Fr Paddy McCafferty

I think Austin Ruse raises some profoundly important questions about Fr James Martin SJ in his latest Crisis Magazine article & I find myself agreeing with his criticism. For a start, I have been attending Mass for over five decades and cannot remember ever hearing a sermon devoted to condemning homosexuality or even mentioning it. Not one. Yet Martin repeatedly presents anecdotes suggesting that gay Catholics are being driven from the Church by relentless denunciations from the pulpit. I find these stories impossible to believe, particularly as representative of ordinary Catholic parish life. But there is a much more fundamental problem here. The Catholic Church does not teach that people experiencing same-sex attraction are somehow less worthy of love, dignity or belonging, quite the opposite. She teaches that every human being is made in the image and likeness of God, called to holiness, and capable of living a life of profound love and fulfilment. What she does not teach is that sexual expression is essential to human happiness and this distinction is absolutely essential. Our sexuality is not simply an appetite demanding satisfaction. It is an integral part of the human person, ordered towards a particular understanding of love, marriage and the gift of self. Chastity is not a punishment for those who cannot marry. It is a virtue to which every Christian is called, according to their state in life. I believe people experiencing same-sex attraction deserve sensitive, intelligent and compassionate pastoral care. But what sort of care would it be to suggest, even implicitly, that the Church's moral teaching is an obstacle to their flourishing? What is the point of bringing people into the Church if we are unwilling to introduce them to the fullness of what she believes? Ruse also raises the notorious Fiducia Supplicans photograph. The supposedly spontaneous blessing of two men, conveniently captured by a New York Times photographer, was an extraordinary piece of publicity. Whatever the precise arrangements, it was clearly a public media event, not merely a private pastoral encounter. What makes this still more concerning is that one of those men, Jason Steidl Jack, subsequently contributed a testimony included in the Synod's Study Group 9 report, presenting his same-sex marriage as an expression of God's grace. The study group's own commentary then appeared to move beyond simply listening to his experience towards a theological interpretation that sits uneasily with the Catechism. Surely we are entitled to ask where all this is going? Ruse describes Martin's influence as poisonous. That is strong language, certainly, but I understand his concern. Persistent ambiguity about moral doctrine, especially when amplified by a priest with Martin's extraordinary public profile, can have profoundly damaging consequences for souls. What troubles me most, however, is the institutional question. Fr Martin remains a prominent Catholic priest in good standing, while his ministry repeatedly raises serious questions about the relationship between pastoral accompaniment and fidelity to the Church's teaching. Where is the clear episcopal response? The Church desperately needs an intelligent, compassionate and theologically coherent ministry to Catholics experiencing same-sex attraction. We need to explain why the Christian understanding of sexuality is good news, why chastity is possible, and why a person's dignity and capacity for love cannot be reduced to sexual activity. I simply cannot see how Fr Martin's direction of travel accomplishes that. Authentic pastoral care must lead people towards Christ, not quietly suggest that the demands of discipleship are negotiable. crisismagazine.com/opinion/t…

Some of the most powerful witnesses to the Real Presence are Catholics who do not receive Holy Communion. Bishop Erik Varden's reflections following the Vatican's Amoris Laetitia meeting deserve careful attention, particularly his recognition of Catholics in irregular marital situations who faithfully attend Mass, participate in parish life, but refrain from receiving Holy Communion. He describes their fidelity as a genuine contribution to the Christian community, beautifully observing that “Sacramental exile sustained over time can prepare a joyful homecoming.” Professor Jacob Phillips @Counteredlogos makes a particularly interesting observation here. In a city like London, such Catholics could attend Mass anonymously, receive Communion and nobody would be any the wiser. Yet many choose not to. Consider what this tells us. Their fidelity is not imposed by surveillance or fear of embarrassment, rather it springs from conscience, reverence for the Eucharist and a recognition that the sacraments possess an objective reality which cannot simply be subordinated to our personal circumstances. Surely this raises a question about the whole synodal enterprise? We hear a great deal about listening to those who experience the Church's teaching as burdensome, and rightly so. But how much attention is given to those who embrace that teaching despite the burden it places upon them? Are their sacrifices, their consciences and their "lived experience" being taken equally seriously? There is a danger of treating every painful pastoral situation as a problem whose solution must involve relaxing sacramental discipline but the Christian life has never promised freedom from suffering. It promises that suffering, united to Christ, can become fruitful. Bishop Varden's great insight is that Christian accompaniment must be ordered towards conversion and holiness, not simply affirmation. Genuine mercy does not pretend that difficult truths cease to exist. It helps people live in the light of those truths, confident that God's grace is already at work. Perhaps one of the most important voices in the debate over Holy Communion belongs to those who quietly, faithfully, choose not to receive it.