Has the Vatican’s Synod Office Become Fr. James Martin’s PR Arm?
Synod study group report highlights testimony of New York Times-featured man blessed with “husband” by James Martin after Fiducia Supplicans.
VATICAN CITY, 6 May 2026 — On Tuesday, the Vatican published the Final Report of the Synod on Synodality’s study group on “controversial doctrinal, pastoral and ethical questions,” prominently featuring two anonymous testimonies from openly homosexual men in “same-sex marriages.”
The decision was immediately praised by Fr. James Martin, SJ, as “a significant step forward in the Church’s relationship with the LGBTQ community.”
What neither the Vatican nor Fr. Martin has acknowledged, however, is that one of the testimonies appears to have been written by the man featured in a 2023 New York Times article receiving a blessing with his same-sex partner from the same Jesuit priest, just one day after the publication of Fiducia Supplicans.
Final Report: Study Group No. 9
Published by the General Secretariat of the Synod, the final report was prepared by Study Group No. 9, part of a broader set of ten study groups established by Pope Francis in February 2024 to examine issues that emerged during the first session of the Synod on Synodality, held at the Vatican in October 2023.
Study Group No. 9 was tasked with examining “theological criteria and synodal methodologies for shared discernment of controversial doctrinal, pastoral, and ethical issues” — though the group notably chose midway through its work to reframe such issues as “emerging” rather than “controversial.”
The seven-member group included figures such as Cardinal Carlos Castillo Mattasoglio, Archbishop of Lima, Peru; Archbishop Filippo Iannone, Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops; and Italian moral theologian Father Maurizio Chiodi, professor at the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for the Sciences of Marriage and the Family since 2019.1
A controversial figure, Fr. Chiodi has argued that sexual acts within a homosexual relationship can be good in certain circumstances. He has also contended, based on Amoris Laetitia, that responsible parenthood can obligate a married couple to use artificial birth control.
The 30-page final report, originally written in Italian but available also in English, reads much like one of Fr. Chiodi’s labyrinth-like lectures, raising the possibility that he may have played a leading role in its drafting.
Structured in three parts, Part I proposes a “paradigm shift” in how the Church approaches its most difficult doctrinal, pastoral and ethical questions. This shift is described as part of a “process initiated by Vatican II that challenges the models that have been prevalent in ecclesial life over the past centuries.”
Part II introduces what it calls the “principle of pastorality” as the key for “implementing the paradigm shift currently underway.” According to the Study Group’s executive summary, this means that “the proclamation of the Gospel needs to take responsibility for the interlocutor, in whom that proclamation is already at work through the Spirit (cf. Gaudium et Spes 22).”
The report emphasizes the “indispensable value” of “conversation in the Spirit” for fostering an “ecclesial culture of synodality,” and proposes a method centered on “listening to one another, paying attention to reality, and bringing together different fields of expertise” in order to “serve the discernment” of emerging issues and encourage the “active participation” of those “directly involved.”
Having outlined this approach, Part III applies it to two emerging issues the authors identify as particularly significant for local Churches: “the experience of homosexual persons who are believers, and the experience of active non-violence.”
The authors make clear that the document is not intended as an exercise of authority, but as the fruit of work entrusted to a Study Group during the synodal process, aimed at fostering discernment in local Churches.
They also stress that the report does not seek to offer general or definitive solutions. Instead, it proposes concrete ways of initiating a process of discernment, presenting two “cases of listening” drawn from real-life experiences and using them as the basis for an exercise that seeks to identify the stages of development within those stories.
Acknowledging the potential “tension” between “pastoral practices” and the Church’s teaching on homosexuality, the report seeks to “move beyond the impasse” by offering “possible pathways and questions for synodal discernment.”
Testimony 2
In line with this approach, the Final Report includes (in Annex A, 1 and 2) two personal testimonies, one from Portugal and the other from the United States. Each account is written by an openly “gay” man who describes being in a committed same-sex “marriage” and speaks of his “husband” as central to his personal, relational and spiritual life.
The report describes these testimonies as “two deeply personal stories, selected from the numerous contributions that we received regarding this emerging issue.”
Testimony 2 begins: “My sexuality isn’t a perversion, disorder, or cross; it’s a gift from God. I have a happy, healthy marriage and am flourishing as an openly gay Catholic.”
The author continues:
“I entered my first same-sex relationship when I was 28 years old. The relationship was rocky at times, but I grew. I learned to be less selfish and give up control and realized that I am more the person God is calling me to be inside of a relationship than I am outside of a relationship.
Today I thank God for my husband, whom I met five years ago. He’s been the greatest source of learning and grace in my life. He is an immigrant, suffers racism as a black man, and has been sober for seven years. Our life together feels like a miracle. Though he has a hard time with institutional religion, he often challenges me to grow in my relationship with God. We like to joke that he is ‘spiritual but not religious,’ while I can be ‘religious but not spiritual.’ We complement each other, and faith is a lively part of our marriage. While I tend to be skeptical and pragmatic, he radiates hope and vision. I wouldn’t be who I am as a person, or as a disciple of Christ, without him. We’re proud to build our family together.”
While both testimonies criticize “conversion therapies,” Testimony 2 specifically disparages those involved with the Catholic apostolate “Courage.” The author writes:
“My first exposure to groups in the church that deal with homosexuality began when I was a closeted master’s student at the University of Notre Dame. To others I was a recently converted, fundamentalist Catholic who was dating women, but I was wracked with guilt over my same-sex attraction. I joined Courage, an apostolate that works with those who ‘suffer from same-sex attraction.’ The group came at the suggestion of a conversion therapist I met to deal with my ‘condition.’ Attending Courage meetings did little to help my spiritual and psychosexual development. The gathering was secretive and hidden. The people I met were lonely, hopeless, and often depressed.”
The author then speaks of the “breath of fresh air” he experienced when he learned “new forms of theology” and began to “read the Bible in context” at the Jesuit-run Fordham University in New York City:
“At the age of 27 I began my PhD in theology at Fordham University. What a breath of fresh air! Faculty, friends, and colleagues were overwhelmingly supportive of LGBTQ people, and the department itself was around 1/3 LGBTQ. I learned new forms of theology that helped me accept myself as a gay man created in God’s image. Reading the Bible in context made me realize that traditionalist interpretations have little to say about contemporary, life-giving same-sex relationships. I began to take my experience, and the experiences of other LGBTQ people, seriously as the sight of God’s unfolding work. At Fordham I came out and began the hard work of spiritual healing and integration.
While the Vatican did not disclose the author’s identity, it becomes readily apparent when he writes:
“I got involved in LGBTQ ministry and leadership, first in my parish and later with America Media’s Outreach and Fortunate Families, a group based in Lexington, Kentucky. With the help of people capable of offering non-judgmental welcome, I felt heard by the church and that my presence mattered. Priests and even a bishop encouraged me to continue my work. I started writing for national media, became a public advocate for LGBTQ Catholics, and worked with Catholic communities around the world. My first book, LGBTQ Catholic Ministry, Past and Present, traced the movement for LGBTQ Catholic pastoral care in the United States” (emphasis added).
A simple internet search indicates that LGBTQ Catholic Ministry, Past and Present is authored by Jason Steidl and includes a foreword by Fr. James Martin, SJ.
Another search indicates that Jason Steidl was the man pictured in a New York Times article published on December 21, 2023—one day after the release of Fiducia Supplicans—in which he appears alongside the man described as his “husband” during a blessing imparted by Fr. James Martin.
The article, titled “Marking History on a Tuesday Morning, With the Church’s Blessing,” sparked significant controversy and is widely seen as having contributed to the strong backlash from Catholic bishops around the world against Fiducia Supplicans.
The publication of the Final Report of Study Group No. 9, with its testimonies, comes just days after an official Vatican document emerged revealing that Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith and author of Fiducia Supplicans, had written to the German bishops in November 2024, instructing them not to formally bless same-sex couples. The letter states that the Church “does not have the power to confer its liturgical blessing when that would somehow offer a form of moral legitimacy to a union that presumes to be a marriage or to an extra-marital sexual practice” (FS. 11).
In a press release on Tuesday, Cardinal Mario Grech, Secretary General of the Synod, described the Final Report of Study Group No. 9 as touching on “the very heart of ecclesial life,” adding that it “offers concrete tools for addressing the most difficult questions without fleeing from complexity.”
“It is the synodal method applied to the most demanding situations,” he said.
But its release raises serious questions. Why was Testimony 2 featured in the report? Were any of the “experts” appointed to the study group aware that its author was the man featured in the New York Times article? Was there consultation between any of the members of Study Group No. 9 and Fr. James Martin in the drafting of the document? Can its Final Report be regarded as anything more than propaganda undermining Catholic doctrine on homosexuality? And is “synodality” a means to support and defend Catholic teaching, or an instrument to change it?
RELATED DOCUMENTS:
STUDY GROUP N. 9 -FULL FINAL REPORT (ENGLISH)
The full list of members of Study Group No. 9 include: Cardinal Carlos Gustavo Castillo Mattasoglio, Archbishop of Lima, Peru; Archbishop Filippo Iannone, O. Carm., Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops; Monsignor Piero Coda, an Italian theologian appointed by Pope Francis as Secretary General of the International Theological Commission; Fr. Maurizio Maurizio Chiodi, Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Theological Institute “John Paul II” in Rome; Fr. Carlo Casalone, S.J., Professor of Moral Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University, Coordinator of the Scientific Section of the Pontifical Academy for Life, and President of the Carlo Maria Martini Foundation; Sr. Josée Ngalula, R.S.A., Professor of Dogmatic Theology at the Catholic University of Congo in Kinshasa and Member of the International Theological Commission; Stella Morra, Professor of Fundamental Theology at the Pontifical Gregorian University and Consultant to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Martin should be laicized. He’s a menace, and brazen about it.
To use a colloquialism, Fr. Chiodi has rocks in his head. Homosexual practices are contrary to the design of the human body;they are dangerous. Anal interccourse demages the anal sphincter tearing internal membranes allowing pathogens and fecal matter to enter the bloodstream. Other practices lead to disgusting diseases as documented by the Centers for Disease Control.