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…