Having grown up Catholic, and having attended Catholic mass quite recently, I feel particular sadness over the following story.
In fact, it reminded me of why I once turned to one of history’s greatest Anglicans, the legendary Christian author C.S. Lewis, for help with understanding what lies at the core of Christianity, as well as why Christians of different denominations feel so strongly about their differences.
In a video posted to YouTube on Tuesday, a reporter from the Catholic television network EWTN asked Pope Leo XIV to help people of faith understand a decision by Cardinal Blase Cupich, Archbishop of Chicago, to honor pro-abortion Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, to which the pope delivered a hideous, hypocritical reply.
On its face, the first part of the pontiff’s answer had some merit.
“I think that it’s very important to look at the overall work that a senator has done during, if I’m not mistaken, 40 years of service in the United States Senate,” the pope said.
What came next, however, was downright appalling.
“I understand the difficulty and the tensions,” he continued. “But I think, as I myself have spoken in the past, it’s important to look at many issues that are related to what is the teaching of the church.”
In other words, the pontiff suggested that “many issues,” alone or combined, might involve moral truths that match or exceed that of an innocent life’s sanctity.
What issues did he have in mind?
“Someone who says, ‘I’m against abortion,’ but says, ‘I’m in favor of the death penalty,’ is not really pro-life,” the pope tragically insisted.
“So,” he added, “someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants who are in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.”
Ugh.
Readers may view the full exchange in the YouTube video below. The pope’s comments began around the :35 mark.
As one would expect, conservative Catholics on the social media platform X rejected the pope’s claim of moral relativism.
Moreover, they cited not their own preferences but the writings of past popes and theologians.
Memo to @Pontifex : Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) wrote in his 2004 memo on Communion and pro-abortion politicians: “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. … There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics…
— John-Henry Westen (@JhWesten) October 1, 2025
With due respect to the pope, the remark is manifestly false. To cite just a few names among many, sainted doctors of the Church such as Thomas Aquinas, Alphonsus Liguori, and John Henry Newman were against abortion and for the death penalty, as were sainted popes such as… https://t.co/yGXXTQuYot
— Edward Feser (@FeserEdward) September 30, 2025
Likewise, conservative commentator Matt Walsh, also a Catholic, rejected the pope’s statement on all three issues: the death penalty, illegal immigration, and abortion.
“Really terrible answer from Pope Leo. God Himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible. Is the Pope saying that God is ‘not pro-life’?” Walsh asked.
“And who exactly is advocating for ‘inhumane treatment of immigrants’? What sort of inhumane treatment is he referring to? Deportations?” he added.
“Also, how can he say that ‘nobody has all the truth’ on any of these issues? We know the truth on abortion. It isn’t complicated. Awful stuff from the Pope. Truly horrendous on about five different levels,” he concluded.
Really terrible answer from Pope Leo. God Himself prescribes the death penalty in the Bible. Is the Pope saying that God is “not pro-life”? And who exactly is advocating for “inhumane treatment of immigrants”? What sort of inhumane treatment is he referring to? Deportations?… https://t.co/rxvf89BK1D
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) October 1, 2025
Again, the pope’s rubbish-filled reply reminded me why I have so often sought truth outside the Catholic Church.
For one thing, his comments amounted to nothing more than virtue-signaling masquerading as doctrine. One hears not the word of God but the product of a mortal man’s pride.
As Walsh noted, the pope created a straw man — “inhuman treatment of immigrants” — that no one supports and that has not occurred. Then, the pope suggested that the straw man should balance or even outweigh one’s moral calculations regarding life in the womb. One can only conclude, therefore, that the pontiff must have spoken falsely in order to sound good on CNN.
Second, the pope’s hypocrisy on illegal immigration strikes with particular force when I picture the Vatican’s enormous walls.
Third, the pope’s remarks on the death penalty contradict the Bible. Oppose capital punishment based on the fallibility of the state, if you must. That argument has merit. But do not compare the life of an unborn child to the life of a vicious murderer. And do not suggest that the death penalty runs counter to centuries-old Christian teachings.
Finally — and perhaps above all — the doctrine of papal infallibility offends me the same way it has offended Protestants for centuries.
In an essay entitled “Christian Reunion” — something he deeply desired — the great Lewis articulated the Protestant message to Catholics.
“[T]he real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine,” Lewis wrote, “but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he’s going to say.”
Of course, a meandering Catholic like myself might still find many truths in Catholic doctrine, particularly as regards the supernatural.
When the pope weighs in on American politics in such a feckless way, however, I have no choice but to dismiss his remarks as equivalent to what jurists call “obiter dictum,” a judge’s personal opinion that lacks relevance and establishes no precedent.
Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.