In homily on family, Leo advances theological framework that brought us here, with its "ambiguity, humanism, and sentimental universalism"

Hard-hitting critique . . .

The writer takes a homily apart. Always a good idea. Preacher tells about himself, what he believes, for one thing. It’s the nature of the action. There he is, exposing himself to listeners who ideally hang on every word of his.

Said writer, Chris Jackson, not only hangs, he excavates. Hear him out.

Leo’s “Marriage is not an ideal but the measure of true love between a man and a woman” was a home run, “a welcome phrase. Clear. Unambiguous. Grounded in nature and grace. “

High praise from a veritable tiger in the field:

Traditional Catholic writer and commentator. No compromise. No quietism. Standing for the Faith when others fall silent.

He adds, tellingly, explaining why the above Leo statement:

For Catholics who have spent years listening to euphemisms, evasions, and doctrinal sleight-of-hand, these words came as a relief.

But . . .

. . . a single quote does not make a homily sound. And in this case, the rest of Leo’s message does not hold up to scrutiny.

Leo said a good thing, but the rest of it told a different story — about Leo.

Something else emerged, “a dangerous pattern . . . one that began under John Paul II, metastasized under Francis, and now appears under Leo in smoother form. “

The pattern?

It’s the use of traditional language as a veneer, a way of appearing faithful while continuing to advance the same theological framework that brought us here: ambiguity, humanism, and sentimental universalism.

Rings a bell?

Then there’s unity. He “centers on John 17, where Christ prays: ‘That they may all be one,’ [which] has always referred to unity . . . in truth, under the same Faith . . . sacraments . . . visible authority.”

Not Leo, who says, it “brings about among his creatures the eternal communion of love that is God himself . . .” Say what? A bit of ambiguity, humanism, and sentimental universalism? Why be so vague, so dreamy about it?

Instead of unity in Catholic doctrine, we’re given a kind of horizontal fraternity. The idea that all mankind is somehow joined in “universal union” flattens the supernatural meaning of Christ’s prayer. It sounds beautiful, but it has nothing to do with the Church.

What it does sound like is Fratelli Tutti. It reduces unity to a sociological good. Communion becomes sentiment and evangelization becomes coexistence.

How do we feel, whom do we urge to become Catholics? We are to get along by going along? We are to

. . . support reinterpretations of Humanae Vitae through the lens of ‘pastoral accompaniment and ‘discernment’? Endorse a so-called “development of doctrine” that allows for contraception in certain cases? Argue for artificial insemination and IVF as potentially moral under a “relational” or “integrated” ethic?

Has he arrived to this historically exalted post to quote a predecessor in reassurance of the faithful while entrusting defense of his teaching to people “who have spent years undermining it from within”?

He continues with a “touching, but troubling, reflection”:

“All of us are alive today thanks to a relationship, a free and freeing relationship of human kindness and mutual care.”

Any pep-talker would say that, telling people to buck up, look on the bright side?

Is it true on a merely human level? Yes. But in a homily supposedly about Christian unity and the family, it’s conspicuous that grace, baptism, and the life of the soul are nowhere mentioned.

A shame.

Instead, salvation is suggested to come [from] being loved by others, not by Christ’s Cross [or] conversion [or] the sacraments. [Here we have] post-conciliar theology: replacing the supernatural order with the emotional order. And it’s been devastating.

The most telling complaint yet.

And the contradiction is not accidental. It follows a familiar post-conciliar pattern: cite tradition to calm the base, while empowering dissenters to revise it in practice. By preserving the outward forms, quoting encyclicals, praising marriage, invoking saints, the illusion of continuity is maintained, even as the substance is quietly surrendered.

And so?

This is how doctrine erodes now: not through confrontation, but through selective enforcement, structural ambiguity, and strategic appointments. Leo’s citation of Humanae Vitae was not a doctrinal stand. It was a rhetorical move, carefully framed, comfortably vague, and ultimately hollow.

We can learn from this homily, which . . .

If [it] teaches us anything, it’s this: the problem [with him] is no longer tone. It’s content.

Leo XIV may dress his speeches in the language of fidelity, family, and unity. But he won’t tell the truth about what destroys families. He won’t condemn sin. He won’t preach repentance. He won’t assert the rights of Christ the King over civil society. And he certainly won’t correct the doctrinal collapse of the past sixty years.

Almost as if he’s running for office, skipping over the bad news that no one wants to hear.

If anything, this homily confirms that we are still moving in the same direction, only more quietly now. No longer with shock and provocation, but with comforting half-truths, carefully tailored to silence the remaining resistance.

Yes, it’s nice to hear a pope praise marriage.

But it would be far better to hear one defend it.

— More to come from this fellow, who gets to the heart of the matter.