I am not a “traditionalist”. At least not in the sense that the term has come to mean these days in common ecclesial parlance. I have sharp theological disagreements with the theological tendencies among some traditionalists on a range of issues. Nevertheless, they are a part of the Church, and their concerns should not be trivialized as unimportant or summarily dismissed via the pathway of lazy and breezy caricatures of them as just a gaggle of “anti-Vatican II” malcontents.
However, there are some, especially among the strongest apologists for the Francis papacy, who accuse traditionalists of interjecting a “toxic” divisiveness that undermines Church unity and jeopardizes ecclesial peace. This fact, they say, justifies the draconian restrictions introduced by Pope Francis, in Traditionis Custodes, on the traditional Latin Mass (TLM).
I am not here to re-litigate that debate or to argue that there are not indeed such toxic elements within the traditionalist movement. Instead, I want to call into question the response of the Church to the alleged toxicity of the movement—a reputation that I think is exaggerated—by engaging in the much-maligned practice of “whataboutism”. This practice can, on occasion, be a deflection from examining one’s flaws and should usually be avoided. Nevertheless, it can also be used legitimately to point out double standards, especially when ecclesial authorities are quick to discipline the failures of some while ignoring equally problematic failures in others. And this becomes acutely important when it appears that those authorities have their thumb on the scales of pastoral justice based upon unarticulated theological commitments.
Furthermore, it is precisely the ongoing presence in the Church of an apparent set of double standards—one stern and directed at the traditionalist wing of the Church and the other a more lenient latitudinarian tolerance for the more progressive wing of the Church—that is, at least in part, the generative cause of whatever “overreactions” one sees among some traditionalists. Ecclesial peace, therefore, cannot be brought about in such an environment by doubling down on the double standard since all that does, as we saw with Traditionis Custodes, is create deeper resentments and encourages a festering anger.
“Outreach” or overreach?
One example of such a double standard is the benign allowance, and sometimes even support, of the “Outreach” ministry by Fr. James Martin, SJ. To be clear, I have no animus whatsoever against Fr. Martin, who seems to be a very likable, congenial, and kind-hearted man. And I believe that reaching out to homosexuals with pastoral sensitivity and love is a laudable pastoral goal. I have spoken to folks who know Fr. Martin personally and who confirm this assessment. He is as he appears to be in his public persona, which is a person possessed of genuine empathetic impulses. And I see no reason to doubt that assessment.
Nevertheless, who can doubt that the overall tenor and message of his ministry calls into question the Church’s teachings on homosexuality and, by downstream implication, the entirety of the Church’s traditional teachings on sexuality? Fr. Martin is careful to steer clear of explicitly rejecting this teaching. However, his careful attempts to stay within the boundaries of orthodoxy are minimalist and rather juridical. He does not explicitly deny Church teaching, but he has also never publicly affirmed it as something he accepts and embraces.
This smacks of a disingenuous “strategy” to fly under the radar of a robust orthodoxy in moral matters in order to avoid censure, as his entire ministry is geared toward the attenuation of this orthodoxy by attempting at every turn to normalize homosexual relationships as thoroughly unproblematical expressions of love. He may not openly deny Church teaching, but in his efforts at normalizing homosexual relationships as healthy, love-engendering unions, he subtly (but forcefully as well) undermines the normativity of the Church’s theological anthropology of human beings created by God as male and female and oriented toward procreative, lifelong commitment in marriage.
Nor will it do to affirm simply that even if this is the “norm,” there can be deviations from this norm that are perfectly moral. Because in so admitting of “exceptions,” Fr. Martin is implicitly affirming that they too are willed directly by God as part of the kaleidoscopic landscape of human sexuality. Thus, their relationships are not “disordered” but merely “differently ordered”. But this runs counter to the entire trajectory of the pedagogy of Divine Revelation on this issue, the entirety of the Jewish and Christian moral traditions that have developed from that pedagogy, and the entirety of the Church’s moral and theological teachings on sexuality.
Nor does Fr. Martin provide us with a set of theological criteria for adjudicating between aspects of the sexual rainbow of differences that are healthy and those that are not. It would seem that the only criterion he provides is whether the relationships in question are “loving” and therefore reflective of the presence of God’s approbation. But if this is so, then what is the line of demarcation between homosexual unions and polygamous ones, or polyamorous relationships, or those who merely cohabitate without marriage, or even incestuous relationships where there is no possibility of inbred procreation? I could go on with further examples, but the point is made.
The Scriptures never teach that the sole criterion for morally sound relationships is some vague and sentimental notion of “love”. Nevertheless, Fr. Martin refers to passages in Scripture, which clearly teach against homosexual acts, as “clobber verses” and posts articles on his webpage that employ very questionable scriptural exegesis in seeking to undermine their normativity.
This seems a strange thing to do if one is committed to the Church’s teaching. Instead, it speaks to an implied dissent from those teachings when, at every turn, the evidence of Revelation is turned on its head and made to appear as at least silent on the issue, when it most certainly is not. This is why, for instance, the Catechism states:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity (Cf. Genesis 19:1-29; Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:10; 1 Timothy 1:10), tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona humana, 8). They are contrary to the natural law. (CCC 2357; emphasis added)
The tired accusation of “homophobia”
This implicit dissent leads to an inversion of moral values. Those who continue to affirm the Church’s teachings on homosexuality are accused of the all-purpose, catch-all term “homophobia”.
For example, the Supreme Court affirmed recently that parents have a right to keep their children out of “LGBTQ diversity” lessons in school, and that they have a right to object to books in the school library that are texts of LGBTQ normalization advocacy.
In a June 27th essay on the Outreach site, Fr. Martin strongly objects to this ruling. He affirms there might be library books that are inappropriate for minors if they are sexually explicit, but then laments the dangerous slippery slope of allowing parents to have such rights as enumerated by the court. He states:
But pretty soon, it’s possible that even speaking to, or doing business with, an LGBTQ person (or having them teach your children) could be framed as a threat to one’s “religious values.” It’s important to remember that Christianity should not be used as a fig leaf for homophobia. Moreover, many straight Christians want to be welcoming to LGBTQ people; and many straight Christian parents pray that their children will come to know LGBTQ people as their brothers and sisters. Being Christian does not mean being homophobic.
This is vicious in its own subtle way since it clearly implies that the parents involved are just anti-gay bigots who are misusing their religion as a “fig leaf” that hides a simple animus against homosexuals. One could just as easily turn this argument against Fr. Martin and accuse him of using his religion as a fig leaf to cover over what is nothing more than a robust affirmation of the modern secular ideology of the sexual revolution.
Fr. Martin’s accusations imply a deep contempt for the sensibilities of parents who are not as bigoted or as stupid as he infers, and who know darn well that what is really going on is not a simple lesson in being accepting of the diverse human landscape and is instead a widespread and entrenched form of indoctrination.
Normalization of deviancy
Once again, the real issue here is not diversity but the normalization of homosexual acts as perfectly moral. When I was in elementary (public) school in the Sixties, we were already being taught in my social studies courses about different cultures, races, nations, and customs. We were taught to accept such diversity and were challenged to welcome it. It was the era of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement, and we are taught about the history of slavery, Jim Crow laws, and racism. No parent that I know of objected to this, and it was in no way resisted by racist or xenophobic parents who used their religion as a fig leaf to cover over rank bigotry.
Therefore, it is simply wrong to assert that what parents today are objecting to is “diversity” as such, but rather the weaponization of this idea. They recognize it is a battering ram of indoctrination into the supposed moral legitimacy of a set of sexual practices at odds with the vast majority of the religions of the world. They are objecting to the quasi-religious status that the “LGBTQ+” ideology has reached in our culture and the attempt by various levels of government to impose what is, in essence, an established religion of rainbow enthusiasms on their children.
There are countless ways to teach diversity to students without imposing upon them such an ideology. And nobody is objecting to teaching tolerance for diversity as a broad civic virtue in a healthy democracy. Fr. Martin fails to acknowledge this fact and thereby tips his hand as to his true objective, which is the normalization of homosexual acts via indoctrination into the rainbow mythology of God-willed sexual fluidity.
Freedom of religion is the first right mentioned in the Bill of Rights, and with good reason. But Fr. Martin, shockingly, treats this right as a threat wielded by homophobes to undermine this agenda. He never acknowledges that the religious conscience rights of parents are important and central to a proper Catholic understanding of child-rearing.
To that end, in the same essay, Fr. Martin appeals to the same tired mantra that Jesus, in the parable of the good Samaritan, warns us not to turn our religion into a fear of “the other”. However, as is always the case when this parable is cited by pro-LGBTQ+ Catholics, its exegesis is marred by ignoring the context of the parable. What Jesus is warning against is not making necessary moral adjudications and distinctions, but rather against turning the religion of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob into an idolatrous ethno-nationalistic ideology of hatred toward foreigners. Yes, there is the element of Judaic rejection of Samaritan theological claims that is being questioned by Jesus as a litmus test of purity, but the parable is decidedly not about accepting any or all moral “differences” in the sexual domain.
But Fr. Martin uses the parable as an undifferentiated condemnation of religious parents who are objecting to the sexual moral indoctrination in school of their children, and implies that all such efforts are an exercise in the false religiosity condemned by Jesus. There is also a not-so-subtle hypocrisy in this demonization of the religiosity of the parents in question, since Fr. Martin is himself using a religious argument to “exclude” them from the conversation as dangerous, bigoted interlocutors who are being disingenuous.
One could just as easily claim that it is the parents who are the Samaritans of today who have run afoul of the dominant established LGBTQ-religion of the public schools.
The glaring double standard
Returning then to where I started, the silence of Church authorities to the ministry of Fr. Martin speaks volumes about a glaring double standard. It is apparently okay to work to undermine the Church’s teachings on sexuality, or even, as in the case of Cardinals McElroy and Hollerich, to reject them on the topic of homosexuality. But it is not okay for traditionalists to question the direction taken by the post-conciliar Church in liturgical matters.
Indeed, Fr. Martin was given a Vatican job and made a voting member of the Synod on Synodality, even as Courage International was excluded. And Cardinal Hollerich, who dissents from Church teaching on this issue, was made the Relator General of the Synod.
Are we not allowed to be a bit perplexed by such double standards? Are we not allowed to question the “no enemies to the Left of me but only to the Right of me” mentality that seems to be the default attitude of so many Church leaders these days?
I am not trying to be “clever” here in appealing to dialogue and synodal listening. I think such things are important. Rather, it is my hope and prayer that Pope Leo seeks to remedy this double standard. And, in the interests of parrhesia and synodal dialogue, he treats the critical voices on the Catholic Right with the same deference that has been shown to Fr. Martin and his allies.
Related at CWR:
• The Triumph of the Therapeutic Mentality (June 6, 2024) by Eduardo Echeverria
• Call to Conversion and Holiness (June 9, 2024) by Eduardo Echeverria
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
This was a great expansion on your discussion with Kale. Thank you
Larry has been talking to a vegetable? Capital!
Larry Chapp, “Godfather of CWR Dissertations.”
We read: “…it is my hope and prayer that Pope Leo seeks to remedy this [Fr. James Martin, Cardinals McElroy and Hollerich] double standard. And, in the interests of parrhesia and synodal dialogue, he treats the critical voices on the Catholic Right with the same deference that has been shown to Fr. Martin and his allies.”
About the unheard “critical voices,” how about this on Lifesitenews.com about the “Lavender Mafia” and “When wolves wear vestments:”
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-no-more-lavender-mafia/
https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/bishop-strickland-when-wolves-wear-vestments-the-synodal-siege-within-the-church/
Might we hope that Cardinals Grech and Fernandez are not the ghost writers for future key verbiage referring to synodality for the coming years? And, that the awaited papal appointments to dicasteries, especially, have blood that is cardinal red rather than either beige or lavender?
This is not to possibly slander, by my above first link, the newly appointed Fr. Hennen to the Oregon diocese of Baker. The Catholic Vote reports that he has been involved with Courage International… So, about specific reputations, maybe the angels are in the details. https://catholicvote.org/father-thomas-hennen-named-bishop-baker-oregon-bishop-cary-retires/
A good writeup on Pope Leo. Your reference on Bishop Hennen is assuring. Although Chapp’s observation of Pope Leo’s equal deference to the good, the bad, and the ugly is similar to my opinion. Is this even-handed approach beneficial for unity, or is it consistent with Pope Francis’ agenda to continue the flow of heterodoxy ‘under the radar’ [Chapp], and in effect reinforcing an amoral form of Catholic Christianity?
So far his appointments of bishops and Dicastery prefects show a consistency with the mind of Francis. As it stands, except for a milder, affable personality – there is no distinguishable difference from Francis on appointments or the Synod on Synodality. This latter was my concern prior to the election of Leo XIV.
Totally true – all of this. Why is he not reined in? sophistry will not do.
Our feckless bishops will stand by and watch Fr. Martin promote sinful lifestyles in the Church. I cannot decide who’s farthest from God – our bishops or Fr. Martin. (It’s just a good thing that Fr. Martin isn’t promoting Communion on the tongue as he’d be toast.)
“[T]exts of LGBTQ normalization advocacy”.
Thanks for this phrase. Nails it.
As a lay person, part of my daily discipline is to read the daily mass readings even though I don’t go to mass daily. I’ve noticed that the liturgical calendar is planted thick with martyrs. I was named for St Thomas More. He was martyred and elevated to Sainthood over what? Divorce and remarriage. He could have very easily avoided being martyred by simply taking the oath. The Pope could have very easily avoided the split in the Church simply by giving Henry VIII a dispensation. On reflection I ask myself, at what point are we called to truly defend the teachings of the Church? My daughter, with a bachelors and masters degrees earned at Jesuit universities, has recently gained the certifications needed to approve people for transition therapy. In the penitential rite during mass we ask forgiveness for things we have done and things we have failed to do. I think my mistake has been that I haven’t talked enough, not that I talked too much.
The passive aggressive form of evangelization doesn’t seem to be working. We’re not drawing people to God by overlooking things. What’s happening is the Church is constantly being drawn into controversy over issues that should be closed. As a Catholic in a pastoral sense, I should be willing to discuss the existence of God with an atheist. It would be fundamentally dishonest if I gave the impression that I am really open to the idea of rejecting God’s existence simply to maintain dialogue. There is a serious disconnect between discussions of pastoral ministry and discussions of doctrine.
Theologians, religious, and bishops should not be the object of remedial education in terms of Church teaching. They are supposed to be experts. They are supposed to have heard all the arguments. If they have a problem with Church teaching they should find a church that actually embraces their beliefs. As I said to a gay Catholic at one time, “I think you’re better off showing up to the Pearly Gates an honest Episcopalian rather than a dishonest Catholic. But the first thing you need to do is be honest with yourself. Besides, it’s a lot easier to come back to the Church if you actually know you’ve left.”
I’m a witness, not a judge. As a witness, I have a duty to speak the truth to the best of my ability whether or not someone likes it. I leave final judgement in God’s capable hands.
Thank you for a very helpful comment.
So well said! I appreciate the clear points while not personally attacking Fr. Martin but rather his approach and way he undermines Church teaching which is a determent to souls.
Thanks again Larry. In short-well put. While you recognize Fr. Martin’s integrity you point out his many inconsistencies and blind spots. Misguided charity is just as dangerous as misguided justice. Truly Pope Leo has a very unenviable job of being a reconciler- the middle man never wins. 🤯
Homosophistry – that’s a great term, and it sums up Martin’s ministry perfectly.
I’m not sure about this article. We need more evidence that your depiction of Father James Martin is accurate. This article here, written by Father James Martin, seems to undermine your claim (I emphasize “seems to”):
https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2018/04/06/what-official-church-teaching-homosexuality-responding-commonly-asked-question
I find it hard to believe that Father James Martin, a Catholic priest who has taken a vow of celibacy, would tell a gay couple that it is perfectly okay for them to engage in sexual acts that are fundamentally a matter of mutual masturbation. He has written an article explaining Church teaching on this, a pretty decent article that does not seem deceptive to me in any way. If you can provide something a bit more solid and unambiguous that he rejects what he wrote in the article I just posted, I would be very grateful.
In any case, I don’t know why we are wasting our time on this, given the serious issues that are affecting peoples’ lives today. We have a massive heritage on sexual morality, which includes St. John Paul II’s theology of the body. It is utterly implausible that a priest and a few Cardinals who see the importance of LGBTQ ministry are going to completely overturn this heritage–assuming that you are correct in that they have a secret agenda, which I doubt. If you can prove me wrong on this, I would be grateful.
“In any case, I don’t know why we are wasting our time on this, given the serious issues that are affecting peoples’ lives today.”
So exposing a wolf in sheep’s clothing who is intentionally undermining church teaching and trying to normalize homosexuality is a waste of time? I hardly think so.
So are you and James Martin saying that sex can get disordered but homosexualism itself is not disordered?
He does say in the article in the link that “lgbt persons can be chaste”. But that would be disordered and not chaste even without any sexualized actions.
“In other words they can live holy lives” -but accommodating with disorders is opposed to holiness.
The article you give written by him, also makes chastity as celibacy.
I find it hard to believe that Father James Martin, a Catholic priest who has taken a vow of celibacy, would tell a gay couple that it is perfectly okay for them to engage in sexual acts that are fundamentally a matter of mutual masturbation. ”
Arguments from personal incredulity are fallacious.
Great article. I’ve been trying to post a comment on CWR for 30 minutes, in reply to a certain Thomas James, but I keep getting an error. So I’m just going to post the comment here for now:
Thomas – Thanks for finding that article written by Fr. Martin. Somehow you found a needle in a haystack.
However, the article itself needs close examination, particularly in this paragraph:
“Building a Bridge intentionally steered clear of issues of sexual morality, since I hoped to foster dialogue by focusing on areas of possible commonality; and the church hierarchy and the majority of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics remain far apart on these issues. It also makes little sense to begin a conversation with topics on which the two sides are the farthest apart. Overall, the book was about dialogue and prayer, rather than moral theology.”
Personally, I think the methodology of Fr. Martin is completely upside down. I’m not here to question his motives, but simply the wisdom of his approach.
His book should be called “Creating an Impasse” rather than “Building Bridges.” Because by deliberately avoiding the question of what the church teaches, and instead scouring the horizon for some fabled common ground with the Church’s interlocutors on the other side of this issue, he’s dooming the project to failure or, at the very least, delaying a possible way forward. Those engaged in the pastoral work of the Church should not be afraid of communicating in a frank, honest, charitable way what the church teaches and of steel-manning the position of those who oppose the church’s teaching. Put all of the cards on the table; then it’s possible to start actually dealing with real questions and concerns. Otherwise, one remains in the fog of abstruse observations, unfair assumptions, attribution of bad motives, etc., etc. – all of which are disastrous, pastorally speaking. It delays possible movement forward. Why would one want to delay arriving at authentic pastoral solutions? Do we really imagine it’s okay to continue in the current situation, marked by contradictory approaches and banal attempts to smooth over irreconcilable differences? Do we believe the time of final judgment – both personally and for the Church – will be delayed indefinitely? If so, on what basis? In short, to borrow a phrase from Pope Benedict XVI, where is the intellectual charity?
I’m referring to what Pope Benedict XVI said when he was speaking to educators at the Catholic University of America in 2008:
“When nothing beyond the individual is recognized as definitive, the ultimate criterion of judgment becomes the self and the satisfaction of the individual’s immediate wishes. The objectivity and perspective, which can only come through a recognition of the essential transcendent dimension of the human person, can be lost. Within such a relativistic horizon the goals of education are inevitably curtailed. Slowly, a lowering of standards occurs. We observe today a timidity in the face of the category of the good and an aimless pursuit of novelty parading as the realization of freedom. We witness an assumption that every experience is of equal worth and a reluctance to admit imperfection and mistakes. And particularly disturbing, is the reduction of the precious and delicate area of education in sexuality to management of ‘risk’, bereft of any reference to the beauty of conjugal love.
How might Christian educators respond? These harmful developments point to the particular urgency of what we might call “intellectual charity”. This aspect of charity calls the educator to recognize that the profound responsibility to lead the young to truth is nothing less than an act of love. Indeed, the dignity of education lies in fostering the true perfection and happiness of those to be educated. In practice “intellectual charity” upholds the essential unity of knowledge against the fragmentation which ensues when reason is detached from the pursuit of truth. It guides the young towards the deep satisfaction of exercising freedom in relation to truth, and it strives to articulate the relationship between faith and all aspects of family and civic life. Once their passion for the fullness and unity of truth has been awakened, young people will surely relish the discovery that the question of what they can know opens up the vast adventure of what they ought to do. Here they will experience “in what” and “in whom” it is possible to hope, and be inspired to contribute to society in a way that engenders hope in others.”
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080417_cath-univ-washington.html
Thomas James,
We read: “I find it hard to believe that Father James Martin, a Catholic priest who has taken a vow of celibacy, would tell a gay couple that it is perfectly okay for them to engage in sexual acts that are fundamentally a matter of mutual masturbation.”
Understand that within the homosexual bubble, “celibacy” applies only to man/woman binary sexuality. Homosexuality is redefined as an exceptional new category altogether, such that a pair of homosexuals can be active and “chaste” without violating celibacy.
When some bishops and priests are asked if they have ever sexually abused their accusers, their straight-faced (so to speak) response is that they have never violated their (irrelevant) vow of celibacy.
Many good points made by Mr. Chapp in this article, but I do find one of his statements very problematic, and that is, ” I have no animus whatsoever against Fr. Martin, who seems to be a very likable, congenial, and kind-hearted man.” That is a huge part of the problem. If he was unlikable, not congenial, and hard-hearted he would not be so effective. I am sure that on a personal basis many evil people have been likable. Satan does not approach us as a monster, but as someone who only wants us to have pleasure. We should have animus (ill-will)toward evil and those who promote it.
The lead on this article asks why so many Church leaders are silent regarding his homosexual propaganda. Probably more than one reason, but his pleasant personality may be one of the reasons.
He has already met with Pope Leo. I haven’t seen anything from the pope on that. Some might say that we need to give the pope time to get his feet on the ground, but there are some things that seriously affect peoples’s salvation, and should not be put off.
“likable, congenial, and kind-hearted man”
Quite frankly, I don’t understand this at all. That’s his public image.
Before he became a Jesuit casuist, He was a GE financial analyst-back in the
days of the ruthlessly demanding CEO Jack Welch. Equipped with a Wharton econ degree, you can be sure that in addition to technical skills, Martin learned the fineries of public deportment and affability.
One of the insights you develop with an econ degree is the ability to identify potential markets and understand any potential products that serve them. (Full disclosure: I have an econ degree not from Penn, but Penn State). It is best if the market is hidden in plain sight and has low barriers to entry and therefore, market penetration costs.
Martin did this masterfully. He identified a market (the alphabet crowd) and the products they sought (normalization and affirmation).
Now, he’s turned this cottage industry into a lucrative empire-as he’s the “go to” for a man with a collar will affirm the alphabet lifestyle.
Since the market penetration costs were the demands of priestly life- he skipped out on the parish side with demands such as such as 6:30 AM Masses, parishioner counseling, calls to hospitals and parish building maintenance and perhaps an orthodox bishop, becoming a Jesuit allowed him to operate in an order known for its allowance of the heterodox and heteropraxic.
Kind-hearted people “instruct the ignorant”, they don’t affirm sin or affirm the idea that inclination is destiny.
The authority teaching being rejected by LGBTQ ideology is not merely “the Church’s teaching.” The authority being rejected by LGBTQ activists, including Rev. James Martin SJ, is not merely “the Church’s authority.”
The authority and teachers being rejected by LGBTQ ideology and activists are Jesus Christ and his Apostles.
And the phenomenon of “the Church being so silent” in response to LGBTQ ideology and activists like Rev. Martin seems to indicate, at best, a shirking of duty by so many “Church authorities,” and of course, the worse explanations include advocating the LGBTQ ideology, such as Eminence McElroy and Eminence Hollerich, etc etc.
And, about the inborn natural law, this: “The Church is no way the author or the arbiter of this [‘moral’] norm” (St. John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 1993, n. 95).
The fact that Fr. James Martin, S.J. is a nice guy does not exonerate him from rationalizing the sin of sodomy as something suddenly good and morally acceptable in an overt effort to lead numerous souls to perdition by his false teachings. In every way this character is a ravenous wolf deeply planted within the fold. And it needs to be pointed out that he received extraordinary assistance getting through the gate.
“Are we not allowed to question the ‘no enemies to the Left of me but only to the Right of me’ mentality that seems to be the default attitude of so many Church leaders these days?”
This question assumes that those who fall under the heading of “so many Church leaders these days” are somehow “in the middle” of two competing tendencies when, in reality, “so many Church leaders” are actually in the same camp as those purportedly to the left of them. For many Church leaders, there are no enemies to the left of them because they *are* the “left.”
One can hope the appointment of a new bishop from half the length of the country away (i.e., Fr. Hennen) that is a strong advocate of Courage indicates some small token of hope.
Larry Chapp’s critique above rests on a “fortress” ecclesiology, a defensive, purity-driven view of the Church that fears “contamination” from the world and treats pastoral outreach here as capitulation. Pope Francis has consistently called the Church to be not a “fortress” or “country club for the pure,” but a “field hospital” for the wounded (cf. Evangelii Gaudium 47). This means prioritizing pastoral care, accompaniment, and listening, especially toward those marginalized or hurt by the Church, including LGBTQIA+ persons.
Fr. James Martin, SJ, far from undermining doctrine, lives out this pastoral mission in line with Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, and recent Synodal priorities, recognizing that truth is not compromised by mercy, and teaching is not threatened by welcome. The Catechism itself (CCC 2358) calls for “respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” To say Fr. Martin “undermines Church teaching” merely because he centers human dignity and avoids weaponizing doctrine reflects not fidelity but fear.
Furthermore, the double standard argument collapses upon scrutiny. The liturgy and moral theology belong to different domains, one a question of discipline, the other of doctrine and discernment. Moving forward, Pope Leo XIV, as he clearly declared that he is continuing Pope Francis’ priorities, seeks not moral relativism but a synodal Church grounded in truth and charity, where no one is excluded from the table of listening and discernment.
The corruption can be seen in many subtle ways.
For example. When Pope Saint JPII first introduced the Luminous Mysteries of the Holy Rosary, the third mystery was “The proclamation of the kingdom of God with the call to conversion”.
Today, more often than not, this same mystery can be found promulgated as simply”The proclamation of the kingdom of God”, as if the conversion aspect somehow became optional somewhere along the way.
The on-line Catholic ministry, “Courage”, was founded precisely to guide, instruct, assist and spiritually support men struggling with homosexual tendencies within the framework of the Catholic faith.
If Fr. James Martin, S.J. & company were laboring among the sheep in this manner, there would be no crisis. Instead, the more subtle mechanics have become planting the seed, i.e., repeating the lie, “It’s ok to keep committing this sin. God will forgive you no matter what.” The mindset being, “God must submit to our will.”
When enough people keep repeating, by both omission and action, that conversion is not necessary for salvation, then, as we have witnessed over the years, many gullible souls will be won over, but not to Heaven.
Responding to Deacon Dom: Poppycock. And that’s being generous.
Anyone (like myself) who has followed Martin over the years knows that Martin has consistently undermined, misrepresented, or ignored Church teaching on matters of personhood, identity, anthropology, marriage, and sexuality. He has openly advocated for a change in the Catechism’s careful and clear wording about homosexual tendencies and actions. He often writes about how “same-sex couples” have “blessed” him and the Church, as if a relationship based on an attraction/inclination that is intrinsically disordered can actually “bless” anything. (How about adulterous relationships? Or incestuous relationships? Etc.?) He writes of how the “reality of same-sex relationships” is “integral to the meaning of Church,” and rarely, if ever, mentions that sexual acts are meant only for men and women in marriage. He often invokes openly homosexual and/or liberal “scholars” who posit false interpretations of Scripture regarding homosexuality, including stupid and embarrassing claims that go contrary to great Jesuit Scripture scholars. And the “Outreach: An LGBTQ Catholic Resource” site, founded by Martin and operating “under the auspices of American Media, a Jesuit ministry, routinely features articles with titles such as “LGBTQ Catholics need a queer theology of liberation” and “Why queer joy is vital to the church” and “I find God in my gay relationship. What does ‘Fiducia Supplicans’ mean for us?”
And that’s just a start. This is not about a “fortress mentality” but about immoral teaching, the sort of ideological agenda that destroys lives and souls.
I don’t think what Deacon Dom said was poppycock. You said “Anyone (like myself) who has followed Martin over the years…”
Why would you follow Martin? Are you involved in ministry to those with a same sex orientation and are looking to learn something from his experience? Or was it rooted more in suspicion? You didn’t trust him. From the get go you thought he was a fraud, and you are going to catch him when he slips up. I’m willing to bet this was in fact the case. And that is precisely the “defensive” or fortress mentality that Dom is talking about. And when you follow somebody with that mentality, you begin to read into them precisely what you suspect.
For example, yes, he did advocate for a change in the Catechism’s wording about homosexual tendencies. The problem with the word “disorder” is that the majority of people are not moral philosophers and are not familiar with the term as it is used in the context of morality. The majority are familiar with the term as it is used in psychology, as in “personality disorder” (Borderline Personality Disorder; Narcissistic Personality Disorder, etc.). So it is prudent, to avoid misunderstanding, to find another term or way of expressing this. And indeed, it is very possible that his work with same sex couples has blessed him. I work with mental health patients, and I have been blessed by them in ways very hard to describe, but that does not mean that I believe clinical depression is a good thing.
The problem is the angle from which you see this issue. For James Martin, it is about “relationships”, real people, real persons, but for you, it is an issue, an abstract moral issue, namely same sex actions. James Martin addressed same sex actions in the article I posed above. That’s done. Finished. His primary concern in ministry is with real human beings who need Christ. Virtuous actions and questions about morality come after the discovery of the Person of Christ, and we don’t discover Christ by quoting the Catechism or by hearing a moralizing sermon on chastity.
Shalom World has a pretty good video entitled Can I Be a Christian and Gay? James Parker. What’s interesting is that he discovered the Person of Christ first. But then, a year after that, he discovered that same sex acts were not quite in accordance with the will of Christ, whom he loved. It was then that he was able to make the necessary changes. Not the other way around. It is interesting that the Lord was patient and waited a year.
The problem is your conceptual framework. For you, it is about moral problem solving. For James Martin, it is about real human beings. He doesn’t deny Church teaching on sexual morality, but he’s smart enough to realize that you need much more than the dictates of the law to change the hearts of searching human beings. As St. Paul says, we are not saved by the law, but by grace, and grace is a Person. In fact, it is three Persons. If you worked in this ministry, you’d discover a world of information about which you currently have no idea, because for you, it is a moral problem that takes place on a certain level of abstraction and is thus rather cut and dried, and you just cannot seem to shift your vantage point. It’s sort of like suicide. You have moralizers who insist on looking at this from a moral point of view alone, and then those who actually work with those who suffer from clinical depression. The latter know that the reality is so much more complex than ‘thou shalt not kill’, killing is a mortal sin, suicide is killing, hence….
“Why would you follow Martin?”
I’ll answer this one question, because it’s so bone-headedly obvious that you’d have to be a know-it-all to not understand.
Martin has had been a prominent and influential priest and author for about two decades or so. I’ve been working in the realm of Catholic journalism and writing during that time.
Duh.
Also, back in 2009, when Pres. Obama was being honored with a doctorate at ND, I criticized some comments made by Martin on a Sunday morning round-table program. A few days later, he called me; he tried to convince me that we actually agreed on essentials, etc. I politely told him that I didn’t think that was the case. So, that furthered my interest in what he was doing and how he was doing it.
The table of listening and discernment cannot include the acceptance of mortal sin without endangering souls Homosexual acts are an abomination before God and that must be made clear to those participating in such behavior.
I read Deacon Dom’s comments during Lent, but that was for penance. Lent is over so I really should just skip his comments.
You say, “However, there are some, especially among the strongest apologists for the Francis papacy, who accuse traditionalists of interjecting a “toxic” divisiveness that undermines Church unity and jeopardizes ecclesial peace. This fact, they say, justifies the draconian restrictions introduced by Pope Francis, in Traditionis Custodes, on the traditional Latin Mass (TLM).”
In hindsight, PF1 accomplished this division within Holy Mother Church, calculatingly, through strategic purges within the Magisterium he himself directed. His plan and intent became clear after his prolonged refusal to respond to the initial “dubia” which was submitted upon the publication of his first encyclical.
He, himself said, “I may be the one who destroys the Catholic Church.” Why, in the name of Heaven would a sitting pontiff even entertain such a thought, much less state it publicly?
Now, a few months into the rein of his successor we, as Catholics, have settled uncomfortably into a divided, confrontational modality – those evil Traditionalists vs. the “Good Guys”.
It was not the Traditionalists who “interjected a toxic divisiveness.” We have done nothing more and nothing less than hold fast to the Faith and Tradition given us by Christ.
This is another example of worldly political strategy creeping into the Church, one in which the “Good Guys” blame their opponents for the evil they, themselves commit.
From the beginning with Francis I the new Politik is suggestion, as observed by Chapp, “This smacks of a disingenuous ‘strategy’ to fly under the radar of a robust orthodoxy in moral matters in order to avoid censure”.
Fr Martin SJ uses woke slogans like homophobia to actually form a subconscious doctrine that justifies homosexual behavior and condemns the orthodox Catholic. We hear this enough times while it’s quietly accepted by episcopal authority and similar to Pavlovian repetition we begin to believe it.
Fr Martin was lionized and given backing by Cdl Hollerch and with a wink from Francis. A charade that had to be called out. Our dilemma now is where does Leo XIV stand? He can’t continue the charade and pretend to be a new beginning aimed at unity – unless unity is code for heterodox uniformity. Orthodox doctrine relegated to unattainable ideal.
Thanks.
The Word of God says: “Judge not.”
The Word of God says: “For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
The Word of God says: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel.”
But Fr. Martin says…Never mind. Who cares?
It’s not like we haven’t been warned.
The Word of God says: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.” And “Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea.” And “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.” And all of Jude! See the teaching of every pontificate prior to Franciscus, etc.
Jesus Christ is Lord. Pray and stay Catholic.
Thank you, Mr. Chapp. Always look forward to your expert and very helpful commentaries.
I’m afraid I do not live up to your higher standard of evenhandedness called for here.
To me Martin’s homosophistry is as heretical as the expressed views of McElroy and Hollerich, the false teachers in the Church which Christ in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit in the Epistles repeatedly warned us about.
Recently yet another diocese declared bankruptcy due to the financial burden of sex abuse claims. We have, regrettably, become inured to this horrible scandal, the root cause of which was to admit to seminaries and later ordain men who lived a gay lifestyle.
I believe that the aim of McElroy, Hollerich and Martin is to make gay OK always and everywhere, including in the clerical state.
Trying, like Mr.Chapp, to avoid a double standard here, I must say that I also have similar disrespect for extreme trads who reject Vatican II. The difference, however, is that trads weren’t the cause of the continuing scandal of diocesan bankruptcies.
St. Peter Damian pray for us.
Homosexual acts are an abomination before God and any Catholic related accompanying process must make this clear. Those experiencing homosexual attractions have a cross to bear.. There are Catholic organizations, such as Courage International, that provide accompaniment 5o those with sam sex attraction that are seeking to live a chaste life.
I found the language of the fallacy of rainbow mythology of God-willed sexual fluidity interesting as a way to justify immoral sexuality. Even though this article deals with the LGBTQ+ immoral sexuality there are many other sexual deviant activities that permeate the heterosexual community too. There is a large range of sexual dysfunctionality in society today and I still believe the Church is taking on these sinful activities. I know many want a “Fire and Brimstone” approach but they don’t work in today’s secular society. Is Fr. James Martin, S.J., a problem and the answer is yes and he needs to be made straight by his order and if not by the Pope. What we all need to know that Fr. Martin is dealing with a demon that has overtaken him, there is no other answer to why he refuses to profess the Church law given to us by God.
“Fire and brimstone”, that is, the scourges of war, disease, economic collapse, natural disasters etc., are the means by which the Lord God punishes His people when they, themselves, have rejected all other efforts of our infinitely Loving and Merciful Lord to bring His stubbornly sinful and habitually errant children back in line.
This is the reality that mankind has witnessed and experienced since the fall of Adam & Eve.
This time will be no different, regardless of whether or not “such an approach will work in today’s secular society.”
Wait for it…
It amazes me that many among the upper echelons of the Church fail to promote Catholic teaching on sexuality and marriage. It takes someone like Jordan Peterson, who is not (officially) Catholic, to champion this state in life.
Anyone who is aware of demographic trends (rapidly falling fertility rates) understands that humanity is approaching population implosion.
At the same time, one must go to followers of TLM to find couples with larger families. And out of these larger families, priests tend to emerge.
I think that a clear message (solution?) for the Church, which is pushing in the opposite direction, is to be found here. Is this message being deliberately overlooked?
Bizarre.
Sexual degeneracy seems to be the only sin that the Church seeks to address with ‘pastoral sensitivity’ or what have you. Sinful pride? Golly, ABSOLUTE CONDEMNATION! Defrauding people of their wages! There’s no way to ‘understand’ that, ABSOLUTE CONDEMNATION!! Enjoy sexual degeneracy? Oh… golly… let’s be ‘pastorally sensitive’, we wouldn’t want to drive people away by seeming ‘judgmental’ or something.
One could draw a host of assumptions from this kind of behavior, but such assumptions wouldn’t be ‘pastorally sensitive’, would they?
Is this really what we want our new Pope to spend his time and energy on at this time? Who has a monopoly on the truth? Let God be God.
Corrected: Is this really what we want our new Pope to be working on these early days of his Papacy? Who has a monopoly on the truth? Who knows the right thing to do here? Let God be God.
The phase “Let God be God” is a favorite within Islam, that is, among Muslims who do not accept the Self-disclosure of God as the Incarnation: Jesus Christ (“the Word made flesh”).
And, about ourselves and this Jesus Christ, St. Paul, for example, had a few words about the full range of immorality, not excluding homosexual actions (Romans 1:26-27 and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10). You ask, “who knows the right thing to do here.”
Explain why such vacuity is not obtuse…
Two comments, one wrt Rev. Martin specifically, and a second voiced by a close friend of mine.
1st: In years between 2012 and 2024, I had annual excursions to NYC near Columbus Circle every June, which often coincided with the “Pride Month Parade.” On more than one occasion I witnessed Rev. Martin returning from either watching or marching in the Pride Parade, among throngs of other spectators and participants.
2nd: I have a close friend who escaped some 20 years of enslavement inside the “G” portion of the spectrum of “LBGTQ lifestyles.” He is now returned to a faithful Catholic life, yet physically suffers the ravages of STDs from his “G” behaviors. He says this to Rev. Martin: “It is insane for adults to teach children and young people that it is OK for a man to inseminate another person’s intestines.”
“Insane.”
“Indeed, Fr. Martin was given a Vatican job and made a voting member of the Synod on Synodality, even as Courage International was excluded. And Cardinal Hollerich, who dissents from Church teaching on this issue, was made the Relator General of the Synod.”
The favor which clergy like Hollerich, McElroy, Martin and many others enjoyed over many years from Pope Francis demonstrate that he was a favorer and promoter of heretics within the Church, a situation which puts him to all appearances in the position of Pope Honorius I (pope 625 to 638). It took over forty years for Pope Honorius to receive the just recompense of his actions and inactions, promulgated by Pope St. Leo II. We may well have to wait as long, or longer, although poor Honorius’s errors, or blunders, seem to me much less catastrophic than those of his later emulator.
You know, when the father of a family has on his hands an incorrigible, defiant, disobedient, wilful and out of control son, he’s likely to sit his son down and explain some of the most salient reasons how and why his behavior is unacceptable. At first, the father is patient looking for signs that his son is attempting to incorporate the discipline that the father has provided. The father even searches for explanations of what might be amiss with his son to cause such ill-tempered behavior. However, if the son’s behavior persists unchanged and unabated, the good father finally tells his son in no uncertain terms: “Knock it off!” And, if he does, that’s good; if he doesn’t the penalty is meted out.
Our problem in the Church today is that we have far too many clergy who are called “father” but have no qualifications to justify the title. Someone in authority needs to tell them: “Knock it off!”