Saint Charles Lwanga and Companions: Martyrs for Purity and Faith

Saint Charles Lwanga and Companions: Martyrs for Purity and Faith

In the late 1800s, in the Kingdom of Buganda (modern-day Uganda), a young king named Mwanga II ruled with cruelty and unchecked desires. Mwanga, known for his dissolute lifestyle, repeatedly made sexual advances—specifically homosexual ones—toward the young pages (teenage boys and young men) serving in his royal court.

Among these pages were converts to Christianity, taught by French missionaries. They learned that their bodies were temples of the Holy Spirit and that sexual acts outside of God's design—including sodomy—were grave sins. Led by Charles Lwanga, a strong, athletic, and natural leader who had been baptized in 1885, the Christian pages firmly refused the king's demands.

Charles and his predecessor, Joseph Mukasa, went further: they actively protected the younger boys from the king's predatory behavior, shielding them and encouraging them in the faith. This resistance enraged Mwanga, who saw Christianity as a threat to his absolute power and personal vices. He viewed the Christians' fidelity to Christ as defiance against his authority.

In 1885–1886, the persecution intensified. Mwanga ordered the execution of many Christians. On June 3, 1886 (Ascension Thursday), Charles Lwanga and 21 companions—most of them teenagers, including the young Kizito—were marched to Namugongo. They were bound, wrapped in reed mats, and burned alive at the stake.

As the flames rose, these brave young men prayed, sang hymns, and encouraged one another. They could have saved their lives by denying their faith or submitting to the king's sins. Instead, they chose martyrdom. Charles Lwanga himself is said to have baptized some of the boys on the way to their deaths. Their final words echoed courage: "Till death!" they declared when asked if they would remain Christians.

Why does this story matter?  

St. Charles Lwanga and his companions did not die merely for being Christian—they died because they refused to commit grave sexual sins, specifically by yielding to homosexual acts demanded by the king. They treasured chastity and obedience to God over earthly comfort, power, or survival. In an age when sexual license is often celebrated, their witness stands as a powerful reminder: true freedom is found in fidelity to Christ, even unto death.

Today, the Church celebrates their feast on June 3. They are patrons of youth, converts, and those fighting for purity. Their blood helped plant the seeds of a vibrant Catholic Church in Africa that continues to grow today.

St. Charles Lwanga and Companions, pray for us!  

Pray for courage to stand against sin. Pray for purity in a confused world. Pray that we may love Christ more than life itself. 🙏

“These martyrs... died for their Christian faith—and, more specifically, because they refused to take part in homosexual activities.” (Historical accounts)

Priests on Grindr: The Portuguese Parish Scandal and the Crisis of Homosexuality in the Priesthood

Priests on Grindr: The Portuguese Parish Scandal and the Crisis of Homosexuality in the Priesthood

The Catholic Church in Portugal is in the news, but not for the upcoming anniversary of the Fatima apparitions on May 13.  A disturbing report has emerged from northern Portugal, highlighting ongoing challenges within the Catholic Church. A complaint filed with the Polícia Judiciária in Porto alleges that several priests from the dioceses of Porto and Braga participated in gay orgies organized through the dating app Grindr. These encounters reportedly took place in parish houses, motels, and other locations, involving secret WhatsApp groups for coordination.

According to the whistleblower, weekly "men-only" meetings featured activities described as orgies where "almost anything goes." Parish properties were allegedly used as venues, raising serious questions about the stewardship of sacred spaces and the fidelity of ordained ministers. This scandal is not isolated. Similar stories have surfaced in the U.S. and Vatican, underscoring a persistent problem: active homosexuality among some clergy.

 What Is Grindr?

Grindr is the world's largest social networking and hookup app for gay, bi, trans, and queer individuals. Launched in 2009, it uses GPS location data to show nearby users, allowing quick profiles, messaging, and meetups. It is primarily known as a tool for casual sexual encounters rather than long-term relationships. With millions of monthly active users, its design facilitates immediate, anonymous connections based on proximity.

For priests bound by vows of celibacy and chastity, using such an app represents a profound contradiction. It turns devices meant for pastoral communication into tools for arranging sexual activity, sometimes on Church property.

 The Broader Problem of Homosexuals in the Priesthood

This Portuguese case points to a deeper crisis. Studies and reports over decades suggest a disproportionate presence of men with homosexual inclinations in seminaries and rectories, correlating with abuse scandals. While most priests live faithfully, a subculture of active homosexuality undermines trust, morale, and evangelization. Victims of clerical abuse have often been adolescent males, highlighting patterns linked to unresolved same-sex attractions rather than simple "pedophilia."

The issue harms the Church's credibility. Laity expect priests to model sacrifice and self-mastery. When ordained men pursue same-sex hookups, it scandalizes believers, drives away vocations, and fuels secular mockery. It also distracts from the heroic work of faithful priests serving in difficult missions.

 Church Teaching and Laws on Admission to the Priesthood

The Catholic Church's official teaching is clear and consistent. Homosexual acts are "intrinsically disordered" and contrary to natural law, as stated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2357-2359). All persons, regardless of inclination, are called to chastity. Priests take a solemn vow of celibacy, promising complete sexual abstinence.

On admission to holy orders, Vatican documents are explicit. The 1961 instruction Careful Selection and Training of Candidates barred those with "evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty." The pivotal 2005 document from the Congregation for Catholic Education, approved by Pope Benedict XVI, states: "The Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called 'gay culture.'" Such tendencies are seen as gravely hindering proper relational maturity for priestly ministry.

This builds on earlier norms distinguishing transitory from deep-seated tendencies. Only those who have overcome issues through grace and discipline might be considered in rare cases. The 2016 The Gift of Priestly Vocation reaffirmed this ban.

Despite these rules, implementation has been inconsistent. Some dioceses and religious orders have admitted candidates contrary to guidelines, often influenced by cultural pressures or lax formation. Recent developments, like 2025 Italian bishops' guidelines (Vatican-approved for trial), allow more nuance for openly gay men committed to celibacy, but they still reference the 2005 prohibitions.

The Church's law prioritizes the common good of souls. Priesthood demands spousal fidelity to the Church as Bride of Christ. Deep-seated same-sex attraction complicates this iconography and the priest's role as spiritual father. Faithful enforcement of these norms protects both candidates and the faithful.

 A Call for Renewal

The Portuguese scandal demands swift investigation, accountability, and reform. Bishops must enforce vocational screening rigorously, promote authentic chastity formation, and purge networks that tolerate double lives. Laity should pray for holy priests and support those living their vows with joy.

This is not about hatred but truth. The Church offers mercy and healing to all struggling with sexuality through sacraments and support. But ordination is not a right—it's a calling requiring conformity to Christ. Ignoring clear teachings invites more scandals and erodes the priesthood's sanctity.

True renewal begins with fidelity to the Gospel and Tradition. Only then can the Church credibly proclaim the beauty of celibacy as a gift, not a burden.

This post draws from public reports and Church documents for informational purposes.

 Relevant Links:

- Complicit Clergy Report on Portuguese Scandal: https://www.complicitclergy.com/2026/05/11/86628/ 

- Infovaticana Coverage: https://infovaticana.com/en/2026/05/11/accusations-of-clandestine-sexual-encounters-implicate-priests-from-northern-portugal/ 

- Vatican 2005 Instruction on Homosexual Tendencies: https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html 

- Catechism on Homosexuality: https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM 

- Grindr Official Site (for reference): https://www.grindr.com/ 

Pope Leo XIV's Comments on German Bishops and Same-Sex Blessings: A Call for Unity in Christ Amid Ongoing Tensions

Pope Leo XIV's Comments on German Bishops and Same-Sex Blessings: A Call for Unity in Christ Amid Ongoing Tensions

On April 23, 2026, aboard the papal plane returning from a pastoral visit to North and Central Africa, Pope Leo XIV addressed a pressing issue in the Catholic Church: the push by some German bishops, notably Cardinal Reinhard Marx of Munich-Freising, to formalize blessings for same-sex couples and those in irregular situations. His remarks, delivered in response to a journalist's question, have sparked widespread discussion, offering insight into his vision for Church unity, pastoral care, and fidelity to doctrine.

Pope Leo XIV, the first U.S.-born pontiff (born Robert Francis Prevost in Chicago), succeeded Pope Francis in May 2025. His comments reaffirm key elements of the 2023 Declaration Fiducia Supplicans while firmly rejecting formalized rituals that could blur the line with sacramental marriage. This intervention highlights the ongoing tension between pastoral accompaniment and doctrinal clarity, particularly in light of Germany's Synodal Way.

 Background: Fiducia Supplicans and Its Reception

To understand Pope Leo's statements, we must revisit Fiducia Supplicans: On the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings, issued by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on December 18, 2023, and approved by Pope Francis. This document distinguishes between liturgical blessings (reserved for what aligns with God's will, such as sacramental marriage between one man and one woman) and spontaneous, pastoral blessings.

The declaration states that "couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples" may receive informal blessings. These are not to resemble a wedding rite, nor should they occur in prominent liturgical settings like before an altar. Instead, they express God's mercy and the Church's closeness to individuals seeking help, without endorsing or altering the moral teaching on marriage and sexuality. A sample prayer might invoke health, peace, and guidance to live according to God's will.

Fiducia Supplicans reaffirms traditional doctrine: "The Church does not have the power to impart blessings on unions of persons of the same sex." It emphasizes that blessings for individuals or couples in such situations are acts of supplicating trust (fiducia supplicans), asking God to enrich, heal, and elevate what is good while calling for conversion.

The document's reception was mixed. Many welcomed its pastoral tone as an extension of Pope Francis's emphasis on mercy and inclusion ("todos, todos, todos" – all, all, all). However, bishops' conferences in Africa and elsewhere expressed reservations, fearing confusion or cultural clashes. In contrast, progressive voices in Europe, especially Germany, saw it as a green light for more structured approaches.

 The German Context: Synodal Way and Recent Developments

Germany's Catholic Church has long grappled with declining membership, secularization, and calls for reform. The Synodal Way (Synodaler Weg), launched in 2019 following abuse scandals, brought bishops and lay delegates together to discuss power structures, sexuality, women's roles, and more. In March 2023, participants voted overwhelmingly (176-26 with abstentions) in favor of "blessing ceremonies for couples who love each other," including same-sex couples.

This led to pastoral handouts and diocesan guidelines. Cardinal Marx's recent decision to issue a guide in Munich-Freising for blessings of people in relationships outside sacramental marriage—including same-sex couples—prompted the question to Pope Leo. The guide aims to provide principles for priests, framing blessings as strengthening love and invoking God's help, but critics argue it veers toward formalized rites.

Earlier Vatican interventions had already addressed this. In 2023-2024, Rome warned the German bishops against creating official rituals. Pope Leo referenced these communications directly: "The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of couples, in this case homosexual couples... beyond what was specifically... allowed for by Pope Francis."

Germany's approach reflects broader debates. Some bishops and theologians argue for greater inclusion to stem the exodus of young people and align with societal values on equality. Others, including more conservative German dioceses like Augsburg, and figures like Cardinal Gerhard Müller, warn that such moves risk undermining the Church's teaching on marriage as a lifelong union of man and woman, open to life.

 Pope Leo XIV's Full Remarks: Priorities and Unity

In his plane press conference, Pope Leo offered a nuanced response. He began by broadening the lens:

"First of all, I think it's very important that the unity or division of the church should not revolve around sexual matters. We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality I believe there are much greater and more important issues such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion that would all take priority before that particular issue."

This echoes his emphasis on social issues during the African trip, focusing on peace, migration, and evangelization in the face of challenges like sorcery and poverty. He stressed that all people are welcome: "All are invited to follow Jesus and all are invited to look for conversion in their lives."

On the specific German action, he reiterated Vatican guidance against formalization: "To go beyond that today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity on Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches."

These words signal continuity with Fiducia Supplicans—pastoral blessings for individuals are possible—but a firm line against anything resembling a liturgical approval of unions. Leo positions himself as a unifier, wary of polarization, drawing from his pre-papal experience as a bishop and Augustinian.

 Theological and Pastoral Implications

Catholic teaching on marriage remains unchanged: it is the exclusive, indissoluble union of one man and one woman, reflecting Christ's love for the Church (cf. Gaudium et Spes 48; Catechism of the Catholic Church 1601-1666). Sexual relations outside this are considered sinful, yet the Church calls all to chastity according to their state and offers mercy to sinners.

Blessings, as sacramentals, invoke God's favor. Fiducia Supplicans and Leo's comments clarify that blessings cannot endorse sin but can accompany people in their journey. A priest might bless individuals in a same-sex relationship, praying for fidelity, health, or conversion, but not the union itself as "marriage" or equivalent. Formal rites risk scandal and confusion, especially where cultural battles over marriage redefinition rage.

Pope Leo's prioritization of justice and freedom aligns with the Church's social doctrine (Rerum Novarum onward). Issues like poverty, religious liberty, and human dignity demand attention. Reducing the Church's moral witness to sexuality alone caricatures it, ignoring the Gospel's holistic call. Yet, sexual ethics matter because they touch on the human person, family, and society—core to evangelization.

For German bishops, this is a call to obedience and communion. The principle of collegiality does not mean independence; bishops act in union with the Successor of Peter (Lumen Gentium 22-23). Persistent defiance echoes historical tensions, like the Kulturkampf or modern synodal experiments that some fear lead toward schism.

 Reactions and Broader Church Context

Reactions vary. Progressive voices, including Fr. James Martin, SJ, interpret Leo's words as not abrogating Fiducia Supplicans but urging focus elsewhere. Conservative commentators see a welcome correction against "German exceptionalism." African bishops, who largely resisted Fiducia Supplicans, likely appreciate the emphasis on unity without Western cultural imposition.

Leo XIV's background as an American with missionary experience (Peru) and Augustinian roots suggests a balanced approach: orthodox yet pastoral. In a 2023 interview as cardinal, he stressed welcoming all without exclusion based on lifestyle, while upholding teaching. His pre-conclave views noted concerns over media sympathy for practices "at odds with the gospel."

This moment tests his pontificate. With the German Church facing massive departures (hundreds of thousands annually), reforms must bear fruit in evangelization, not accommodation. The global South's growth contrasts Europe's decline, underscoring the need for fidelity to attract rather than dilute.

 Historical Parallels and Future Outlook

Blessings for same-sex couples echo ancient debates, but the Church has consistently upheld marriage's definition. From the early Fathers to Aquinas, to modern popes like St. John Paul II (Theology of the Body), the teaching is consistent. Innovations risk repeating errors of past movements that separated from Rome.

Pope Leo calls the Church to build unity on Christ, not culture wars. This means robust catechesis on anthropology, sexuality, and mercy; accompaniment for those with same-sex attraction (many experience the Church as home through chastity and friendship); and addressing root causes of division like clericalism and secularism.

For the laity, this invites prayer for bishops' fidelity, personal conversion, and witness. Families, as domestic churches, model Christ's love. Parishes can offer support groups, spiritual direction, and outreach without compromising truth.

 Conclusion: Unity in Truth and Charity

Pope Leo XIV's comments on the German bishops and same-sex blessings reaffirm that the Church welcomes all but cannot bless what contradicts its faith. Formalized rites for same-sex unions go beyond Fiducia Supplicans and risk disunity. Instead, focus on Jesus Christ, broader moral imperatives, and pastoral care that leads to conversion.

This is not rejection but invitation: all are blessed as children of God, called to holiness. In a divided world and Church, Leo urges centering on the Gospel. As the African trip showed, the Church thrives where it proclaims Christ unapologetically.

May this pontificate foster true synodality—walking together in fidelity to apostolic tradition—leading souls to salvation. The German bishops, and all, are called to heed the Vicar of Christ, building unity not around sexuality, but around the Cross and Resurrection.

 Sources

- National Catholic Reporter: "Asked about same-sex blessings, Leo says other issues will take priority" (April 2026).

- Reuters: "Pope Leo signals no plan to go beyond blessings for same-sex couples" (April 23, 2026).

- Vatican: Fiducia Supplicans (December 18, 2023).

- Various reports from CNA, OSV News, Catholic Herald, and Pillar Catholic on German Synodal Way and responses.

Additional context drawn from official Vatican statements and reliable Catholic news outlets.

Spy Wednesday - Betrayal Everywhere

Spy Wednesday, also known as Holy Wednesday, is the Wednesday of Holy Week in the Christian liturgical calendar. It commemorates the day when Judas Iscariot conspired with the chief priests and elders to betray Jesus Christ for thirty pieces of silver. From that moment, Judas began seeking an opportunity to hand Jesus over to His enemies, acting like a "spy" among the disciples by feigning loyalty while plotting in secret. This event is recorded in the Gospels, particularly Matthew 26:14-16, where Judas asks, "What will you give me if I deliver him over to you?" and they pay him the silver. The day invites solemn reflection on betrayal, hypocrisy, and the contrast between true discipleship and hidden treachery.

The thirty pieces of silver hold deep significance. This sum was the standard price for a slave in ancient Israel (Exodus 21:32), underscoring the profound undervaluation of Jesus—the Son of God—by those who rejected Him. It fulfills Old Testament prophecy from Zechariah 11:12-13, where the prophet describes receiving thirty pieces of silver as wages for shepherding God's people, only to be told to throw this "magnificent price" to the potter in the house of the Lord. In the New Testament, after the betrayal, Judas returns the silver in remorse, and it is used to buy a potter's field for burying foreigners (Matthew 27:3-10). This small, almost insulting amount highlights the cheapness with which sin treats the priceless gift of salvation. It serves as a warning: how often do we "sell out" our relationship with Christ for fleeting worldly gains, comfort, or approval?

Judas's betrayal was not a surprise to God but was prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures centuries earlier. Psalm 41:9 declares, "Even my close friend in whom I trusted, who ate my bread, has lifted his heel against me." Jesus Himself quoted this during the Last Supper to indicate that Scripture must be fulfilled in the actions of one who shared intimate fellowship with Him (John 13:18). Other psalms, such as elements in Psalms 69 and 109, further echo the desolation and replacement that would follow such treachery. These prophecies reveal God's sovereign foreknowledge while emphasizing the tragedy of a trusted companion turning against the Lord for personal motives.

The kiss of Judas (Matthew 26:48-49), by which he identified Jesus to the arresting crowd in the Garden of Gethsemane, adds another layer of betrayal. A kiss, in that cultural context, was a sign of affection, respect, and friendship among disciples and rabbis. To pervert this intimate gesture into a signal for violence and arrest exemplifies the depths of hypocrisy. Some interpretations draw a parallel here to modern distortions of God's design for human relationships. Just as the kiss twisted a holy sign of communion into an act of disloyalty, so too does embracing same-sex relations represent a betrayal of God's created norms for sexuality and marriage as revealed in Scripture (Genesis 1-2; Matthew 19:4-6; Romans 1:26-27). It exchanges the natural order established by the Creator for something contrary, much like Judas exchanged loyalty for silver. True love and fidelity to God mean aligning with His will, not redefining it to suit personal desires or cultural trends.

In our own time, betrayal of Christ and His Church can take subtler forms. Recently, some Catholics and Protestants have attacked Pope Leo XIV for his Palm Sunday comments that God "does not listen to the prayers of those who wage war" but rejects them, citing Isaiah 1:15: "Even though you make many prayers, I will not listen; your hands are full of blood." The Pope emphasized Jesus as the King of Peace who cannot be used to justify violence, particularly amid ongoing conflicts. Critics have accused him of being overly political or naive, yet his words echo the consistent biblical call to peace and justice while condemning bloodshed. Attacking the Holy Father in this way—especially during Holy Week—mirrors the spirit of Judas: turning against the visible head of the Church while claiming fidelity to Christ.

Finally, we see a more everyday form of betrayal in the behavior of some who treat the Mass casually. Those who arrive late to the Eucharistic celebration and leave early, showing little reverence for the re-presentation of the Lord's Sacrifice, resemble Judas at the Last Supper. Judas was physically present with Jesus during that sacred meal, yet his heart was elsewhere; he did not fully value the intimacy and gift being offered. Similarly, treating the Mass—the source and summit of our faith—as something to squeeze into a schedule or rush through dishonors the Lord who is truly present in the Eucharist. It signals a lack of care for the "importance of the Last Supper with the Lord," reducing the divine encounter to a mere obligation rather than a profound act of worship and communion.

As we reflect on Spy Wednesday, let us examine our own hearts. Are we, like Judas, harboring secret betrayals—whether through sin, compromise with worldly values, or indifference to the sacred? Or are we striving to be faithful disciples who remain with Jesus, even when the path leads to the Cross? May this day draw us closer to Christ, who was betrayed so that we might be redeemed. Let us resolve to value Him above all "pieces of silver" this world offers and to stand in fidelity to His teachings and His Church.

Jesse Jackson dead at 84

The Rev. Jesse Louis Jackson Sr., a towering figure in American civil rights, politics, and moral leadership, passed away on February 17, 2026, at the age of 84. He died peacefully at his home in Chicago, surrounded by family members, according to statements from his loved ones and the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition he founded. No specific immediate cause was detailed in initial announcements, though Jackson had long battled a rare neurological condition known as progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP), initially misdiagnosed as Parkinson's disease, which had significantly affected his health and mobility in his later years.

Born on October 8, 1941, in Greenville, South Carolina, Jackson emerged as a protégé of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., participating in key civil rights campaigns of the 1960s, including being present in Memphis at the Lorraine Motel when King was assassinated in 1968. An ordained Baptist minister, he channeled his faith into activism, founding Operation PUSH (People United to Save Humanity) in 1971 and later the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, which advocated for economic justice, voting rights, and opportunities for marginalized communities.

Jackson's views were deeply rooted in social gospel Christianity, emphasizing justice, equality, and uplift for the poor and oppressed across racial lines. He built a "rainbow coalition" that united Black, Latino, white working-class, and other underrepresented groups in pursuit of shared economic and social progress. A fierce critic of systemic racism, poverty, war, and inequality, he ran groundbreaking presidential campaigns in 1984 and 1988 as a Democrat, becoming the first African American to mount a serious, competitive bid for the nomination. In 1988, he won 11 primaries and caucuses, securing millions of votes and reshaping the Democratic Party's approach to inclusivity and coalition-building.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson's views on homosexuality (and broader LGBTQ+ issues) and abortion evolved over his long public life, often reflecting tensions between his Baptist ministerial background, his commitment to civil rights and social justice, and the practical demands of Democratic Party politics.

On homosexuality and LGBTQ+ rights: Jackson was a pioneering advocate for equal rights and protections for gay and lesbian people, especially notable in the 1980s when such stances were rare among major political figures. He became the first major-party presidential candidate (in 1984 and 1988) to explicitly include support for LGBTQ+ rights in his campaign platform, calling for an end to employment discrimination, increased AIDS funding and research during the crisis, and lifting the military ban on gay service members. In his famous 1984 Democratic National Convention "Rainbow Coalition" speech, he was the first speaker at a national convention to mention "lesbians and gays," declaring that "the Rainbow includes lesbians and gays" and that no American should be denied equal protection under the law. He spoke at the 1987 National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights (the only 1988 Democratic candidate to do so) and consistently framed LGBTQ+ equality as part of the broader fight against discrimination. By 2012, he strongly supported same-sex marriage equality, praising President Obama's endorsement and likening the push for it to historical struggles against slavery and anti-miscegenation laws. He argued that discrimination against any group harms all, and that equal protection must extend to LGBT people, including the right to marry the person of one's choosing. While acknowledging traditional religious teachings that view homosexuality as sinful (and the challenges this poses for some faith communities), his public positions prioritized civil rights, non-discrimination, and inclusion over personal moral judgments on sexual orientation.

On abortion: Jackson's stance shifted markedly. In the years immediately following Roe v. Wade (1973), he was outspokenly pro-life. He called abortion "genocide," compared it to the dehumanization in slavery ("the name has changed, but the game remains the same"), endorsed a constitutional amendment to ban it, supported the Hyde Amendment restricting federal funding, and wrote in 1977 that human life is sacred as a gift from God, beginning at conception, and that society cannot casually take it without moral consequence. He emphasized that politicians often favored abortion funding over aid for the poor and born children. However, by the time of his 1984 presidential run (and continuing through 1988 and beyond), he adopted a pro-choice position aligned with the Democratic Party platform. He described himself as personally morally opposed to abortion ("not pro-abortion") but supportive of women's "freedom of choice" and the right not to have private religious or moral views imposed via public law or government interference. He came to back keeping abortion legal, including federal funding in some contexts, arguing that the focus should be on supporting families and the poor rather than restrictive laws.These positions highlight Jackson's broader philosophy: extending human rights and dignity to marginalized groups while navigating the intersection of faith, justice, and electoral realities.

His oratory was legendary—passionate, prophetic, and rhythmic—often drawing from biblical themes to call for moral renewal and "keeping hope alive." Jackson remained a vocal advocate into his later years on issues including police reform, economic disparity, international peace, and human rights, even as his health declined. He stepped down from leading Rainbow/PUSH in 2023 due to age and illness but continued to inspire through his enduring example of faith-driven service.

As a Baptist minister whose life was dedicated to Christian principles of love, justice, and redemption, Jackson's legacy reflects a profound commitment to the Gospel's call to serve "the least of these."

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord.  

And let perpetual light shine upon him.  

May his soul, and the souls of all the faithful departed,  

through the mercy of God, rest in peace.  

Amen.  

May the Lord comfort his family, friends, and all who mourn this giant of faith and justice.

Gio Benítez's Confirmation: A Joyous Milestone or a Catholic Scandal in the Making?

Gio Benítez's Confirmation: A Joyous Milestone or a Catholic Scandal in the Making?

In a world where personal faith journeys often intersect with public personas, ABC News anchor Gio Benítez's recent confirmation into the Catholic Church has sparked both celebration and controversy. On November 10, 2025, the 40-year-old journalist—best known for co-anchoring Good Morning America and his role as a transportation correspondent—took a significant step in his spiritual life. Joined by his husband of nine years, Tommy DiDario, Benítez was confirmed at the Church of St. Paul the Apostle in Manhattan, marking the culmination of a decades-long path back to the faith he first encountered as a teenager.

Benítez, who came out as gay in 2013 and married DiDario in a vibrant ceremony in Miami, shared the intimate moment on Instagram with poetic reflection: “I found the Ark of the Covenant in my heart, stored there by the one who created me… exactly as I am.” His post detailed a journey of doubt, self-discovery, and eventual embrace of what he calls “God’s loving mercy is unconditional.” Inspired by the late Pope Francis's outreach to LGBTQ+ individuals—famously encapsulated in his 2013 remark, “Who am I to judge?”—Benítez credited the pontiff's legacy of inclusivity for drawing him back. DiDario, serving as his official sponsor, stood by his side, a visible symbol of their partnership in this sacred rite. Prominent Jesuit priest Father James Martin, a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ Catholics, welcomed Benítez with a simple yet affirming “Welcome!” on social media.

For Benítez, raised in a Catholic family in Florida, this wasn't a blind leap but a return. Baptized at 15 alongside his mother, he drifted during college years spent studying religion and grappling with his identity. A recent GMA segment featuring Martin discussing Francis's impact reignited his pursuit, leading to months of preparation under supportive church leaders. Attended by a close circle of family and friends, the Mass evoked ghosts of loved ones past—grandparents who taught him to pray, aunts and uncles who modeled grace. “Loving freely fulfills the Kingdom of God,” Benítez wrote, quoting a mentor's invocation of Christ's command to “Love. One. Another.”

On the surface, it's an inspiring story of reconciliation: a high-profile gay man finding home in a Church often accused of alienation. Benítez's narrative aligns with a growing chorus of progressive voices within Catholicism, emphasizing pastoral mercy over doctrinal rigidity. Father Martin's endorsement underscores this shift, positioning Benítez's confirmation as a testament to Francis's reforms—from using the word “gay” in official documents to decriminalizing homosexuality globally and hosting transgender pilgrims at the Vatican.

Yet, beneath the warm glow of affirmation lies a tangle of tensions that raise serious questions about optics, fidelity to Church teaching, and the specter of scandal. While Benítez's personal joy is undeniable, the public framing of his entry—complete with spousal sponsorship and social media fanfare—exposes fault lines in the Catholic approach to sexual ethics that could undermine the very institution it seeks to reform.

 Optics: A PR Win for Progressives, a Stumble for the Church?

In the age of viral faith stories, Benítez's confirmation is tailor-made for feel-good headlines. As an openly gay celebrity, his embrace of Catholicism sends a powerful message: the Church is evolving, welcoming the marginalized without demanding conformity. DiDario's role as sponsor—traditionally a guide in faith formation—amplifies this, portraying same-sex marriage not as a barrier but a bridge to sacraments. It's a optics coup for advocates like Martin, who argue that Francis's papacy did more for LGBTQ+ inclusion than all predecessors combined. Benítez himself ties his story to the Pope's “progressive views,” leveraging Francis's soundbites to rebrand Catholicism as a haven for the “exactly as I am” crowd.

But flip the lens, and the picture sours. To traditionalists, this isn't evolution—it's erosion. Publicly celebrating a same-sex union in the heart of a confirmation rite risks signaling that the Church endorses what it officially deems disordered. Benítez's Instagram post, with its emphasis on unconditional love sans repentance, reads less like humble submission and more like triumphant self-validation. In a media-saturated era, where Benítez's 100,000+ followers amplify every update, the Church of St. Paul the Apostle now stands as a backdrop for what critics call “designer Catholicism”—pick-and-choose piety that prioritizes personal branding over communal doctrine. The optics? A progressive PR blitz that leaves conservatives feeling gaslit, wondering if mercy has morphed into license.

 Church Teaching: Mercy Without the Call to Conversion?

At its core, Benítez's story clashes with longstanding Catholic doctrine on homosexuality, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2357-2359). The Church teaches that homosexual acts are “intrinsically disordered” and gravely sinful, calling those with same-sex attractions to chastity and self-mastery as paths to holiness. While it affirms the dignity of every person—gay or straight—intimate same-sex relations fall outside this framework, much like adultery or fornication. Pope Francis echoed this in Amoris Laetitia (2016), upholding the indissolubility of marriage while urging pastoral accompaniment for the irregular.

Benítez's journey, however, seems to sidestep this tension. His reflections center on divine acceptance of his created self, including his marriage, without mention of celibacy or amendment. DiDario's sponsorship implies ecclesial blessing of their union, yet Catholic canon law (Canon 893) requires sponsors to exemplify the faith they impart—a role hard to square with a relationship the Church views as non-sacramental. Francis's “Who am I to judge?” was never a green light for active homosexuality; it was a plea for non-judgmental dialogue, paired with his later insistence that “sexual relations are only between a man and a woman.” By framing confirmation as validation of his “loving freely,” Benítez risks presenting a truncated Gospel—one of affirmation minus the cross of renunciation.

This isn't to dismiss Benítez's sincerity; his six-month catechumenate suggests genuine wrestling. But public narratives like his can mislead, implying the Church has quietly rewritten its anthropology. For LGBTQ+ Catholics already navigating isolation, it offers false hope; for the faithful majority, it sows confusion about where doctrine ends and personal exception begins.

 Scandal: When Welcome Becomes a Stumbling Block

The gravest issue here is scandal—not in the tabloid sense, but the theological one: leading others into sin through example or ambiguity (CCC 2284-2287). Benítez's high visibility as an ABC anchor, coupled with Martin's endorsement, casts this as normative Catholicism. Young gay viewers might see confirmation as permission to pursue same-sex intimacy without qualms, eroding the Church's witness to chastity as universal. Traditional families, already wary of “woke” dilutions, could view it as capitulation, accelerating schisms in an era of Synod on Synodality debates.

History echoes this caution: Think of the Fiducia Supplicans (2023) backlash, where blessings for same-sex couples ignited global fury for blurring lines between approval and pastoral care. Benítez's event feels like Fiducia on steroids— a sacramental milestone, not mere blessing, with a spouse in the sponsor's seat. If the Church aims for unity, such spectacles risk the opposite: alienating the orthodox while patronizing the progressive. True scandal arises not from Benítez's orientation, but from the unchecked optics that normalize what doctrine deems incompatible, potentially driving souls from the full truth.

 A Path Forward: Dialogue Over Division?

Gio Benítez's confirmation is a human story of longing fulfilled, a reminder that faith defies neat boxes. His vulnerability—questioning God's love amid identity struggles—resonates universally, echoing the prodigal's return. Yet, in celebrating it uncritically, we must confront the costs: fractured optics that polarize, teachings bent to fit narratives, and scandals that wound the Body of Christ.

Perhaps the real “legacy of inclusivity” lies in honest dialogue—welcoming Benítez as a brother while gently recalling the Church's full vision of love: chaste, faithful, and ordered toward eternity. Until then, stories like his will inspire some, incense others, and leave the flock wondering: Is this homecoming, or just another headline? In a Church of sinners and saints, the answer matters more than ever.

Source:

Gio Benitez, Openly Gay ABC News Weekend Anchor, Joins Catholic Church

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

The Silent Shepherds: Bishop Strickland's Cry in the Wilderness and the Fractured Voice of the American Episcopate

In the grand halls of the Marriott Waterfront Hotel in Baltimore, where the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) convened its fall general assembly on November 11-14, 2025, a moment unfolded that encapsulated the profound tensions roiling within the Catholic Church in America. Bishop Joseph Strickland, the emeritus bishop of Tyler, Texas—removed from his see by Pope Francis in 2023 for his unyielding fidelity to traditional doctrine—rose to speak. His voice, steady yet laced with urgency, cut through the chamber as he addressed a scandal that had ignited fury among faithful Catholics: the recent confirmation of ABC news anchor Gio Benitez, who lives openly in a same-sex "marriage," overseen by none other than the prominent Jesuit priest Fr. James Martin, SJ. Strickland's intervention lasted barely 47 seconds, a fleeting plea for his brother bishops to confront this public defiance of Church teaching. But in a scene that will haunt the annals of ecclesiastical history, his words were met not with debate, not with affirmation, not even with rebuke—but with silence. The chair moved swiftly to the next agenda item, as if the emperor's new clothes had never been mentioned at all.

This was no isolated slight. It was the latest chapter in a saga of marginalization for Strickland, a bishop who has become a lightning rod for those yearning for doctrinal clarity amid a sea of ambiguity. His brief remarks—"I don't know how many of us have seen on social media... Priests and others gathered, celebrating the confirmation of a man living with a man openly. And it just needs to be addressed... We need to address this"—echoed the frustrations of countless laity who see in such events not pastoral outreach, but a betrayal of the sacred deposit of faith. The confirmation rite, held in New York under the auspices of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, featured Fr. Martin alongside the pastor, Fr. Eric Andrews, a Paulist priest, administering the sacrament to Benitez in what appeared to be a jubilant affirmation of his lifestyle. Social media footage showed the group posing triumphantly before the Blessed Sacrament, a visual that struck many as a mockery of the very Eucharist it purported to honor.

Strickland's courage in naming this elephant in the room—Fr. Martin's role in what he and others perceive as a normalization of grave sin—deserves not just admiration, but emulation. Yet, his brother bishops, ensconced in their collars and crosiers, chose the path of least resistance: indifference. This is not mere oversight; it is a symptom of a deeper malaise, a disconnect between the shepherds and the immutable teachings of the Church they are sworn to guard. In an era when the world clamors for the Church to bend to cultural winds, moments like this reveal a hierarchy adrift, torn between the timeless truth of Christ and the fleeting applause of modernity. This blog post delves into that chasm, exploring the event itself, the unyielding doctrine it contravenes, the figure of Fr. Martin at its epicenter, and the cognitive dissonance that plagues the faithful. At its heart lies a simple truth: Bishop Strickland was not just brave; he was right. And in ignoring him, the USCCB has ignored not only him, but the voice of the Church eternal.

 The Incident: A Confirmation That Confounds the Faithful

To understand the gravity of Strickland's intervention, one must first grasp the provocation. Gio Benitez, a well-known face on Good Morning America, entered the Catholic Church through a rite of confirmation on All Saints' Day, November 1, 2025, at St. Paul the Apostle Church in Manhattan. The ceremony was no quiet affair; it was livestreamed and shared widely, drawing cheers from progressive Catholic circles and outrage from traditionalists. Benitez, married to his husband since 2022, received the sacrament from Fr. Andrews, with Fr. James Martin—perhaps the most visible advocate for LGBTQ+ inclusion in the American Church—present and participating in the celebration. The group, including Martin, later received Holy Communion, posing for photos that framed the moment as a triumph of "inclusion."

For Catholics steeped in the faith, this was seismic. Confirmation is not a mere formality; it is a sacrament that seals the Christian with the Holy Spirit, strengthening them for witness to the Gospel. To administer it to someone in a public state of objective mortal sin—living in a same-sex union that the Church deems gravely disordered—without any apparent call to repentance, strikes at the core of sacramental integrity. Canon Law is unequivocal: those who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin may not be admitted to the sacraments (Canon 915). Yet here, in the heart of Dolan's archdiocese, the rite proceeded, blessed by priests who have made inclusion their banner.

Bishop Strickland, attending the USCCB meeting as a bishop emeritus with full rights to speak, could no longer hold his peace. During a discussion on pastoral priorities, he seized the floor. His words were measured, almost plaintive: a reference to the viral images, a nod to the priests involved, and a direct challenge: "We need to address this." The chamber fell quiet. No bishop rose in support. No one invoked doctrine. Instead, Bishop James Massa interjected with an "infomercial" about a faith and science symposium, and Archbishop Timothy Broglio, presiding, pivoted seamlessly to immigration messaging. It was as if Strickland had spoken in tongues.

This snub was not lost on observers. Social media erupted, with faithful Catholics decrying the "cowardice" of the assembly. "Bishop Strickland is the only one with a spine," tweeted one prominent lay commentator. Videos of the moment spread like wildfire, amassing millions of views and fueling podcasts, articles, and homilies across the traditional Catholic world. For many, it recalled Strickland's earlier prophetic stands: his 2018 USCCB floor speech questioning why bishops allowed priests to contradict Church teaching on homosexuality (widely seen as aimed at Martin), or his 2023 removal by Pope Francis after years of outspoken criticism of perceived heterodoxy. In Baltimore, history repeated, but with a crueler twist—the lone voice silenced not by expulsion, but by erasure.

Why did this happen? The answer lies in the uncomfortable reality of episcopal collegiality in crisis. The USCCB, meant to be a synod of successors to the apostles, has increasingly functioned as a bureaucratic machine, prioritizing consensus over confrontation. To address the Benitez confirmation would mean scrutinizing Dolan's oversight, Martin's influence, and the broader drift toward accommodation. Easier to let it slide, to focus on safer topics like synodality or climate. But in doing so, the bishops forfeit their mandate. As St. Augustine warned, "Bad shepherds drive out the flock." And the flock is watching, wounded and wandering.

 The Church's Unchanging Teaching: A Rock Amid Shifting Sands

At the root of this scandal is a fundamental rupture: the chasm between eternal doctrine and ephemeral practice. The Catholic Church has spoken with crystalline clarity on homosexuality for millennia, rooted in Scripture, Tradition, and natural law. Homosexual acts are not a matter of opinion or cultural evolution; they are "intrinsically disordered," a phrase that, while jarring to modern ears, encapsulates a profound anthropological truth.

The foundational text is the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1992 and reaffirmed under subsequent pontiffs. Paragraph 2357 states: "Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that 'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.' They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved." This is no innovation; it echoes the Bible's witness—from the destruction of Sodom (Genesis 19:1-11) to St. Paul's condemnation of same-sex relations as contrary to God's design (Romans 1:24-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10).

Earlier magisterial documents reinforce this. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Persona Humana) affirms that "homosexual activity is not a complementary union" but "deprives human sexuality of its essential subordination to the welfare of the children." The 1986 Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons) doubles down: "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as objectively disordered." These acts, it warns, "can never be approved" and lead to a "grave depravity."

Even Pope Francis, often caricatured as a revolutionary, upholds this in Amoris Laetitia (2016), paragraph 250: "The Church furthermore affirms that unions between people of the same sex cannot be considered on the same footing as matrimony between man and woman." His 2023 response to the dubia of five cardinals reiterated that the Church cannot bless "irregular" unions, as blessings presuppose alignment with God's will. The 2021 Responsa ad dubia from the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith clarified that blessings for same-sex couples must not resemble sacramental rites, lest they imply approval.

This teaching is not born of animus but of a vision of human flourishing: sexuality as a divine gift ordered to spousal love and procreation, mirroring the Trinity's self-giving communion. To call it "disordered" is to say it deviates from this telos, much as a misfiring engine deviates from its purpose. Persons with same-sex attraction—whom the Church calls to chastity and respect (CCC 2358-2359)—are not condemned but invited to heroic virtue, uniting their trials to Christ's cross. Yet, when sacraments are administered without repentance, this merciful call becomes a snare.

The Benitez confirmation flouts this. By confirming a man in a public same-sex union, the rite implicitly endorses the union as consonant with faith—a contradiction in terms. Strickland's plea was a defense of this doctrine, urging bishops to reaffirm what the Church has always taught. Their silence? A tacit permission for confusion.

 Fr. James Martin: Bridge-Builder or Demolisher?

No figure embodies this disconnect more than Fr. James Martin, SJ, whose ministry has made him a celebrity in Catholic and secular media alike. Ordained in 1999, Martin rose through Jesuit ranks as a writer and editor for America magazine, blending humor, social justice, and a folksy style that endeared him to many. But it was his 2017 book Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity that catapulted him to prominence—and controversy. The tome, inspired by Pope Francis's "Who am I to judge?" remark, calls for dialogue, using language from CCC 2358 to advocate "respect, compassion, and sensitivity." Yet, critics argue, it omits the crucial caveats: the intrinsic disorder of acts and the call to chastity.

Martin's influence peaked under Francis, who appointed him a Vatican communications consultant in 2017. He has keynoted synods, advised on LGBTQ+ outreach, and amassed over 300,000 Twitter followers. His Outreach initiative, launched in 2022 under the Jesuit conference, aims to support LGBTQ+ Catholics, hosting conferences with speakers like Bishop John Stowe and Sr. Jeannine Gramick—figures who have faced Vatican scrutiny for blurring doctrinal lines.

In the Benitez case, Martin's presence was emblematic. Photos show him beaming alongside the confirmand, his social media posts framing the event as a "joyful" milestone. For supporters, this is mercy incarnate; for detractors, it's a sleight of hand, elevating accompaniment over conversion. Strickland has long targeted Martin: In 2018, at the USCCB, he decried bishops hosting priests who "do not believe" the Church's teaching on homosexuality. In 2021, he urged Martin to preach the "full message" at an LGBTQ+ retreat. And in 2023, post-removal, Strickland called Martin's Pride Month tweets "sacrilegious."

Martin's defenders decry this as homophobia, but the charge rings hollow. Strickland affirms the dignity of all, including those with same-sex attraction. His ire is for Martin's selective catechesis: emphasizing welcome while eliding sin and repentance. This is no minor omission; it fosters the very scandal that drove McCarrick's downfall and the abuse crisis. When a priest like Martin—blessed with platforms denied to most—presents homosexual unions as normative, he sows seeds of heresy. The Church's documents demand more: truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).

Martin's arc mirrors the broader progressive wing: earnest intent, but at the cost of fidelity. His bridge, intended to span divides, has become a ramp to relativism, where doctrine dissolves into dialogue. Strickland's confrontation was a call to rebuild on rock, not sand.

 The Great Disconnect: Bishops Adrift from the Barque of Peter

The USCCB's silence on Strickland's plea reveals a profound disconnect: bishops, ordained to teach, sanctify, and govern, increasingly prioritize image over integrity. This is not new—recall the 2018 Pennsylvania grand jury report exposing abuse cover-ups, or the McCarrick scandal that implicated the hierarchy's complicity. Yet, on homosexuality, the fracture is acute. While laity polls show 60-70% of U.S. Catholics support same-sex "marriage" (Pew, 2023), the Magisterium stands firm. Bishops, caught between Gallup and the Gospel, opt for ambiguity.

Consider the landscape: Progressive prelates like Cardinals Cupich and McElroy push "inclusion" initiatives, hosting LGBTQ+ Masses that skirt canonical boundaries. Traditional voices like Strickland or Bishop Thomas Paprocki issue clarion calls, only to be sidelined. The 2021-2024 Synod on Synodality amplified this, with U.S. reports urging "LGBTQ+ inclusion" without doctrinal qualifiers. Meanwhile, Vatican documents like Fiducia Supplicans (2023) permit non-liturgical blessings for couples—promptly twisted to "bless" unions, despite clarifications.

This disconnect breeds hypocrisy. Bishops decry abortion (rightly) but hesitate on sodomy; they champion migrants but ignore the spiritual peril of unchaste unions. The result? A Church that preaches justice abroad while tolerating injustice at home. As the 1986 CDF letter warned, "Special concern and pastoral attention should be directed toward those who promote an unacceptable concept of the homosexual person and homosexual union."

Strickland embodies the alternative: a bishop who, like Athanasius contra mundum, stands alone if need be. His 2024 open letter outside the USCCB—"What will it take for more than a few bishops to finally speak up?"—echoes this. Removed for "reckless" criticism, he remains a bishop, his pectoral cross a symbol of undimmed authority.

 Cognitive Dissonance: The Faithful in Turmoil

For the average Catholic, this is no abstract debate—it's existential agony. We are taught in catechism class, confirmed in youth group, that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered, acts gravely sinful. Yet, Sunday homilies laud "love is love," and Fr. Martin tweets rainbows over the Sacred Heart. Parishes host "Pride" events; schools fly flags contradicting Persona Humana. The dissonance is deafening: How can the Church that birthed saints like Catherine of Siena now bless what it once condemned?

This hypocrisy erodes trust. A 2024 CARA study found 40% of young Catholics view the Church as "unwelcoming" to LGBTQ+ persons—not for doctrine, but for perceived judgment. Yet, the real wound is inversion: doctrine becomes "hate," mercy "license." Faithful families grapple: How to affirm a child's dignity while upholding truth? Converts like Benitez enter amid fanfare, but without the full Gospel, they risk eternal peril.

Psychologically, it's trauma. Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) explains the strain: conflicting beliefs breed anxiety, resolved by rationalization or rejection. Many resolve by leaving—U.S. Catholic retention hovers at 30% (Georgetown, 2023). Others cling, like the 200 who rallied with Strickland in 2023, praying rosaries outside the Marriott.

The hypocrisy peaks in sacraments: Confirmation for the unrepentant, Communion for the "married" gay man. This isn't inclusion; it's profanation, echoing Judas's kiss.

 Bishop Strickland: Prophet in Exile

Amid this fog, Bishop Strickland shines. Born in 1958 in Texas, ordained in 1985, he shepherded Tyler for 14 years with zeal: building schools, fostering vocations, tweeting truth bombs. His 2023 removal—after backing Vigano's accusations and decrying "false messages" from Rome—made him a martyr for orthodoxy. Yet, he persists: leading rosaries, writing letters, confronting at USCCB.

In Baltimore 2025, his 47 seconds were prophetic, echoing Elijah's solitude (1 Kings 19). Brave? Undeniably—he risked further isolation. Right? Absolutely, as canonists note: such confirmations demand investigation. His fidelity honors the apostles' charge: "Guard what has been entrusted to you" (1 Timothy 6:20).

Strickland's example calls all: laity to pray, priests to preach, bishops to lead. As he told LifeSite in 2021, "It's not 'my truth' but Jesus'."

 A Call to Renewal: Rebuilding on the Rock

The USCCB's silence is a clarion call for renewal. Bishops must reclaim their voice, enforcing canon law with charity. Pope Francis's call for "synodality" demands listening—to doctrine first. Laity, emboldened by Strickland, must demand accountability: petitions, rallies, faithful voting.

Ultimately, hope lies in Christ, who promised the gates of hell shall not prevail (Matthew 16:18). The Church is holy, not despite sinners, but through them—purified in fire. May Strickland's cry awaken sleeping shepherds, mending the disconnect, healing dissonance, restoring hypocrisy to humility.

In the words of St. John Henry Newman: "To live is to change, and to be perfect is to have changed often." But change without truth is chaos. Let us pray for bishops who change the world by unchanging fidelity.

 References

- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition (Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), paragraphs 2357-2359.

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Persona Humana: Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics (Vatican, December 29, 1975).

- Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Vatican, October 1, 1986).

- Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia (Vatican, March 19, 2016), paragraph 250.

- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Responsa ad dubia on the blessing of same-sex unions (Vatican, October 21, 2021).

- United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Fall General Assembly Minutes, Baltimore, MD, November 11-14, 2025 (unofficial transcripts from attendee reports).

- Catholic News Agency, "Ousted Bishop Strickland Leads Rosary Outside USCCB Meeting," November 13, 2025.

- LifeSiteNews, "Bishop Strickland Stands Up at USCCB: Calls Out Fr. James Martin," November 12, 2025.

- Michael Haynes, Twitter post, November 12, 2025.

- AKA Catholic, "Where Have All the Heroes Gone?" November 13, 2025.

A Meeting at the Vatican: Father James Martin, Pope Leo XIV, and the Call to Welcome All

A Meeting at the Vatican: Father James Martin, Pope Leo XIV, and the Call to Welcome All

On September 1, 2025, Jesuit priest Father James Martin, a prominent advocate for greater inclusion of the LGBTQIA community within the Catholic Church, met with Pope Leo XIV in a private audience at the Vatican’s Apostolic Palace. This meeting, announced officially by the Vatican, has sparked significant discussion among Catholics worldwide. For some, it signals a hopeful continuation of Pope Francis’ legacy of openness and pastoral care toward marginalized groups. For others, it raises concerns about the direction of the Church and the risk of diluting its doctrinal teachings. This blog post explores the context of this meeting, the reasons behind the mixed reactions, the Church’s call to welcome all people, the concerns surrounding Father Martin’s approach, and the importance of interpreting this event with nuance and mercy.

 The Context of the Meeting

Father James Martin, S.J., is a well-known figure in Catholic circles, particularly for his ministry through Outreach, an organization he founded to promote inclusion and pastoral care for LGBTQIA Catholics. His 2017 book, Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity, has been both praised and criticized. Supporters see it as a compassionate call to bridge divides, while detractors argue it risks undermining the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage. Martin’s multiple audiences with Pope Francis, who appointed him to the Dicastery for Communication and the Synod on Synodality, further elevated his profile as a voice for inclusion. His meeting with Pope Leo XIV, the first American pope, elected in May 2025, continues this trajectory.

Pope Leo XIV, formerly Cardinal Robert F. Prevost, is a relatively new figure on the global stage. His election followed the papacy of Pope Francis, whose 12-year tenure was marked by a pastoral emphasis on mercy, inclusion, and synodality—a process of listening and dialogue within the Church. Leo’s choice of name invokes Leo XIII, known for his contributions to Catholic social teaching, signaling a commitment to justice and the marginalized. However, his past remarks from 2012, where he criticized the “homosexual lifestyle” and media portrayals of same-sex relationships, raised questions about his stance on LGBTQIA issues. In a 2023 interview, Prevost acknowledged Pope Francis’ call for a more inclusive Church, stating, “All people are welcome in the Church,” while emphasizing that doctrine remains unchanged.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)

The September 1 meeting, lasting about 30 minutes, was described by Father Martin as “wonderful,” “consoling,” and “encouraging.” He reported that Pope Leo XIV echoed Pope Francis’ message of welcome, quoting the famous phrase, “Todos, todos, todos” (everyone, everyone, everyone), and encouraged Martin to continue his ministry. The Vatican’s public announcement of the meeting, held in the pope’s private library—a space reserved for significant encounters—underscored its importance. Yet, it also fueled debate, as some Catholics interpreted it as an endorsement of Martin’s approach, while others urged caution in reading too much into it.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 Why Some Catholics Are Concerned

The concerns among certain Catholics stem from Father Martin’s public persona and the perception that his ministry sometimes blurs the line between pastoral care and doctrinal fidelity. The Catholic Church’s teachings on sexuality, as outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), are clear: homosexual acts are considered “intrinsically disordered” (CCC 2357), and marriage is defined as a sacramental union between one man and one woman (CCC 1601). While the Church calls for respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward individuals with same-sex attraction, it maintains that sexual activity is reserved for marriage and oriented toward procreation.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)

Critics argue that Father Martin’s advocacy, while framed as pastoral, sometimes downplays or sidesteps these teachings. His book Building a Bridge emphasizes dialogue and inclusion but has been criticized for not sufficiently addressing the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality. Some point to his public statements, such as his support for blessings of same-sex unions under certain circumstances (as permitted by Fiducia Supplicans in 2023), as risking confusion among the faithful. Conservative Catholic commentators, such as Taylor Marshall and John-Henry Weston, expressed dismay at the meeting, with Weston calling it a “nightmare scenario” on social media. They fear that Martin’s prominence, amplified by papal audiences, could signal a shift away from traditional teachings, even if no doctrinal change has occurred.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

These concerns are not merely about Martin’s actions but reflect broader tensions within the Church. The Synod on Synodality, in which both Martin and then-Cardinal Prevost participated, emphasized listening to diverse voices, including those of marginalized groups like LGBTQIA Catholics. However, some Catholics worry that this emphasis on dialogue could lead to a watering-down of doctrine, particularly on contentious issues like sexuality. The fear is that high-profile meetings like this one might be interpreted as tacit approval of views that challenge the Church’s moral framework, even if no explicit endorsement is made.

 The Call to Welcome All

Despite these concerns, the Catholic Church’s mission to welcome all people is rooted in the Gospel and the example of Jesus Christ. The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) and Jesus’ outreach to sinners and outcasts (e.g., the woman caught in adultery, John 8:1-11) demonstrate a call to love and accompany all people, regardless of their circumstances. The Catechism itself instructs that individuals with homosexual inclinations “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity” and that “every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC 2358). Pope Francis’ papacy amplified this message, famously saying, “Who am I to judge?” when asked about a gay priest, and emphasizing that the Church is a “home for all.”[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

This call to welcome extends to the LGBTQIA community, who often feel marginalized or excluded from the Church. Many LGBTQIA Catholics experience a profound tension: they desire to live their faith authentically while grappling with teachings that label their attractions or relationships as disordered. Pastoral ministry to this community seeks to bridge this gap, offering spiritual accompaniment and a sense of belonging without compromising the Church’s teachings. Pope Francis’ actions—meeting with LGBTQIA individuals, approving Fiducia Supplicans, and appointing figures like Father Martin to prominent roles—reflected this balance, prioritizing mercy while upholding doctrine.[](https://outreach.faith/2025/04/pope-francis-changed-my-life-countless-lgbtq/)

Pope Leo XIV’s meeting with Father Martin suggests a continuation of this approach. By quoting “Todos, todos, todos,” Leo reaffirmed that the Church is a place for everyone, including those who feel on the margins. This is particularly significant during the 2025 Jubilee of Hope, which includes a pilgrimage for LGBTQIA Catholics organized by Martin’s Outreach and the Italian group Jonathan’s Tent. Though not officially sponsored by the Vatican, the pilgrimage’s inclusion on the Vatican’s calendar signals a willingness to engage with this community. As Martin noted, this reflects Jesus’ outreach to those on the margins, a core tenet of Christian charity.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 Why Father Martin May Not Be the Ideal Messenger

While the call to welcome all is indisputable, some argue that Father Martin is not the ideal figure to lead this effort due to his approach to Church doctrine. His public statements and writings often emphasize inclusion over clarity, which can create confusion. For example, his support for blessings of same-sex unions, while aligned with Fiducia Supplicans, has been seen by critics as implying approval of relationships that the Church does not recognize as equivalent to marriage. His reluctance to explicitly reaffirm the Church’s teachings on sexual morality in some contexts has led to accusations that he “waters down” doctrine to make it more palatable to modern sensibilities.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

This perception is compounded by Martin’s high-profile platform, including his role at America Magazine, his books, and his frequent media appearances. His X posts, such as the one announcing his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, are often celebratory and focus on themes of welcome without always addressing the Church’s moral teachings. This can lead some to misinterpret his message as endorsing a change in doctrine, even when he insists he upholds the Catechism. Critics argue that a more effective messenger would clearly articulate both the Church’s call to love and its unchanging teachings, avoiding ambiguity that could mislead the faithful or polarize the Church.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

Moreover, Martin’s critics point to his association with advocacy groups that sometimes push for changes beyond pastoral care, such as altering the Catechism’s language on homosexuality or recognizing same-sex unions. While Martin himself has not explicitly called for these changes, his participation in events organized by such groups can create the impression of alignment with their agendas. This risks alienating Catholics who value doctrinal clarity and fear that the Church is moving toward a more progressive stance that could undermine its moral authority.

 The Need for Mercy and Nuance

Despite these concerns, the Catholic call to mercy remains paramount. Jesus’ command to “love one another as I have loved you” (John 13:34) is a cornerstone of Christian life. Mercy does not mean abandoning truth but approaching others with humility, compassion, and a willingness to accompany them in their struggles. For LGBTQIA Catholics, this means recognizing their dignity as children of God, listening to their experiences, and helping them navigate their faith journey without judgment or exclusion. Father Martin’s ministry, for all its controversies, seeks to embody this mercy, and his meetings with both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV suggest that the Church’s leadership values this pastoral approach, even if it is imperfectly executed.[](https://outreach.faith/2025/04/pope-francis-changed-my-life-countless-lgbtq/)

However, mercy must be balanced with truth. The Church’s teachings on sexuality are rooted in its understanding of human anthropology, the complementarity of the sexes, and the purpose of marriage. These are not arbitrary rules but reflections of the Church’s belief in God’s design for humanity. Pastoral care that ignores or downplays these truths risks leading people astray, offering a false sense of acceptance that may not align with the path to holiness. The challenge is to communicate both love and truth in a way that invites people into the Church without compromising its moral foundation.

 Interpreting the Meeting with Caution

Father Martin’s X post about his meeting with Pope Leo XIV, where he wrote, “I was honored and grateful to meet with the Holy Father… and moved to hear the same message I heard from Pope Francis on LGBTQ Catholics, which is one of openness and welcome,” has been widely shared and interpreted. Some see it as evidence that Pope Leo XIV fully endorses Martin’s ministry, while others caution against overreading the encounter. The Vatican’s decision to announce the meeting publicly suggests it carries symbolic weight, but it does not necessarily imply an endorsement of every aspect of Martin’s platform.[](https://thecatholicherald.com/article/pope-leo-meets-fr-james-martin-at-the-vatican)

Pope Leo XIV, in his brief papacy, has emphasized synodality—listening to diverse voices within the Church. His meeting with Martin, whom he knew from the Synod on Synodality, reflects this commitment to dialogue. As Martin noted in a May 2025 interview, Leo (then Cardinal Prevost) was “very open, welcoming, [and] inclusive” during synod discussions. However, Leo’s 2023 comments reaffirming unchanged doctrine indicate that his openness is not a blank check for revising Church teaching. The meeting, therefore, is best seen as an act of listening, not a wholesale approval of Martin’s views. Vatican officials have also clarified that the inclusion of the Outreach pilgrimage on the Jubilee calendar is logistical, not an endorsement, further underscoring the need for nuance.[](https://apnews.com/article/pope-leo-james-martin-lgbtq-holy-year-f54bbf057757bdb7230802a8d5d77242)[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

Catholics should avoid jumping to conclusions based on Martin’s X post or media reports. The Church’s history shows that popes often meet with individuals whose views spark debate, not to endorse them but to engage in dialogue. Pope Francis met with controversial figures across the spectrum, from liberation theologians to traditionalist leaders, as part of his pastoral mission. Leo’s meeting with Martin fits this pattern, reflecting a desire to hear from those ministering to marginalized groups without necessarily affirming every aspect of their approach.

 Conclusion: Balancing Welcome, Truth, and Mercy

The meeting between Father James Martin and Pope Leo XIV highlights the delicate balance the Catholic Church must strike in its mission to welcome all people while upholding its teachings. The call to love and accompany the LGBTQIA community is rooted in the Gospel and reinforced by the examples of Popes Francis and Leo. However, this welcome must be grounded in truth, clearly communicating the Church’s teachings on sexuality and marriage to avoid confusion or division. Father Martin’s ministry, while well-intentioned, has sparked legitimate concerns about clarity and fidelity, making him a polarizing figure. Yet, the response to his work—and to this meeting—should be marked by mercy, recognizing his desire to reach those on the margins.

Catholics must approach this moment with nuance, resisting the temptation to read too much into a single meeting or social media post. Pope Leo XIV’s commitment to synodality suggests he will continue to listen to diverse voices, including those like Father Martin, without necessarily endorsing their platforms. As the Church navigates these complex issues, it must embody Christ’s love, welcoming all while guiding them toward the truth that leads to true freedom and holiness. In doing so, it can fulfill its mission as a “home for all,” where mercy and truth meet in the heart of the Gospel.[](https://www.ncronline.org/pope-leo-embraces-francis-legacy-lgbtq-catholics-father-james-martin-says)

 

Fr. James Martin SJ Revisionist Take on Sodom & Gomorrah

An Exegetical and Theological Defense of the Traditional Interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah: Homosexuality as a Central Sin

Introduction

The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, found in Genesis 18–19, has been a subject of intense theological and scholarly debate, particularly regarding the nature of the sins that precipitated their divine destruction. In a recent post on X dated July 21, 2025 (James Martin: Sodom & Gomorrah), Fr. James Martin, SJ, a prominent Jesuit priest and author, referenced an Old Testament scholar to suggest that the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were not primarily related to homosexuality but rather to other moral failings, implicitly challenging the traditional interpretation upheld by the Catholic Church and much of Christian tradition (Martin, 2025). This paper seeks to defend the Church’s teaching, drawing on biblical exegesis, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the original Hebrew and Greek texts, to argue that homosexuality—specifically in the form of attempted sexual violence against the angelic visitors—was a central element of the sin that provoked God’s judgment. Furthermore, it will address the mischaracterization of the narrative as solely a matter of "lack of hospitality," engaging with the text, tradition, and magisterial documents such as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (1986).

Biblical Exegesis of Genesis 19: The Hebrew Text and Context

The account in Genesis 19 provides the critical details of the destruction of Sodom. After Abraham’s intercession with God in Genesis 18, where the patriarch bargains for the city’s salvation based on the presence of righteous individuals, the narrative shifts to Lot, Abraham’s nephew, residing in Sodom. Two angels, disguised as men, arrive at Sodom, and Lot extends hospitality by inviting them into his home (Genesis 19:1–3). However, the men of the city surround the house and demand, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know (יָדַע, yada‘) them” (Genesis 19:5, RSV). The Hebrew verb yada‘, meaning "to know," is pivotal here. While yada‘ can denote general knowledge or acquaintance in other contexts (e.g., Genesis 4:1, where it refers to sexual intercourse between Adam and Eve), the narrative context of Genesis 19 strongly suggests a sexual intent.

Lot’s response is telling: he goes outside and pleads, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly (רָעַע, ra‘a‘). Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof” (Genesis 19:7–8). The use of ra‘a‘ ("wickedly") indicates a grave moral transgression, and Lot’s offer of his daughters as a substitute underscores that the men’s desire was sexual in nature, directed toward the male visitors. This act of offering his daughters, while perceived as morally problematic by modern standards, reflects an ancient Near Eastern cultural priority of protecting guests under one’s roof, even at great personal cost.  That is mentioned in the story as a comparison to the evil being done in Sodom and Gomorrah. They were so evil and wicked that Lot offering his daughters was the "greater good," if you will.  Lot may have been facetious when stating that. The men’s rejection of this offer and their attempt to break down the door (Genesis 19:9) further confirm their lustful intent.

The question arises: in what way were the men of Sodom lacking in hospitality? Hospitality in the ancient Near East involved welcoming strangers and providing for their safety, as Lot initially did. However, the men of Sodom’s demand to "know" the visitors was not a failure of hospitality but a perverse inversion of it—seeking to violate the guests rather than protect them. Was Lot supposed to permit their rape of the handsome men, who were angels in disguise? Clearly not; his desperate offer of his daughters was intended as a lesser evil to avert the greater wickedness of homosexual rape. Lot’s declaration that their intent was "wicked" (Genesis 19:7) aligns with the biblical portrayal of homosexual acts as an abomination, a theme elaborated in later texts.

The New Testament Witness: Jude and "Unnatural Flesh"

The New Testament provides further clarity on the nature of Sodom’s sin. In Jude 1:7, the author writes, “Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise acted immorally and indulged in unnatural lust (σαρκὸς ἑτέρας, sarkos heteras), serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire” (RSV). The Greek phrase sarkos heteras, often translated as "strange flesh" or "unnatural flesh," is significant. The term heteras (from heteros, meaning "other" or "different") suggests a deviation from the natural order, specifically heterosexual relations as ordained by God in Genesis 1:27–28 and 2:24. This interpretation is reinforced by the context of "immorality" (ekporneuō, a compound of porneuō, meaning sexual immorality), indicating that the sin involved perverse sexual behavior.

The reference to "eternal fire" echoes the destruction described in Genesis 19:24–25, where “the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah sulfur and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” Jude’s linkage of this event to "unnatural lust" aligns with the traditional understanding that the attempted homosexual rape of the angels was a key factor in God’s judgment. This New Testament perspective complements the Genesis narrative, reinforcing that the sin was not merely inhospitality but a profound moral corruption, including sexual perversion.

The Church Fathers and Tradition

The early Church Fathers consistently interpreted Sodom’s destruction as a judgment on homosexuality. St. Augustine, in The City of God (Book 16, Chapter 30), describes the men of Sodom as driven by “unnatural lust” and cites their attempt to assault the angels as evidence of their depravity. Similarly, St. John Chrysostom, in his Homilies on Genesis (Homily 43), condemns the Sodomites for their “lawless passion” and contrasts their behavior with Lot’s attempt to uphold righteousness. Tertullian, in Against Marcion (Book 3, Chapter 12), explicitly connects Sodom’s fate to its indulgence in “vices against nature,” a phrase traditionally understood to include homosexual acts.

This patristic consensus shaped the Church’s theological tradition, which views Sodom and Gomorrah as exemplars of divine retribution for sexual sins, particularly homosexuality. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) reflects this heritage, stating in paragraph 2357 that “basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’” The footnote cites Genesis 19 among other texts, affirming the narrative’s relevance to this teaching.

Addressing the "Lack of Hospitality" Argument

Some modern scholars, including those referenced by Fr. Martin, argue that the sins of Sodom were primarily social injustices, such as pride, gluttony, and neglect of the poor, as listed in Ezekiel 16:49: “Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.” However, verse 50 continues, “They were haughty and did abominable things (tō‘ēbāh) before me; therefore I removed them, when I saw it” (RSV). The Hebrew term tō‘ēbāh ("abomination") is used elsewhere in the Old Testament to describe acts God finds detestable, including homosexual behavior (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13). The conjunction of social sins with tō‘ēbāh suggests that the sexual immorality of Genesis 19 was the culminating offense.

The "lack of hospitality" interpretation often hinges on the cultural expectation of protecting strangers, which the men of Sodom violated. Yet, this reading fails to account for the sexual nature of their demand. If the sin were merely inhospitality, Lot’s offer of his daughters would be irrelevant; the issue was not their refusal to host but their intent to rape. The narrative’s focus on the men’s lust for the angels—described as “very handsome” (Genesis 19:1, Hebrew tōb mĕ’ōd, "very good" or "beautiful")—underscores that their desire was homosexual in orientation and lustful. The Bible does not describe lack of hospitality as a sin warranting such catastrophic vengeance; rather, it reserves this level of judgment for sins that “cry out to heaven,” a category that includes homosexual acts alongside murder and oppression of the poor (CCC 1867, Genesis 18:20-21, Genesis 4:10, Jas 5:4).

Magisterial Teaching: Cardinal Ratzinger’s On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger’s (Pope Benedict XVI) 1986 letter, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, provides authoritative guidance on this issue. Ratzinger acknowledges the dignity of persons with homosexual inclinations, condemning violence against them as deplorable (Ratzinger, 1986, para. 10). However, he firmly states that “the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin… [but] it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder” (para. 3). Regarding acts, he reiterates the Church’s teaching that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can never be approved” (para. 7), citing Genesis 19 and other scriptures.

Thus, in Genesis 19:1-11, the deterioration due to sin continues in the story of the men of Sodom. There can be no doubt of the moral judgement made there against homosexual relations. In Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, in the course of describing the conditions necessary for belonging to the Chosen People, the author excludes from the People of God those who behave in a homosexual fashion. (Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons)

This document aligns with the traditional exegesis of Sodom and Gomorrah, viewing the attempted assault as a manifestation of the “intrinsic moral evil” of homosexual acts. Ratzinger’s emphasis on the objective disorder of such acts reinforces the biblical portrayal of Sodom’s sin as a rejection of the natural order established by God, a theme echoed in Jude’s reference to “unnatural flesh.”

The Sin That Cries Out for Vengeance

The Catholic tradition identifies certain sins as so grave that they “cry out to God for vengeance” (CCC 1867), including the blood of Abel (Genesis 4:10), the sin of the Sodomites (Genesis 18:20), and the cry of the oppressed (Exodus 3:7–10). The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is explicitly linked to this category, with Genesis 18:20 noting, “Then the Lord said, ‘Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very grave.’” The sexual violence intended by the men of Sodom, directed at the angels, fits this framework, as does the broader context of homosexual behavior condemned in Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination (tō‘ēbāh).” The annihilation of the cities was indeed an act of divine vengeance, proportionate to the gravity of their sins, with homosexuality as a central component.

Conclusion

The narrative of Sodom and Gomorrah, when examined through the lens of biblical exegesis, Church Fathers, and magisterial teaching, reveals that homosexuality—particularly in the form of the attempted rape of the angelic visitors—was a key sin leading to their destruction. The Hebrew yada‘ and the Greek sarkos heteras in Jude 1:7 point to sexual perversion, while the context of Lot’s response and the men’s lustful intent discredit the "lack of hospitality" thesis as the sole or primary cause. The Church’s tradition, from Augustine to Ratzinger, upholds this interpretation, viewing homosexual acts as abominable and contrary to natural law. While social injustices contributed to Sodom’s guilt, the sexual immorality (homosexuality) of Genesis 19, culminating in the demand to “know” the angels, was the sin that cried out for vengeance, justifying God’s judgment. Fr. Martin’s suggestion of an alternative focus requires reconsideration in light of this robust scriptural and theological evidence. It is revisionist nonsense meant to give a political spin to the Scriptures.  

Anyone preparing homilies for this weekend will notice that the First Reading is Abraham's bargaining with God to prevent God's wrath against Sodom and Gomorrah. Here is a distinguished Old Testament scholar on what the sins of those cities really were. https://t.co/3Xyk7I2yZW

— James Martin, SJ (@JamesMartinSJ) July 21, 2025

 References

- Augustine of Hippo. The City of God. Translated by Marcus Dods. New York: Modern Library, 1993.

- Catechism of the Catholic Church. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

- Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Genesis. Translated by Robert C. Hill. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1986.

- Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1986. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19861001_homosexual-persons_en.html.

- Tertullian. Against Marcion. Translated by Peter Holmes. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1869.

- The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version. New York: National Council of Churches, 1971.

-"What happened to Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities near them is an example for us of the punishment of eternal fire. The people of these cities suffered the same fate that God's people and the angels did, because they committed sexual sins and engaged in homosexual activities." - Jude 1:7

- http://www.robgagnon.net/homosex7thDayAdvArticleSodom.htm