Atlanta’s Shrine of the Immaculate Conception provides yet another instance of the rainbow fighting to cast its shadow over the Church. In what should be a place of worship and doctrinal clarity, one finds so-called ministries (Shrine Ministries) such as “Pride Outreach,” “Pride Potluck Socials,” and an affiliated group called Fortunate & Faithful Families (FFF), which describes itself as “Catholic Families Affirming Their LGBTQ Members.”
FFF enjoys the blessing of the local bishop, Archbishop Gregory Hartmayer, who endorses the group as “a ministry in the Archdiocese of Atlanta that urges families to draw upon reservoirs of faith, hope, and love as families of LGBT children face uncharted futures.”
This is not an isolated case but a microcosm of a far greater crisis. Under the pretense of pastoral care, such organizations promote acceptance without conversion, welcome without repentance, and love without truth—all while certain bishops lend them credibility. In the name of inclusion, they distort the fullness of the Church’s teachings, subtly conforming them to modern sensibilities, despite Scripture’s explicit warning that “the world passeth away, and the concupiscence thereof: but he that doth the will of God, abideth for ever” (1 John 2:17). By disregarding this, they also ignore the sobering truth that “a friend of this world, becometh an enemy of God” (James 4:4).
Offering affirmation without a call to conversion, seeking to soothe rather than sanctify, has taken root in many sections of the Lord’s vineyard. While its proponents insist they do not contradict Catholic teaching, they systematically avoid affirming it. This evasion places them in a precarious position, for rejecting or willfully neglecting doctrine is a grave sin against faith (cf. Vatican I, Dei Filius, Ch. 3). When silence on moral truth is paired with ideological activism, the result is not mere omission but outright subversion.
As the motivations behind this deception vary, so do the levels of individual culpability. Some are ignorant—poorly catechized and unable to recognize the errors they promote. Some are deceived—genuinely believing they act in charity while, in reality, leading souls away from the Gospel’s demands. Some are cowardly—fully aware of the truth but unwilling to proclaim it for fear of backlash. And some are malicious—knowing precisely what they do, actively working to undermine the faith from within.
Whatever the motive, the result is the same: confusion, scandal, and the erosion of faith. Whether driven by ignorance, cowardice, self-deception, or malice, the refusal—or outright failure—to affirm the truth does not merely mislead—it leads souls away from Christ.
Modernist Tactics in Action
While distinct from the Modernism condemned by Pope Pius X, LGBTQ activism within the Church employs similar strategies—reshaping doctrinal language, prioritizing human experience over established teachings, and advocating for doctrinal change under the banner of pastoral care.
No one embodies this strategy more prominently than James Martin, S.J. Where the rainbow seeks to cast its shadow over the Church, he is never far behind. Thus, unsurprisingly, his effusive endorsement of Fortunate & Faithful Families appears on the group’s affirmations page: “Fortunate and Faithful Families is one of the most effective of Catholic ministries for families with LGBTQ members. Their approach is pastoral, compassionate, and above all, loving.”
Doctrinal Ambiguity as a Weapon
Martin and his allies in the hierarchy employ this strategy with precision. They never outright deny Catholic teaching—doing so would expose them as formal heretics—yet they carefully avoid affirming it. Instead, they insist they never contradict Church doctrine while employing modernist tactics Pope Pius X condemned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and Lamentabili Sane.
For example, consider some of Martin’s preferred tactics, explicitly condemned in Pius X’s Lamentabili Sane:
Condemned Proposition 24: “The exegete who constructs premises from which it follows that dogmas are historically false or doubtful is not to be reproved as long as he does not directly deny the dogmas themselves.”
Martin does not outright deny the Church’s teachings on sexuality, yet he fosters doubt about them, treating them as secondary or mutable rather than immutable truths. In this, he finds allies in prelates like Cardinal Joseph Tobin, who remarked in 2019: “A rethinking of the mystery of human sexuality is important, is incumbent. It’s not going to be done in a weekend. But I think we have to be able to ask questions of each other as we go forward. And listen.”
Naturally, no “rethinking” is necessary on the Church’s teachings regarding human sexuality and morality, as Scripture and Tradition have been abundantly clear on the matter. The very suggestion that these teachings are subject to reevaluation is itself a modernist tactic—one designed to undermine truth under the guise of dialogue.
Condemned Proposition 26: “The dogmas of the Faith are to be held only according to their practical sense; that is to say, as preceptive norms of conduct and not as norms of believing.”
Martin reduces Catholic teaching to mere pastoral guidance, treating it as a flexible recommendation rather than an absolute moral law binding on all. This aligns perfectly with Cardinal Tobin’s call to “rethink the mystery of human sexuality,” implying that doctrine is something to be updated rather than upheld.
Condemned Proposition 53: “The organic constitution of the Church is not immutable. Like human society, Christian society is subject to a perpetual evolution.”
By endorsing Pride events and LGBTQ activism, Martin implicitly advances that the Church’s moral teachings must evolve to align with contemporary secular values. In this, he finds allies among prelates like Bishop John Stowe, who in 2020 celebrated “Gay Pride Month” with a message to the “members of the LGBT ministries and supporters in the Diocese of Lexington.”
I am happy to greet you during this Pride Month and happy to say a word of gratitude to you for the way that you strive to integrate your faith and your identities as people of—as children of God. I am sorry that the Church has not been as welcoming as it should be in many cases.
By framing the Church as insufficiently “welcoming,” Stowe reinforces the false premise that doctrine should conform to modern identities rather than call souls to conversion. This narrative echoes the modernist claim that Christianity must evolve to remain relevant, an error long condemned by the Church.
From Ambiguity to Action
Martin’s deception is not merely rhetorical—it translates into concrete actions. A striking example is his recent public blessing of a so-called “married” same-sex couple. The couple interpreted the blessing as an affirmation of their union, as seen in their article, “As a Married Gay Catholic Just Blessed by a Catholic Priest, I Welcome the Church’s Openness,” published on Outreach, which Martin founded in 2022.
The message was unmistakable: Martin’s blessing was received as an official Church sanction of their relationship. Had he wished to clarify that the Church upholds the intrinsic disorder of homosexual acts (CCC 2357) and the universal call to chastity (CCC 2359), he could have done so. Instead, he remained silent, allowing those seeking doctrinal change to weaponize his actions.
This selective silence is nothing new. Martin is quick to quote CCC 2358—“They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity”—but conspicuously avoids the Catechism’s full teaching. By ignoring CCC 2357 and CCC 2359, which condemn homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered—not those with same-sex attraction, whom the Church calls to chastity—he creates the illusion that the Church affirms homosexual acts as part of one’s God-given identity rather than as a moral choice.
Universal Call to Chastity
But the Church asks nothing different from anyone else. The call to chastity applies to all—single, married, or those with same-sex attraction. Temptations against chastity, like all temptations, are not sins in themselves; they become sins when acted upon. The single are called to chastity, just as married couples are called to remain faithful and open to life. The Church has always taught that sexual union is reserved for marriage between a man and a woman, ordered toward procreation and the good of spouses. Just as sex outside of marriage—whether between a man and a woman or otherwise—is gravely sinful, so too are homosexual acts.
Some sins may be more disordered than others, but all unrepented mortal sin leads to eternal separation from God. Does it matter which one when the end is the same? The Church does not call people to chastity for the sake of repression but for the sake of salvation. Sin leads to death, and that is true, whether it be adultery, fornication, or homosexual acts. To reject this teaching is not to free souls but to lead them into deeper bondage.
Yet, God’s grace shines most powerfully in overcoming the most twisted distortions of human nature. The greater the struggle, the greater the triumph when one cooperates with grace to reject sin and conform to Christ. Those who bear heavier crosses are not abandoned but permitted to glorify God even more fully by allowing His strength to be made perfect in weakness (cf. 2 Corinthians 12:9).
The Weight of Responsibility
As previously noted, the motivations behind this deception and individual culpability vary. Some are ignorant—poorly catechized and unaware of the errors they promote. Others are deceived—genuinely believing they are acting in charity, yet leading souls away from the Gospel’s demands. Still others are cowardly—fully aware of the truth but unwilling to proclaim it for fear of backlash.
It is difficult to dismiss Martin’s advocacy as mere confusion or innocent misinterpretation. A trained Jesuit with extensive theological education, he insists that he does not contradict Church teaching, yet he refuses to affirm it. His words and actions—such as blessing same-sex couples—send unmistakable messages of approval for their lifestyles, contradicting Church teaching.
Given his distinctive education—and that of those in the hierarchy aligned with him—Martin’s deliberate omissions and calculated public approach make it difficult to see him or his allies as merely mistaken. They know Catholic doctrine. They know what the Church teaches. Yet their approach fosters confusion rather than clarity. Rather than loving the sinner and hating the sin, they seem to love the sin—untethered from truth, feigning love for those trapped in its perils, yet showing no desire to lead them to salvation.
The Church rightly calls such souls to be “accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity,” which makes phony pastoral care all the more despicable since it seeks to deprive these souls of their eternal inheritance promised at baptism. Authentic pastoral care is modeled on the Good Shepherd and thus fights to win souls for Him who “for our salvation came down from Heaven.”
This article is absolutely brilliant. Thank you!