Did you hear the big news? Leo XIV has issued what some are celebrating as a rebuke of Francis and his ill-conceived insistence that relationships involving cohabitation, by virtue of the fidelity between the persons involved, constitute a “true marriage” that has the “grace of matrimony.”
“Pope Leo XIV rebukes Francis’ claim that cohabitation carries grace of real marriage.”
This according to John-Henry Westen of LifeSite News.
In response to Westen’s “BREAKING” of the big news on X, his followers rejoiced:
“A real man of God,” said one.
“Finally, clarity from Rome is back,” said another.
My favorite response?
“WOOOO HOOOOOOOOOOO!!! I’m finally excited about this pope!”
If you listen closely, you can almost hear Taylor Marshall crying out in the distance like a high school cheerleader, skirt and all, at a pep rally: Boomshakalaka! Boomshakalaka!
Now, to be clear, I feel sorry for these people (other than Marshall who feasts on their naïveté).
These sincere souls are understandably desperate for a true pope who reflects the gift of “truth and never failing faith” as uniquely bestowed by Christ upon the Roman Pontiffs, “so that the whole flock of Christ might be kept away by them from the poisonous food of error and be nourished with the sustenance of heavenly doctrine” (see Vatican Council I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter 4).
Sadly, in their eagerness to find a genuinely Holy Father, these poor persons cannot help but jump at every indication, no matter how superficial, that Leo is at long last the answer to their prayers.
Believe me, I take no delight in bursting their bubble, but it must be said: Leo is not he.
So, what exactly did Leo say that has these people acting like he’s Pope St. Pius X reincarnated, a Bergoglian Basher, a modern-day Hammer of Heretics?
At what was billed as a “celebration of the Jubilee for Families, Children, Grandparents, and the Elderly” hosted by the Dicastery for Laity, Family and Life, Leo said:
Perhaps many young people today who choose cohabitation instead of Christian marriage in reality need someone to show them in a concrete and clear way, especially by the example of their lives, what the gift of sacramental grace is and what strength derives from it. Someone to help them understand “the beauty and grandeur of the vocation to love and the service of life” that God gives to married couples.”
Yeah, that’s it. That’s the big rebuke. The major correction. The Boomshakalaka moment.
And what exactly did Leo do that was so special?
He didn’t actually teach anything. He merely encouraged married couples to make the internal indwelling of matrimonial grace “concrete and clear” to others in the way that they live. That’s all very well and good, but as Pope Pius XI taught:
In order that the grace of this sacrament may produce its full fruit, there is need, as we have already pointed out, of the cooperation of the married parties (cf Casti Connubii).
Even those Christian marriages wherein the spouses provide a terrible example, some even going so far as being unfaithful or abusive, have been given the gift of matrimonial grace. In some cases, cohabitating couples would seem to offer the more attractive example.
The point is plain: Encouraging good behavior on the part of Catholic couples is not enough. It’s part of the false “the Church grows by attraction” narrative, when in reality, the Lord established a teaching Church.
To the mind of thinking Catholics, who are not prone to being overcome by emotion, genuine clarity on the matter – especially in light of Bergoglio’s errors – would have necessarily included the Church’s unambiguous doctrine on cohabitation vs holy matrimony, e.g., by plainly teaching that not only is sacramental grace absent from cohabitation, but also that persons living more uxorio – as if they were husband and wife outside of true marriage – are committing a grave mortal sin.
What makes such commentary necessary?
Amoris Laetitia, of course, which, unlike Bergoglio’s informal but heretical commentary on cohabitation as cited above, is falsely considered by many (evidently including Leo) to be an authoritative act of the papal magisterium.
If Leo really was intent on offering a meaningful rebuke of the Bergoglian assault on holy matrimony, then he could have easily provided it with the addition of just a handful of words, ideally also mentioning Jorge’s Love Letter to Satan by name.
Oh, wait… He did mention Amoris Laetitia!
Leo said to the families present:
Do not be discouraged by the difficult situations you face. It is true that families today have many problems, but “the Gospel of the family also nourishes seeds that are still waiting to grow, and serves as the basis for caring for those plants that are wilting and must not be neglected” (FRANCIS, Amoris Laetitia, 76).
See what he did there?
Leo claimed recourse to Bergoglio’s heretical and blasphemous offensive against the sacrament of holy matrimony as if it offers nourishment to those whom he just charged with providing a compelling witness to the beauty of Christian marriage.
Some rebuke, this.
In this same address, Leo made Bergoglio’s disdain for objective doctrinal and moral teaching his own, criticizing those who would dare to:
…present Christian life mostly as a set of rules to be kept, replacing the marvelous experience of encountering Jesus – God who gives himself to us – with a moralistic, burdensome and unappealing religion that, in some ways, is impossible to live in concrete daily life.
If one didn’t know better, the above could easily be a quote from Jorge the Heretic himself!
And let us not forget, as Leo’s sycophants obviously have, that he has already declared that Bergoglio is blessing us from Heaven.
In conclusion…
Leo did not, and never will, rebuke Francis. In this case, he actually made it a point to treat Bergoglio’s most poisonous trash as treasure. So just stop it already. Pretending that Leo is going set things aright, when he’s already made it perfectly plain that he is determined to pick up where Jorge left off, is only going to make it easier for him to deceive the naïve.
