."
From what I can see, the claim of "controversy" is well-sourced by 3 independent, reliable sources: CNA (which appears to be an official/quasi-official publication of the Catholic church), the Washington Post (a generally RS), and the New York Times (a generally RS). Given that the first source is an official publication, the Catholic Church itself considers his book to be "controversial". Without WP:OR, that pretty well covers "controversial among Catholics", doesn't it? Buffs (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Please read those sources. None of them say, "Father Martin's views on homosexuality are controversial among Catholics." What they describe is a campaign of harassment against Father Martin orchestrated by fringe anti-LGBT groups. A campaign of harassment is not the same thing as a controversy, and it's disingenuous to conflate the two. And Catholic News Agency is not an official publication of the Catholic Church. It is owned by a private company, EWTN, that has no affiliation with the Catholic Church. EWTN is also extremely biased and right-wing, a bias that taints all of its publications, so it cannot be relied on for statements of fact when its own partisan agenda is on the line. See here: https://www.ncronline.org/news/media/rise-ewtn-piety-partisanship --PluniaZ (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
That's why I used the term "quasi-official". Yes, it is independent of the Catholic church, but it is also tacitly endorsed. They can shut it down any time they want by prohibiting the Priests/Nuns from being involved. Likewise, they've given the station awards and members of the Pope's staff are its editorial board. To say it isn't official is technically accurate, but misleading.
It isn't even a stretch to say that that his stance is controversial amongst Catholics as they contradict the Catholic church's teachings (whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant). The given articles talk about the controversial views and this statement is an accurate summary of the given reliable sources. It also isn't "homophobic" or "bigoted" to state that there is controversy about this amongst the members of the church, so I'd ask you to stop such rhetoric. Even if it is a fringe view, it's notable enough to make international news and have real-world impacts. That alone makes such opposition notable enough for inclusion. A few sentences about such impacts does not detract from an article. Virtually all BLPs have SOME controversy. Buffs (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
His stance does not contradict the Church's teachings. None of the sources say that. None of the sources say his views are controversial. Wikipedia is now making stuff up. --PluniaZ (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
PluniaZ, if you believe it is well-sourced that there is "a campaign of harassment against Father Martin orchestrated by fringe anti-LGBT groups" can't you find a reliable source which contains that phrase, or the equivalent? EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Those calling him a "heretic" explicitly disagree with your assessment (by definition). We are not discussing whether "his views are controversial". I'm not even saying he's wrong. But it is an accurate summary of these sources to say that there is "controversy among Catholics", which seems to be your sticking point. Perhaps we could come to a consensus via different phrasing? "The publication of Martin's book Building a Bridge in 2017 was met with opposition from some Catholics." ? Buffs (talk) 17:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
What the sources describe is a campaign of targeted harassment against Father Martin by anti-LGBT groups. The first two sources given, CNA and La Croix, refer to them as "conservative cyber-militias." CNA is reporting on an article written by Archbishop Chaput in First Things, wherein Chaput refers to the "bitterness directed at Father Martin" as "unwarranted and unjust". Professor Massimo Faggioli of Villanova Unversity describes the campaign against Father Martin as follows:

The small groups that are behind the campaign that persuaded a prestigious Catholic seminary in the US capital to rescind its invitation to Fr Martin have grown over the last few years. They make up a Catholic cyber-militia that include "news" organizations like the Detroit-based "Church Militant" and bloggers such as Fr John Zuhlsdorf, an American priest known as "Fr Z" who, strangely enough, is incardinated in (that is, belongs to) an Italian diocese, but lives in the United States.

The Washington Post identifies the organizations behind the harrasment campaign as Church Militant and LifeSiteNews, which the Post describes as "fringe." The New York Times describes the harassment campaign as "the scorched-earth tactics of ultraconservatives" that "often gives them a sway disproportionate to their actual numbers."
So the question is, do the harassment campaigns waged by extremist fringe groups against the subject of a BLP deserve acknowledgment in that BLP? WP:BLPBALANCE clearly says the answer is NO - "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." Perhaps this harassment should be mentioned in the Wikipedia articles about those organizations. Perhaps there should even be a Wikipedia page about extremist anti-LGBT groups. But they do not deserve recognition in a BLP about the person they are trying to harass. --PluniaZ (talk) 18:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT applies in spades here. Buffs (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Kindly read some of your own sources with care. For example, Archbishop Chaput writes that "The perceived ambiguities in some of Fr. Martin’s views on sexuality have created much of the apprehension and criticism surrounding his book." Chaput is criticizing the tone and methods used against Martin, but actually reaffirms that he is controversial. Your assessment that any controversy around Martin is only a WP:FRINGE view does not seem accurate—and even if it were, a fringe view that is itself widely reported on should be included with WP:DUE weight. Let's discuss how best to word this in the article. Kim Post (talk) 18:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Here you go: Irish Times, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Martin admitting he knew it sould be controversial in WaPo, USA Today - I could go on, but it's not controversial to call him controversial. Guy (Help!) 12:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────As an ex-Catholic, I hold no brief for the ultraconservative Catholics PluniaZ describes, but it seems to me that he wants to write them out of Catholicism altogether and accept only liberal and enlightened Catholic views as legitimate expressions of the Catholic faith. As much as I may agree with those views in general, they are very much not the bulk of Catholic opinions, which tends to sit more in the center leaning left in the West, and leaning right elsewhere in the world. PluniaZ seems limited by his or her own personal POV regarding what mainstream Catholicism is, and how the view of those such as Father Martin are received in the hide-bound conservative world of the Vatican. Beyond My Ken (talk)

I concur. Buffs (talk) 15:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the section could be titled "Reactions to Building Bridges, and include a variety of the most responsible. Chaput doesn't actually review the book, but the nature of some of the responses to it. That's not to say his views shouldn't be included, but are better drawn from his own words in the essay in First Things [2] rather than a second hand characterization of them by some anonymous writer for CNA. Rather than identify the reactions as controversial, why not simply describe them. Regarding the rescinding of the speaking engagement at the Theological College, in this instance, Brian Roewe at the National Catholic Reporter is a little better than Sarah Bailey's Post article in that Roewe gives the rector's reasons. [3]. Manannan67 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 16 August 2019. Error in TITLE on ref#36: " Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say I Dan Hitchins" & ref #27[edit]

Please look at current ref #36. The TITLE= reads as " Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say I Dan Hitchins". Looking at "view source", it appears that what appears as "I" on my ipad may have been supposed to be a pipe?? Not sure what has happened here, but can you fix this? Dan Hitchins is the author, so his name should not appear in the title. TITLE= "Fr. Martin Does Not Actually Say" is the correct source title. A similar problem occurs in ref #27 title. Perhaps it is just my ipad rendering? Thanks for your time. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 02:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done Think I got these. — xaosflux Talk 19:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)