Fr James Martin SJ, the Catholic Church and the LGBT Ethos

Fr James Martin SJ

Background to Dispute:

In an article in the National Catholic Register on 5 December 2019 Monsignor Charles Pope explained that in November 2019 Judge Sara Smolenski, Chief Judge of the 63rd District Court in Kent County, Michigan, was advised by her pastor, Father Scott Nolan, that she should not receive Holy Communion because she claimed to enter into a “marriage” with a woman. He did this privately, but she chose to make the matter public. You can read the full story here.

As per Monsignor Pope, the priest’s actions were certainly proper. Judge Smolenski’s civil marriage is a public act, and because she is a public figure her actions were widely known. For the good of her own soul, as well as to avoid the scandal of apparent approval, the pastor was correct in requesting that she refrain from presenting herself to receive Holy Communion. Judge Smolenski is certainly a public dissenter from the Church’s constant teaching that marriage is a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. There is also the reasonable public perception that she is engaged in and approves of illicit sexual union — in this case, homosexual acts.

As expected, there are charges that this action is targeting the “LGBT” community. Judge Smolenski herself says, “This feels like selective discrimination. Why choose gay people and why now?” However, the standard for worthy reception of Holy Communion applies to all. Neither heterosexuals in invalid marriages nor those cohabitating outside the bonds of marriage may licitly receive Communion. No one may simply go on living in an invalid marriage (adultery) or in cohabitation (fornication) and still be worthy to approach for Holy Communion. Fornicators, adulterers and those who engage in homosexual acts may not licitly receive Holy Communion unless (and until) they repent and receive absolution in the sacrament of Confession.

No one person is singled out, nor is any group singled out — chastity is required of all. There is no place for sexual intimacy outside of traditional marriage. There are no exceptions.

The Diocese of Grand Rapids issued a statement in support of Fr. Nolan’s actions. Included in it were these essential points:

As Pope Francis explains in Amoris Laetitia, ‘The Eucharist demands that we be members of the one body of the Church. Those who approach the Body and Blood of Christ may not wound that same Body by creating scandalous distinctions and divisions among its members.’ (186) Lifelong Catholics would surely be aware of this.

Inclusion and acceptance have been a hallmark of Catholic Churches in the Diocese of Grand Rapids throughout the diocese’s history. They remain so. They presume, however, a respect on the part of individuals for the teachings and practice of the wider Catholic community. No community of faith can sustain the public contradiction of its beliefs by its own members. This is especially so on matters as central to Catholic life as marriage, which the Church has always held, and continues to hold, as a sacred covenant between one man and one woman. [My emphasis RC]

Answering Fr James Martin SJ (by Fr. Dwight Longenecker)

Fr James Martin has taken to Twitter again to whine and distort the truth in his usual subtle way. This time he is lamenting the request made by Fr Scott Nolan in Grand Rapids that Judge Smolenski refrain from presenting herself for communion.

Below are Fr Martin’s tweets with my replies.

James Martin: As with all these sad cases, the question is: Why are only married LGBT people being singled out? Is Communion denied to all parishioners who are not following church teachings? That is, married couples using birth control or IVF? Or young people engaging in pre-marital sex?

DL: LGBT people are not being “singled out” for not following church teachings.  Ms Smolenski was not denied communion because she is a lesbian. She is not even being denied communion for being in a lesbian relationship. She is being denied communion because she “married” another woman. This is not simply a matter of “not following church teachings.” By attempting a marriage with a woman Ms Smolenski publicly, formally and irremediably denied the Catholic teaching about marriage.

Marriage is a Catholic sacrament. It is one of the means of grace. For it to be a valid sacrament it requires proper form, minister and matter. The proper matter is the conjugal act. The proper ministers are the man and woman marrying one another. Therefore to attempt a same sex marriage is not simply “not following church teachings” it is rejecting church teachings and doing so formally and publicly. When a Catholic attempts a same sex marriage they are rejecting the Catholic teaching about the sacraments.

That Fr Martin does not admit this or teach this indicates either that he is very poorly educated (but he is a Jesuit so that can’t be the case) or he is deliberately misleading God’s people.

Attempting to marry a person of the same sex is not at the same level of commitment as a couple using birth control or IVF or someone committing fornication. All these sins are private sins and can be repented of. In a same sex marriage the person is not just “not following church teaching.” They are rejecting church teaching.  They are saying by their words and actions, “Gay sex is not a sin. It is something to be celebrated. It is something God blesses. The Catholic Church is wrong and I am publicly, formally declaring that I reject the Catholic Church’s teaching.”

In other words it is not breaking the rules it is rejecting the rules and in rejecting the rules rejecting the authority that sets those rules.

This distinction is something any eighth grade confirmation student could understand.

James Martin: The argument is made that same-sex marriage is a “public” sin.” But there are many other examples of public acts well known among parish communities. Is Communion denied to someone who is cruel or abusive to a spouse, who doesn’t forgive coworkers, who holds a grudge for years?

DL: Does Fr Martin hold the common view that a wedding is simply a lovely ceremony in which two people celebrate their love? This is the typical secular, sentimentalized understanding of weddings. It’s a lovely time to have a party and celebrate the love of the happy couple.  Yes, maybe, but not for Catholics. For Catholics a wedding is the start of a marriage and it is far, for more than that. The Catholic understanding of marriage is interwoven with the union between Christ and his church, and it is therefore a sacrament and of vital importance to the faith.

A same sex marriage is not only a public sin denial of the Catholic faith. It is also a formal sin. In other words, it has a legal component and a contractual, formal component. It is deliberate, premeditated and done with full knowledge and consent. A same sex marriage is also, by its nature, irremediable. In other words, the intention of the person contracting a same sex marriage is that this position they are taking is for life. That’s what marriage IS–a commitment for life. The equivalent with holding a grudge, not forgiving co workers or being abusive to a spouse would be for the cruel, abusive person to hire a lawyer and a public meeting room, invite his friends and family, sign a contract and take a public oath that he believes beating his wife is a good thing and holding a grudge against co workers is a noble and worthy action and that he solemnly vows to abuse his wife and hold grudges and seek revenge for all the rest of his days.

James Martin: Moreover, why is it only a “public” act that bars someone from receiving Communion? If pastors chose to, they could easily ask married couples if they are using birth control, or ask young people if they are engaging in pre-marital sex. Of course, they choose not to.

DL: See above. The equivalent would be for the married couple using birth control or the young couple fornicating to hire a public space, sign a contract and declare to all that they believe contraception and fornication to be wonderful, blessings from God and that they are from henceforth always and everywhere committed to contraception and fornication. Come now. Let’s not be absurd.

Once again, Fr Martin is either stupid or badly educated (and we know this is not true because he is an exceedingly clever and well educated person) or he is deliberately obfuscating the truth, distorting the Catholic faith and misleading people.

James Martin: The answer is often: “Of course. Because it would be unethical to investigate and pry.” Yet in many of LGBT cases, the news of the person’s marriage comes from scouring Facebook pages, from someone else reporting them, or from a priest grilling friends and family members.

DL: Why would the gay person wish to be married unless they also wished for their choice to be publicly known and celebrated? Do Catholic priests have the time and inclination to spy on people? Really? I’ve never heard of such a thing. On the contrary most Catholic priests do everything they can to avoid conflicts like the one Fr Nolan found himself in. Do people tattle tale? But surely a Catholic who attempts a same sex marriage knows they are going against church teaching. Why should they be surprised or upset when fellow Catholics are scandalized and Catholic priests and bishops affirm what the same sex couple already knew was true?

The priest is engaged on a witch hunt against the poor LGBTQ victims? I doubt it. On the other hand, perhaps the priest’s hand is forced because the LGBT person and their fellow activists have thrown their behaviors into the face of the Catholic clergy challenging them in an aggressive manner, threatening their positions and pushing to have them removed– as is the case with Judge Smolenski who, it is reported, turned up at St Stephen’s Church with a group of fellow activists wearing rainbow badges and that was what prompted Fr Nolan to ask her to desist. [My emphasis. RC]

James Martin: Overall, the only area that seems to matter in these cases is sexual morality, and the only sexual morality that seems to matter is that of the LGBT person. It is a clear targeting of a specific group of people on a specific question of morality.

 DL: Nonsense. 

My Conclusion

What appears too have happened is that Judge Smolenski stopped attending St. Stephens “last spring [2019] for fear that she would be denied the Eucharist,” as other parishioners apparently had. She attended Mass on November 17, and received the Eucharist, but Father Nolan subsequently “called her to demand that she ‘respect the church’ and not return for the sacrament in the future.” She then went to the media and complained about the priest's action also telling the local news station that she had devoted her life to the Church and recently given a $7,000 gift to the parish. She had previously attempted to not only smear Fr Nolan as a bigot, but tried to get him removed as chaplain of the Catholic Lawyers Association of Western Michigan. And this is the lady whom Fr James Martin believes was unfairly singled out!

Let's try to look at this through the other end of the telescope. From the foundation of the Irish State until the 1970s "the [Protestant] minority was strongly over-represented in the higher echelons of all business activities, including agriculture". [1] In 1932 Dublin hosted the 31st International Eucharistic Congress "in a city decorated with bunting, banners, garlands, floral arrangements, shrines and various other forms of religious decoration. The main pontifical High Mass on 26 June was attended by an estimated one million people".[2] During the Congress Catholic-owned businesses were keen to advertise the fact of their ownership in order to attract customers by distinguishing themselves from their Protestant competitors. But suppose things had gone further than that. Suppose Catholics had deliberately targeted a printing company owned by a Protestant and demanded that he publish Congress material - knowing that this man didn't want to do so. Suppose that the owner played a prominent role in the Irish Print Union and the "offended" Catholics demanded that he be removed for "intolerance". What would Fr Martin make of THAT situation?


Let's go further still. Suppose Irish law had required printing companies to accept any legal material for publication. Would this justify the behaviour of the "offended" ones? But Fr Nolan was under no obligation to give the Eucharist to Judge Smolenski. On the contrary,  he should have denied her Communion on 17th November but choose not to create a public scene - which is what SHE wanted and what she proceeded to do by denouncing him to the media. In the circumstances, I find Fr Martin's attitude to be incredible! 

[ Much of my own life has been bracketed by my experience of two Jesuits - Father Michael Sweetman in 1967 to Fr James Martin today. I never met the latter, but his unwillingness to stand up for fellow priests when targeted by the secular mob, is all too familiar. ]

[1] The Life and Death of Protestant Businesses in Independent Ireland , Frank Barry

[2] John Charles McQuaid