LGBT+ Scandals & The Church

A video is going viral of an ABC News anchor, Gio Benitez, “joining” the Catholic Church with his gay partner serving as his sponsor. Unless new information about his repentance of homosexuality has surfaced, Gio Benitez is an openly homosexual man who was confirmed by a Catholic priest, Fr. James Martin — if you have ever wondered where the Jesuit jokes come from, look no further.

There are three things to consider as we analyze this scandalous event.

First, is whether or not it was scandalous? It was. Second, whether the sins in question are actually damnable? They are. Third, whether scandals like this prove that the Catholic Church is just another denomination? It is not.

So Scandalous

Fr. Martin, apparently, has stated many times that he is adamantly supportive of the Church’s teaching on marriage between one man and one woman and that he does not desire to change the teaching. But he doesn’t seem to care about the Church’s teaching on scandal. This is important because scandal itself can be a mortal sin, and Fr. Martin has encouraged Catholics to attend pseudo weddings known as “gay” weddings. According to an article penned by Robert P. George, a well-known academic and professor of Princeton University, Fr. Martin has, “…attributed most people’s opposition to redefining marriage to bigotry, compared those who won’t attend same-sex weddings to racists…”

Regardless of what a Christian says, it is more important what they do. A Christian can’t attend a fake wedding any more than they can receive a fake Eucharistic host. The very idea of a man “marrying” another man is an anti-Christian ceremony. It perverts the sacrament that Christ instituted, and to attend would be to cause scandal. But what is “scandal”?

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states,

Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. The person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense.

CCC - 2284

Presuming that the fake ceremony at a gay “wedding” mimics a traditional and real ceremony of a husband and wife, there will be a question posed to the congregation: “If anyone objects to this marriage, speak now or forever hold your peace.” According to the Catechism, a Christian in attendance would be obligated to speak against the supposed marriage because it was not a real marriage, lest they, by “omission,” deliberately lead another into “grave offense.”

This teaching is also supported by Christ’s words when He says that anyone who leads “these little ones” astray, should prefer to be drowned via a millstone around their neck, rather than to be judged for the sin of scandal (Mt. 18:6-9) — I guess we know where the mafia got the idea for cement shoes and “swimming with the fishies.”

As it pertains to the confirmation currently up for discussion, at least one individual has most likely committed a mortal sin. Fr. Martin, the priest presiding over the confirmation ceremony, knows the Church’s teaching on the matter. Unless he intentionally misled the confirmand (i.e., a person seeking to be confirmed in the Church), then all parties involved have some level of culpability in the scandal. Furthermore, Fr. Martin could have done one of two things: (A) prevent this event from being a public event uploaded to the internet, or (B) inform people that the men in question have renounced their gay lifestyle. Otherwise, it’s misleading to the public and causes scandal among those within the Church and those outside it. One look at the Protestant responses on social media and it’s clear that events like this necessarily prevent many from taking further steps to enter the Church.

Robert P. George’s 2017 article, referenced above, highlights Martin’s reluctance to speak openly about the Church’s condemnation of homosexuality,

“[Fr. Martin] sometimes explains his unwillingness to proclaim [The Church’s] teachings on marriage and sexuality by saying that everybody already knows what the Church says on those issues.”¹

Robert P. George is a trustworthy academic, author, and cultural critic, so his critique of Fr. Martin is presumed to be a fair one. Anyone who doubts George’s assessment can verify it by following Fr. Martin on X. But George’s observation points out that Fr. Martin not only knows the Church’s teaching, but that Fr. Martin knows that everyone else does too. In short, the evidence that there was full knowledge of the sin is substantial. Essentially, Fr. Martin’s position is “everyone knows, so no one needs to say anything.”

This covers our first question, “Was there scandal?” The evidence is clear: if everyone already knows what the Church teaches, and these persons give the appearance of violating that teaching, then it is a scandal.

Church Teaching

If these two men in question, Gio Benitez and his partner (both of them received the Eucharist), have decided to renounce their homosexual relationship and activity in private, then we may presume they have done nothing wrong. Maybe they are choosing to renounce their life of sin, and the news media or Fr. Martin has yet to inform us of this decision? Doubtful. To be fair, we aren’t necessarily required to know either. However, the fact that nothing was said leaves individuals outside the Church in a state of confusion or scandal. So far, no evidence has been presented to me that would indicate this is the case. If you have news that these men have abandoned their homosexual practice and embraced God’s design for their bodies and relationships, post the link in the comments.

Regardless, confusion, scandal, and heresy are always an opportunity to present the truth of the Christian teaching, which is found fully in the Catholic Church.

When you enter the Church, you have to intend to turn away from your sin. This does not mean that the person who is struggling with their sin needs to have conquered their sin before they come into the Church, but the promise that one will is part of confession. If these men did not intend to abandon their homosexual actions or didn’t confess their homosexual sins to a priest, then they are both receiving the Eucharist in a state of mortal sin.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin for all humans, not just Catholics. It is a violation of God’s created order and moral requirements for following Him. Furthermore, mortal sins against nature are sins that all people know are severe, or in the Church’s language, “grave.” This means that, according to the Church’s teaching, unless an individual repents of the sins we have been discussing thus far, they are on their way to Hell: either the priest, the confirmand, the sponsor, or all three.

The Catechism says it this way,

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts — such as fornication — that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil. (1756)

This means, contrary to those who would like to apply “invincible ignorance” to every sin on the earth, there are some sins that man has known and will always know to be mortally sinful: fornication, adultery, murder, homosexuality, drunkenness, stealing from the poor, murdering a child in the womb, etc. In these situations, the Church is shining a light on the Natural Revelation of God and setting it in its proper place.

One might exclaim, “But the priest had good intentions!” They might say that the priest has an earnest desire for the sinner to be strengthened by the body and blood of Jesus or to show them that the Church loves gay men, but none of these would justify permitting an individual to enter the Church and receive the Eucharist unrepentant. The Catechism says,

The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act…Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil. (1754).

Giving the Eucharist to a woman who is sleeping with a married man is a mortal sin. Giving the Eucharist to a woman engaging in intercourse with a divorcee would also be adulterous, even if in the eyes of the State the man was her husband. This is why the Church has annulments — the process by which the Church determines if someone is married in the eyes of God, not the state.

The same is true for homosexual men, but even more so because they are violating a more obvious tenet of Natural Law. A Doctor who mutilates the genitals of a child, confused about their sexual identity, is violating the Natural Law just as much as two men in a homosexual relationship. If the doctor wanted to come into the Church, he too would have to renounce his practice and decide to actually do medicine instead of harm.

Some may say, “But what about their upbringing? They were raised in a culture that promoted LGBT stuff, and convinced them that it was ok.” Contrary to popular Catholic opinion, the Church teaches that circumstances are not sufficient to change the morality of a particular action. The Catechism says,

It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances ( environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. (1756).

Therefore, no amount of good intention or social pressure can justify what has happened in a parish in New York City, where a priest confirmed two openly practicing homosexuals into the Church. Even if these men somehow caved under social pressures, this does not lower the severity of the evil — it may lower the level of their culpability, something only God knows. But the sin in question is still objectively evil. Just so we’re clear, if you die with a mortal sin on your soul, you go straight to hell. End of story.

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell” (1033).

To be clear, you can’t “accidentally” commit mortal sin. There is never any doubt about the matter. That is one of the criteria that causes the mortal sin’s effect, spiritual death, to be applied to the soul. The Catechism says it this way:

For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is a sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.” (1857)

If we apply this to the sinner struggling with the sin of homosexuality, we would get the following:

1. Full knowledge, which they have based on Natural Law and Church teaching.

2. Object of the sin is a grave matter —blasphemy, homosexuality, adultery, murder, etc.

3. Deliberate Consent— unless someone is forcing you to commit the act via violent threat or blackmail, you are consenting.

The only ambiguity from my perspective is whether or not the Priest told them that practicing homosexuality was not an obstacle to receiving the Eucharist and entering the Church. But again, this is highly doubtful. If you are a public figure and homosexuality is part of your public influence, then when you come into the Church, you should publicly announce that you have left this lifestyle. Not because your private life is interesting, but because you are now part of the body of Christ, and you don’t want to lead other souls to believe lies about the Church, mainly, implying that homosexuality is somehow approved by the Church.

It was previously mentioned that some sins are mortal all the time. Many Catholics seem to forget this aspect because their concern is more with the culpability of the mortal sin, rather than the objective nature that the Church ascribes to it. This is not mere speculation on my part either:

There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object: such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (1756)

This list is not exhaustive, but the categories listed entail scandal in the Church, like appearing to confirm a practicing homosexual. Scripture also affirms this truth that there are some sins of which ignorance is impossible. St. Paul writes the following in his letter to the Romans,

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them…So they are without excuse…

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Rom. 1:19-20; 26-27.

Nature, the Church, and Scripture are all very clear on this point, such that at least one, if not all those present in this ceremony, are without excuse. Only God knows with certainty the state of their souls, but we can be reasonably certain that some form of mortal sin and scandal has occurred.

Does this Disprove the Church?

Not any more than Isaac Newton murdering a man by pushing him off a cliff would disprove gravity, or Elon Musk disproving rocket science by murdering a bunch of sharks when it landed in the ocean (true story, environmentalists apparently challenged him on his rocket designs for this reason).

Homosexuality is a disordered desire. A disordered desire is nothing more than a desire to sin. This is controversial today, even among Christians, because we are constantly worshipping at idols that are made in our image. Anyone who points out our disordered life is immediately seen as an enemy of our “precious” self.

When our desires are disordered, our “orientation” — an extremely intentional word choice — is inverted; it’s not about what He wants, it’s about what “me” wants. Whether it’s the desire for sex, family, brotherly friendship, or to feel good in your own skin, all of these, if not given to God, will turn us, bend us, and twist us inward, where our desire remains, but God is absent. There we will find an altar, with no bread or wine, no paten or chalice. All that will be present is a darker version of ourselves, arrayed in frayed vestments, presiding over a ceremony in which the self is worshiped, the soul is fattened, and all of Hell salivates as we attempt to work out our own damnation with pleasure and ecstasy.

The desire for sex can quickly lead to adultery or fornication, a mortal sin. The desire for a child could lead infertile couples to pursue IVF, a mortal sin. The desire for brotherly friendship could easily turn into a homosexual action, a mortal sin. And the desire to feel at home in one’s body may actually lead to transgender surgeries, which invert the body biologically through surgery, making scars in the soul visible on the body.

In short, most sins start in a desire for what is good. We must remember that God saw what He created in the Garden and said it was “good.” Our anger is often out of a desire for justice, but this can quickly turn to revenge or murder. Our recognition of beauty can quickly be turned to lust and adultery. Our love of food, money, or pleasure can quickly move from rest to gluttony, greed, or sloth. Our desire to do great things for God can quickly lead to doing great things for ourselves, ultimately leading us to the sin of pride.

God loves sinners too much to leave them in their sin, and He has, in His wisdom, decided that we should be co-laborers in His work of helping people see the “error of their ways” and to turn away from sins and follow Christ. There is a place for tolerance and love in these situations, but that tolerance and love are only effective when the sinner recognizes their desires as disordered and their need to be healed of them. This is not just for Homosexuality, but applicable to all sins.

Take two hypothetical men. One struggles with same-sex attraction, the other desires a wife. The first recognizes he is in sin from the start. The second believes that because his desire is natural, there is no sin in it; his intentions are blinded by the natural good of his desire.

Over the years, the gay man spends time in the scriptures, seeks spiritual counseling, wrestles with his sin, and decides that God wants him to begin preparing his heart for a wife in the future. A few years later, he is married to a beautiful wife, has a beautiful family, and loves God even more.

The second man, like the brother in the prodigal son, still doesn’t have a wife, but has always been with “God” in his desires. However, God has not fulfilled his desire for a wife. The man becomes bitter towards God. He begins to feel that God owes him a wife because of “all he has done for God.” Eventually, what started as a “good desire” is now only a desire to satisfy himself. It has warped him and has inverted his relationship with God. His prayer is no longer, “not my will, but Your will be done,” it has changed to “Not your will, but MY WILL, MY WILL, MY WILL! DO MY WILL, NOW!”

After saying such a perverted prayer, the second man raises his head only to find darkness and gnashing of teeth. “I’m no longer a Christian,” he says.“I did so much for God, and He never did anything for me; I’m done with Him.”

The second man has turned his back on God, and the solution for him is the same solution for every sinner. The only way back to God is to turn our backs on that sin of all sins, that twisted and bent our souls in the first place. It is the same sin that Satan tempted Eve with in the garden, “ye shall be as gods.” It is the sin of pride.

1. Public Discourse, “Fr. James Martin on Marriage, Sexual Morality, and the Church’s Teachings: A Solution to the Puzzle”, by Robert P. George. Accessed 11-15-2025.