Pope Leo XIV Rejects Homosexual Unions, Yet Liberalism Continues to Guide the Holy See

Since Vatican II, liberalism has reigned supreme in Rome, despite every Pope before the Council denouncing it in the most solemn terms!

From Crisis

By Augustine Franer

Sins against sexuality lie at the root of Western moral decay and the spiritual poverty that follows it. The Church should proclaim its teachings on sexuality with unapologetic confidence.

Pope Leo XIV rejected the blessing of homosexual unions last Thursday, and for this the Church ought to be grateful. It surely isn’t easy to contradict the consensus opinion of Western society and to open oneself up to the vicious criticisms of the modern media, especially for a public figure exposed to such global scrutiny as the pope. Unfortunately, however, upon review of his response in its totality, the continued influence of liberalism on the Holy See is apparent and leaves one wondering when, or if, such influence will be broken.

Before explicitly rejecting the blessing of homosexual unions, the pope provided a rather unnecessary preamble, noticeably apologetic in tone. He remarked:

We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual. And in reality, I believe there are much greater, more important issues, such as justice, equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue.

There is no need to be embarrassed of the Church’s teachings on sexuality. The Church’s morality has been and always will be motivated by love and a desire to protect authentic human love. To delay an answer to the question at the outset of one’s response is to communicate a lack of confidence in the Church’s fundamental correctness. Many may not agree that the Church is in fact correct on this front, but that is why courage is necessary for proclaiming the Gospel. When you have the truth supporting you, there is nothing to be afraid of. Certainly, Pope Leo has courage. I pray that God increases his store of courage to overflowing.

With regard to sexual matters, contrary to the pope’s analysis of the situation, nothing could be more important in facing today’s great evils. Disobedience to the commandments of God and nature regarding sexuality are at the root of the moral decay of Western civilization, the civilization the Catholic Church has had the greatest hand in constructing. Abortion, divorce, fornication, homosexuality, gender dysphoria, pornography—not to mention other evils that can be very nearly linked to these, including religious indifferentism and scandalous hypocrisy leading people away from the Church—are all caused directly or indirectly by a neglect of God’s commandments regarding sexuality. There is a reason Our Lady of Fatima reminded us that sins of the flesh carry the most people into Hell.

The pope also seems here to be making a mistake, albeit unconsciously, that liberals have been making for centuries. Through his words, he is making the false assumption that the material poverty of migrants and the third world is greater than the spiritual poverty of the West. Of course, we are required by Christian charity to give as much material aid to the those in need as we are able. In Matthew 25, Jesus is very clear that the criterion for salvation is charity to the weak and poor.

However, the pope must, as a spiritual father looking with the eyes of the spirit, realize that the poor and those who “thirst” are not only those that thirst for physical water but also those who thirst for the “living water” offered by Christ (John 4:10). St. Paul reminds us that the sexually perverse will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). A heart filled with love for sinners would weep on account of all the millions who are actively choosing to forsake eternal life. A father weeps for all his impoverished children; but he weeps especially for the spiritually impoverished and those who, often unlike the materially poor, do not have so great a store of heavenly treasures.

Analyzing the rest of this preamble, however, is to see clearly the primary doctrines of Liberalism, the same Liberalism condemned by all the great popes of the 19th and 20th centuries. The first listed, and the most idolized by liberals, is equality. Equality has never been a fundamental value of the Church, and only in recent decades has it been regarded by the Magisterium as something positive or desirable. Every human is indeed created in the image and likeness of God and, as such, must be treated with the respect demanded by natural and divine law. However, not all men are equal, in ability or in station, nor should they be.

The great Pope Leo XIII, Pope Leo’s namesake, reminded his flock that Christian democracy “must safeguard the various distinctions and degrees which are indispensable in every well-ordered commonwealth” and not seek to “reduce all ranks to the same level, abolishing all distinction of classes.” In fact, the very constitution of the Church and, beyond that, the hierarchy of the universe, hinges on an inequality of station, ability, and power.

In the Church’s hierarchy, the common layman cannot and ought not occupy an equal position with the pope, just as the creature, likewise, cannot seek to place himself in equality with God. Nor ought the subject to displace the king, nor the citizen to displace the lawful magistrates placed over him. Indeed, the first sin, both of man and devil, was to seek equality with God, to ignore his place in the hierarchy of creation, and to bring himself to level with that which by nature must maintain precedence.

The second, and most beloved, of the liberal values to which Leo attaches eminent importance is freedom. The Latin word liber, meaning free, is, after all, the etymological root of Liberalism. Freedom is that which both sides of the political spectrum claim to defend with intense avidity. However, freedom is not an end but rather a means to an end. Edmund Burke famously said that “the effect of liberty is that individuals may do what they please: We ought to see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations.”

If men freely choose to follow God’s commandments, then they ought to be commended. But if they choose evil, they have abandoned their true good, and their freedom has turned to slavery. “He who commits sin is a slave to sin” (John 8:34). True freedom is found in virtue, in acting according to our nature, and in following the will of God.

However, that is not the liberal view of freedom. Freedom for the liberal consists in doing whatever I want. Advocating a blind pursuit of freedom when the modern world’s conception of freedom is a shameless, unbridled license is dangerous and misleading.

The last, and perhaps today the least contested, of the liberal values on which Pope Leo affixes his attention, is freedom of religion. Before Dignitatis Humanae, religious freedom had never been a foundational tenet of Catholicism. In fact, Pope Leo’s very namesake, Leo XIII, condemned unrestricted freedom of religion in no uncertain terms.

Civil society must acknowledge God as its founder and parent and must obey and reverence his power and authority. Justice therefore forbids the state to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness—namely to treat the various religions alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges. Since then the profession of one religion is necessary in the state, that religion must be professed which alone is true.

Lest Leo XIII be seen as breaking continuity with past pontiffs (something he would never do), it may be helpful to see the opinions of other holy men who have occupied the Chair of Peter. Blessed Pope Pius IX, author of the famous Syllabus of Errors, remarks of his own time:

At this time men are found who dare to teach that “the best constitution of public society requires that human society be conducted without any distinction being made between the true religion and false ones.” And against the doctrine of Scripture and the Church and the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert “that is the best condition of civil society in which no duty is recognized, as attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion.” From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an insanity… But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not think and consider that they are preaching liberty of perdition.

That same Gregory XVI, the last monk to be elected pope, is, if possible, even less equivocal:

The shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. “But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error,” as Augustine was wont to say. When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin… Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely, immoderate freedom of opinion and desire for novelty.

Pope Leo XIV has a sincere desire for justice and unity, and for that he must be commended. But the justice we must pursue must be God’s justice; and the unity we must pursue must be unity with Christ. Justice does not call for us to reward the wrongdoer at the expense of the innocent any more than unity requires we unify ourselves with a fallen, sinful world at the expense of our relationship with God. If we truly want God’s justice, if we truly want unity with God both for ourselves and others, we must follow His commandments and, in all charity, admonish the sinner to do likewise.