(LifeSiteNews) – There’s one sense in which Leo XIV is indeed “traditional” – in the sense of carrying on what he has received.

And it’s a most regrettable “tradition” that I have in mind.

It’s this practice of giving off–the–cuff airplane interviews, in which all sorts of strange ideas, errors and even heresies are expressed.

Just yesterday, I’m afraid to say, Leo gave one such interview on his return flight from Africa.

In the course of this flight interview, he managed to affirm the document Fiducia Supplicans, which allowed for the blessings of same-sex couples, condemn the death penalty – and it’s a dogma that it is legitimate – and repeat his vague comments critical of sensible immigration policies.

Let’s break it down.

‘I condemn capital punishment’

Asked about Iran’s use of the death penalty against its citizens, Leo answered in general terms:

I condemn all actions that are unjust. I condemn the taking of people’s lives. I condemn capital punishment. I believe that human life is to be respected and that all people—from conception to natural [death, ed.]—their lives should be respected and protected.

There’s enough there to make the hopeless optimists rejoice. “He defended the right to life from conception to natural death!”

Yes, sure: but he also condemned something which divine revelation says is legitimate. And it’s not the first time: he has done this on several occasions both before and after the May 2025 conclave.

God enjoins it in Holy Scripture, saying, quote:

Whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed: for man was made to the image of God (Gen 9:6).

The legitimacy of the death penalty is taught in the Roman Catechism, the Catechism of the Council of Trent.

“Far from being guilty of breaking this commandment,” the Roman Catechism says, speaking of the death penalty, “such an execution of justice is precisely an act of obedience to it. For the purpose of the law is to protect and foster human life.”

And “this purpose is fulfilled,” the Catechism says, “when the legitimate authority of the State is exercised by taking the guilty lives of those who have taken innocent lives.”

But that’s not all. It’s also been defined infallibly by the extraordinary magisterium. In his condemnation of the errors of Martin Luther, Pope Leo X – Leo XIV’s own namesake – infallibly condemned the idea that capital punishment is “against the will of the Spirit.” That’s in the Bull Exsurge Domine, which is the name of Archbishop Vigano’s apostolate, by the way.

It was also included in a profession of faith imposed on those coming back from the Waldensian heresy in 1209 and 1210.

Even as recently as 1952, Pope Pius XII taught that it was legitimate.

It’s a matter of faith – it’s a dogma – that the death penalty is legitimate. To deny this dogma is heresy.

Let’s move on.

Affirming Fiducia Supplicans and the blessing of same-sex couples

Another journalist asked Leo about Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s permission for the blessing of same-sex couples, and how he intends, quote, “to preserve the unity of the global Church on that particular matter”. Here’s what he said:

First of all, I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters.

Let’s pause: the unity of the Church revolves around the profession of faith, which includes all moral matters. So while he goes on to say that other matters of morality are also important – and he’s right – that does not mean that disunity over sexual matters is ok. It isn’t.

And after all, Our Lady said at Fatima: “More souls go to Hell because of the sins of the flesh than for any other reason.” That’s because they are grave sins, mortal sins. That’s not to say that sins of the flesh are the worst sins it’s possible to commit – obviously murder, abortion and even heresy, actually, are graver than sins of the flesh. But as St Thomas Aquinas says: “men are more prone to it,” (to such sins, that is) “owing to fleshly concupiscence.” We carry around a tendency to those sins: they’re the easiest way for us to fall into Hell.

Leo goes on:

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.

“That particular issue” being sodomy, is one of four sins – as Holy Scripture and the Church’s tradition tell us – that “cry to heaven for vengeance.” To be sure, certain forms of injustice are among the other four – but “Freedom of religion”? The very concept of freedom of religion was infallibly condemned by Pope Pius IX in Quanta Cura.

But then Leo goes on to tell us something more positive:

The Holy See has already spoken to the German bishops.

The Holy See has made it clear that we do not agree with the formalized blessing of couples, in this case, homosexual couples, as you asked, or couples in irregular situations…

Let’s pause again. Sounds positive, right? Not so fast. “We do not agree”? A minute ago we heard Leo say he condemns the death penalty. Here he says “we do not agree”. There’s a bit of a difference there. But it gets worse. “We do not agree” with all this, he says….

… beyond what was specifically, if you will, allowed for by Pope Francis in saying all people receive blessings.

So there we have it. “What was specifically allowed for by Pope Francis.” He’s talking about Fiducia Supplicans there.

As an example of how that document was received: Bishop Athanasius Schneider, along with his ordinary Archbishop Tomasz Peta, condemned Fiducia Supplicans and said that a blessing to such couples “directly and seriously contradicts Divine Revelation and the uninterrupted, bimillennial doctrine and practice of the Catholic Church.”

That’s another way of saying that it constitutes heresy. They add words which also convey that it is a sacrilege.

The bishop and archbishop also said that they “exhort and prohibit priests and the faithful” of their archdiocese “from accepting any form of blessing whatsoever of couples” in such situations.

That’s what Leo just affirmed.

He goes on:

To go beyond that today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity upon Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches. So that’s how I would respond to that question.

The unity of the Church is brought about by the teaching and government of the Pope and the hierarchy in union with him. It’s brought about by actions: by authoritative definitions, laws, condemnations, and so on. Not by hopeful optimism, or backroom conversations with German bishops who are then allowed to go on doing what they’re doing anyway.

And the Pope is the one with the chief responsibility for doing that – and that’s precisely what is absent, and has been for decades.

Professor William Thomas, Leo XIV’s former classmate and respected Vatican theologian, blasted these comments in an exclusive interview given to LifeSiteNews:

Immigration and left-wing talking points

One last thing. Leo was asked what he thought about mass global migration, and what he thought Catholics should make of it. Some of what he said was encouraging.

“Personally,” he said in Spanish, “I believe that a State has the right to regulate its borders.”

Well – let’s just say at the outset that nobody is asking Leo XIV these questions because they want to know what Robert Francis Prevost “personally” believes. They are asking for an answer from the Pope, and what Catholics should believe. This is more of what I just said: a failure to teach and govern with authority.

“I am not saying,” Leo continued, “that everyone must be allowed to enter without order, sometimes creating in destination countries situations more unjust than those they left behind.”

So far so good. And he continues:

But that said, I ask myself: what are we doing in richer countries to change the situation in poorer countries? Why can we not try, both through state aid and through the investments of large wealthy companies and multinationals, to change the situation in countries like those we visited on this visit?

That’s a fair question, and it does indeed need to be asked, even if it is uncomfortable. And he talked about the ways in which richer countries exploit poorer countries, and thus contribute to the very waves of mass migration which are causing problems in the Northern Hemisphere.

But then he returns to this familiar theme he has spoken about before.

“[A]nother point I would like to make,” he said of migrants, “is that, in any case, they are human beings, and we must treat human beings humanely, not treat them worse than animals, as often happens.”

It is a very big challenge: a country can say it cannot receive more than a certain number of people, but when people arrive, they are human beings and deserve the respect that belongs to every human being because of their dignity.

But what is he talking about? Where are migrants being treated “worse than animals”? Is he talking about the US and ICE? Is this really a fair point to be making about how ICE was carrying out its duties? Or is it just repeating a standard left wing talking point?

Conclusion: The classic tactic

I fear that repeating left wing talking points is precisely what we see throughout this interview. And that’s not undermined by some of the better points he made. It’s a total mistake to focus on the positive and overlook the negative, or to think that the positive neutralises the negative.

One rotten apple ruins the batch. And Our Lord told the apostles to beware the “leaven”, the yeast, of the Pharisees. Why is that? St Paul tells us: “A little leaven corrupts the whole lump.” He said that in two separate letters in Scripture. The idea is that you only need a little bit of yeast to destroy your unleavened bread.

And it’s the same with orthodoxy. If you embrace just one heresy, and you are otherwise orthodox, you are not orthodox. We accept the Catholic faith whole and entire. And the “otherwise orthodox” part is an absolutely typical method used by the modernists to deceive the unsuspecting.

“The modernists,” Pope St Pius X said, “employ a very clever artifice.”

In their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist.

“For nothing is more dangerous,” wrote Pope Leo XIII, “than these heretics, who seem to proceed correctly in all things, but with a single word, like a drop of poison, corrupt the pure and simple faith of the Lord.”

And that, my friends, is precisely what we see before us.