Pope Leo gives a great synopsis of Saint Augustine’s description of the City of God and the City of Man. It is well worth reading and in this context, His Holiness quotes Pope Benedict XVI.
Then His Holiness goes on to describe the “dictatorship of relativism” not by using this term that Pope Benedict used, but rather describes it as “Orwellian”!
The following are money bytes, but read the entire elocution. It’s well worth doing and indeed sounds to me to be a rehearsal for an encyclical:
We should also note the paradox that this weakening of language is often invoked in the name the freedom of expression itself. However, on closer inspection, the opposite is true, for freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed precisely by the certainty of language and the fact that every term is anchored in the truth. It is painful to see how, especially in the West, the space for genuine freedom of expression is rapidly shrinking. At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it.
Unfortunately, this leads to other consequences that end up restricting fundamental human rights, starting with the freedom of conscience. In this regard, conscientious objection allows individuals to refuse legal or professional obligations that conflict with moral, ethical or religious principles deeply rooted in their personal lives. This may be the refusal of military service in the name of non-violence, or the refusal on the part of doctors and healthcare professionals to engage in practices such as abortion or euthanasia. Conscientious objection is not rebellion, but an act of fidelity to oneself. At this moment in history, freedom of conscience seems increasingly to be questioned by States, even those that claim to be based on democracy and human rights. This freedom, however, establishes a balance between the collective interest and individual dignity. It also emphasizes that a truly free society does not impose uniformity but protects the diversity of consciences, preventing authoritarian tendencies and promoting an ethical dialogue that enriches the social fabric.
In a similar way, religious freedom risks being curtailed. As Benedict XVI recalled, this is the first of all human rights, because it expresses the most fundamental reality of the person. [7] The most recent data show that violations of religious freedom are on the rise, and that sixty-four percent of the world’s population suffers serious violations of this right…
In light of this profound vision of life as a gift to be cherished, and of the family as its responsible guardian, we categorically reject any practice that denies or exploits the origin of life and its development. Among these is abortion, which cuts short a growing life and refuses to welcome the gift of life. In this regard, the Holy See expresses deep concern about projects aimed at financing cross-border mobility for the purpose of accessing the so-called “right to safe abortion.” It also considers it deplorable that public resources are allocated to suppress life, rather than being invested to support mothers and families. The primary objective must remain the protection of every unborn child and the effective and concrete support of every woman so that she is able to welcome life.
Likewise, there is the practice of surrogacy. By transforming gestation into a negotiable service, this violates the dignity both of the child, who is reduced to a “product,” and of the mother, exploiting her body and the generative process, and distorting the original relational calling of the family.
Press the title for the long elocution, marvelous to read and behold. The papacy has its groove back after a long 12 years:
ADDRESS OF POPE LEO XIV
TO MEMBERS OF THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS ACCREDITED TO THE HOLY SEE
Hall of Benediction
Friday, 9 January 2026
27 comments:
The Pope rejects Orwellian language which is a HUGE rejection of Francis and his cronies!!!! James Martin, SJ, LGBT, must be beside himself/herself!
"At the same time, a new Orwellian-style language is developing which, in an attempt to be increasingly inclusive, ends up excluding those who do not conform to the ideologies that are fueling it."
Pope Leo is speaking to Americans: You saw an insurrection and riots and an attempt to prevent the peaceful transfer of power on January 6, 2021. But your current governmental regime is telling you, in an Orwellian manner, not to believe your own eyes; that it was a peaceful visit by peaceful people wishing to express peacefully their grievances.
And again: You saw the murder of a women by agents of the regime. But that Regime is saying to you, in an Orwellian manner, that she was a domestic terrorist, that she weaponized her vehicle, that the attempted to kill or do great bodily harm to an agent of the regime.
God bless Pope Leo. Those of us who know what we see will not be gaslighted and we will not be excluded for not conforming our ideologies to those of the current regime.
I thank God that I am not a Republican or, God truly forbid, a Democrat, i.e abortion as health care! Orwellian? You betcha! But there is enough Orwellianism to go around. As a priest whose father and brother were in law enforcement and now my brother’s son, my nephew in a life long career in law enforcement, currently with Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco, (AFT), no person in their right mind should ever use their car to flee law enforcement, especially when law enformcement is close enough to yank you out of your car for non-compliance and close enough to be killed by your car if your car, even if unintentional, nearly runs over a law enforcement person. As tragic as this tragedy is, common sense is lacking in protestors who actively hinder law enforcement in their duties. The Orwellian aspect to this is that Democrats are not warning their constituents to stop these kinds of dangerous tactics. It is not only Orwellian, but also lacks in common sense, a problem more associated with Democrats than Republican but certainly not with we Independents!
And more Orwellian language from the “let’s make the most of every tragic killing” Mayor of Minneapolis, by his grandstanding in national live news, he knowingly offended my virgin ears when he told Law Enforcement to get the F**K out of his city and to stop their B******t! I, nor other little innocent little ones, should have heard that loud and clearly and without beeps on a live press conference carried by the cable news channels. Shame!
But also there is other ideological Orwellian language especially used by the LGBTQ+++ political lobbies in and outside of the Church. Queer does not uphold the dignity of the human person. Trans is Orwellian as one cannot be that which biology and science say they aren’t. Lesbian is like queer identitfying the person on sexual attractions rather than the dignity that God gave them as male and female for He created them male and female. And the same with Bi-sexual—only voyeurs want to know the details about genitalia, sexual desires, ordered or disordered and perversions that lead to cross dressing, men saying they are women to get into women’s locker rooms and bathrooms and the like. Thank you Pope Leo for calling this Orwellianism out!
All Highest K always standing for leftwing loonism. I suggest you read up on the "New St. Floyd." She was crazy and her "wife" blames herself for setting her up for this foolish confrontation. Read some of her "poetry" where she mentions how she trashes bibles. If she were killed by an illegal alien, this would not have been news.
https://pjmedia.com/matt-margolis/2026/01/08/heres-what-dems-dont-want-you-to-know-about-the-woman-who-attacked-ice-agents-n4948034
I supposed you are thrilled how the Somalians are stealing billions so long as they vote for the Party of Death! It also sounds like Walz, besides being a promoter of fraud, is an Insurrectionist (unlike the made up Dem narrative of January 6th which has fallen apart). You really need to grow up
I suppose your examples might be correct -- I'm not sure there's enough information to reach a conclusion about the ICE homicide just yet. Regardless, surely Leo's statement applies in multiple ways to our modern society. We live in a post-factual age brought about by many factors: the difficulty of getting correct information, the insistence that conclusions be reached even in the absence of correct information, and the desire of those with agendas to distort the information we do get to serve their own ends. And of course, all of us are influenced to view information through our particular lens that conform to our biases.
As a more general observation, we live in a time where we are seemingly forced to have opinions about everything that happens. And we are fooled into thinking that our individual opinions matter -- and not only that they matter, but that our opinions are somehow integrally part of our identity itself.
Personally, I think that all of this is not healthy and likely a ploy of the Evil One to rob us of the joy of Christ and our direction of attention to more important matters. That's not to say that the state of society isn't important -- surely, it is. But our role to play in the shaping of society is miniscule in comparison to the weight that we ascribe to our ability to actual impact society.
Hey K, here's a sample of that woman's "poetry" right up there with Elizabeth Barrett Browning:
"i want back my rocking chairs,
solipsist sunsets,
& coastal jungle sounds that are tercets from cicadas and pentameter from the hairy legs of cockroaches.
i’ve donated bibles to thrift stores
(mashed them in plastic trash bags with an acidic himalayan salt lamp—
the post-baptism bibles, the ones plucked from street corners from the meaty hands of zealots, the dumbed-down, easy-to-read, parasitic kind):
remember more the slick rubber smell of high gloss biology textbook pictures; they burned the hairs inside my nostrils,
In regard to Pope Leo XIV's speech to diplomats:
It is nice that Pope Leo XIV referenced Pope Benedict XVI (requiescat in pace) twice, and Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) five times.
But of monumental importance is the following from Our Sunday Visitor:
https://www.osvnews.com/pope-delivers-fierce-defense-of-the-unborn-in-address-to-diplomatic-corps/
-- Pope delivers fierce defense of the unborn in address to diplomatic corps
ROME (OSV News) — Pope Leo XIV strongly defended the family, marriage and unborn life during his first-ever New Year’s address to the diplomatic corps Jan. 9, telling the diplomats accredited to the Holy See that abortion “cuts short a growing life and refuses to welcome the gift of life.”
“The vocation to love and to life,” he continued, “manifests itself in an important way in the exclusive and indissoluble union between a woman and a man.”
=======
Deo gratias that we are dealing with Pope Leo XIV's breakthrough speech in regard to the abomination that is abortion. His Holiness referenced abortion three times via his speech to diplomats.
The speech in question is of monumental importance to holy pro-life, pro-family, pro-marriage causes.
We have a holy, tremendous Roman Pontiff in Pope Leo XIV.
Pax.
Mark Thomas
From: Pope Leo XIV's speech to diplomats:
"However, it cannot be overlooked that the persecution of Christians remains one of the most widespread human rights crises today, affecting over 380 million believers worldwide.
"They suffer high or extreme levels of discrimination, violence and oppression because of their faith.
"This phenomenon impinges on approximately one in seven Christians globally, and it worsened in 2025 due to ongoing conflicts, authoritarian regimes and religious extremism."
"Here, I would especially call to mind the many victims of violence, including religiously motivated violence in Bangladesh, in the Sahel region and in Nigeria, as well as those of the serious terrorist attack last June on the parish of Saint Elias in Damascus."
******* "Nor do I forget the victims of jihadist violence in Cabo Delgado, Mozambique." *******
******* "...victims of jihadist violence..." *******
Pax.
Mark Thomas
Francis slobbered all over Joe Biden who worshipped abortion
In regard to Pope Leo XIV's speech to diplomats:
I had noted that of utmost importance was Pope Leo XIV's promotion of life, marriage, as well as family.
But it was It is nice that Pope Leo XIV referenced Pope Benedict XVI (requiescat in pace) twice, and Pope Francis (requiescat in pace) five times.
In regard to the latter, the following was very nice:
Pope Leo XIV:
"This past year saw many significant events, beginning with those directly affecting the life of the Church...and saw the return to the Father’s house of my venerable predecessor, Pope Francis."
"The whole world gathered around his coffin on the day of his funeral, and sensed the loss of a father who had guided the People of God with immense pastoral charity."
I agree with Pope Leo XIV. Pope Francis "had guided the People of God with immense pastoral charity."
Pax.
Mark Thomas
What a marvelous address! It won’t happen, of course, but the Ambassadors should try to ensure that it is required reading for their political masters, including Putin, Netanyahu, leaders of the Palestinians, Xi Jinping, and over here Donald Trump, J.D. Vance, and Stephen Miller as well as every member of Congress (and the U.S. Supreme Court).
For many years I had my students read salient extracts from The City of God. It was one of my favorite texts to teach. Importantly, we also addressed the hoary question whether Augustine was contrasting the sphere of temporal government with that of the Church or, instead, whether he was implying that the two cities existed within each sphere.
Father McDonald: I agree with you 100% that non-compliance with the instructions of law enforcement is unwise and dangerous. This said—and apart from the fact that there is evidence of ICE giving conflicting instructions as well as violating the proper protocols for approaching a vehicle in such circumstances—failure to comply with such instructions should not inevitably or necessarily result in the use of lethal force. I have watched the videos many times, and right now I cannot see the justification for the use of such lethal force.
Moreover, the Trump Administration (Noem and Trump) rushed to judgment and promoted what is very likely a false narrative in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy (something that Obama was also rightly criticized for doing following various police shootings)—a narrative that Trump even appeared to walk back later. As a fellow Independent, and granted that you appropriately call out political grandstanding, I wonder why you don’t also call out this rush to judgment and this probable dishonesty as well? Such a more balanced response seems in keeping not only with being an Independent but with the spirit of Pope Leo’s address as well.
Marc—Amen to all that! Thank you for your wise and sensible thoughts. We will only definitively know the full truth about the tragic killing after a full and impartial investigation. But will such an investigation occur? I fear there is such mistrust of those we know just do what they are told that any finding that the use of lethal force was justified will be dismissed as completely unreliable. Here again, we see the consequences of an insistence on absolute loyalty to the President and of the Administration’s incessant disregard for the truth.
TJM—I hope you have read, or will read, Pope Leo’s address, i.e., ALL of it!
Mark J.
TJM:
Did you actually watch the video interview embedded in the PJ Media post you link? Granted that the shooting victim was unlawfully impeding ICE operations, which I always assumed was the case, the salient point is whether the use of lethal force was justified. On this point, the embedded interview is very damning—of ICE. This takes gaslighting to an extreme—we are supposed to believe that an interview that is extremely damning of ICE is in fact damning of the victim. If the point is that she was central to the protest and the impeding of ICE operations, this is a distraction because the critical point is whether lethal force was justified.
According to this witness testimony (which may be inaccurate given that some of the shots seem to have come from the side of the vehicle), ICE told her to get out of there, so she maneuvered her car to do so, the ICE agent in front then shot her three or four times in the face, whereupon she drove off (likely already dead so the dead weight of her foot depressed the accelerator).
And last time I checked, being a bad poet is not a capital offense—even after a trial, let alone a justification for being shot summarily. So why even mention it?
Mark J.
Mark, in these situations where law enforcement is being harassed, spit upon and called names by protesters, emotions are running high, adrenaline is flowing and mistakes are made. The biggest mistake, which many people make, is to flee law enforcement in their cars, leading to a chase and accidents that kill the one being chased and other innocent people. From the videos I saw, including the most recent taken by the officer who shot her, she could have killed someone else on the road, not intentionally, but wrecklessly driving off in a huff. The officer who shot her, while also using his cell phone to video what was going would reasonalbly think that she was heading for him. I think she did not want to intentionally hit him, but she did graze him. But from his perspective, not looking at the tires of the car, with the driver listening to her “wife” another Orwellian manipulation of our language, and the provocations of the “wife” toward the officer, I think he made a snap decision under fear that the driver would hit him. That’s what happens in domestic situations of murder, where guns and emotions run wild. The driver caused this by one stupid act of evading law enforcement in her car. Many have died as a result of this!
If you look at the cell phone video that the shooting officer was taking, he walks around the car, the driver’s “wife” uses insulting language toward him, he doesn’t react in any way, continues walking around the car. The “wife” attempts to open the passenger door, but it is locked, then yells to her “wife” to go. The “wife” could have easily been run over by her “wife” in the knee-jerk order given by the “wife” to her “wife”. These two created and facilitated the shooting that led to one of the “wife’s” death. They were there illegally, doing an illegal act and then fleeing federal officers who very clearly gave the “wife” driving, to get out of the car. Let’s place the blame where it belongs. If you physically hinder anyone in law enforcement or even a soldier in war as he is in combat, you are committing suicide.
For the leftwing cultist’s posting here you may wish to read a respected Democrat strategist’s condemnation of his own Party’s leaders for the Minnesota Mess:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/democrat-strategist-julian-epstein-slams-his-own-party/
When a leftwing cultist starts spouting off about "democracy" and the "rule of law" share with them Jonathan Turley's take on a true constitutional menace, as Turley calls him, Jack Smith, the garbage special prosecutor, who went after President Trump:
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/01/10/former-special-counsel-jack-smith-confirms-his-utter-contempt-for-the-first-amendment-in-congressional-testimony/#more-239866
Mark J,
LOL! You can try and justify that looney woman's actions to the cow comes home, but that ICE agent was justified in the split second decision he had to make. Her own "wife" said it was all her fault for encouraging her to participate in obstructing justice, and her is a rather damning video for you to peruse:
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/01/breaking-new-pov-footage-ice-agents-phone-shows/
By the way, if this woman had been killed by an illegal alien, her death would not have made so-called mainstream news since it would be contrary to "The Agenda."
As for "hindering law enforcement officers in their duties," would you offer the same condemnation to the civil rights marchers on the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma, Alabama?
How about the unidentified "tank man" who blocked the army - the ARMY, not law enforcement - in Tiananmen Square in 1989?
And let's not be "Orwellian." Let's hear Orwell himself:
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” (George Orwell, 1984)
I knew those civil rights marchers and I knew that tank man; that woman in her Honda SUV is no civil rights marchers from Selma or tank man from China. Wow that you would compare that nut to them, someone who endangered her own “wife” anyone, law enforcement or protester in her getaway path and her lack of courage to stay and get arrested like that Tank Man must have been and so many civil rights fighters, including MLK who never ran, never ran, never ran!
Your examples present interesting food for thought… I think there are meaningful differences in that the Selma protesters weren’t hindering law enforcement.
Having seen some of the video of the ICE incident, it is unclear to me what is happening exactly.
I have encountered many cases where folks attempted to use their vehicle to strike an officer or were at least negligent in their use of the vehicle while trying to evade law enforcement. In those many dozens of cases I’ve had, the cops didn’t shoot the person or even shoot at them.
While I think there’s still not enough information to draw conclusions, it seems like the lady was probably in the wrong to some extent in her dealings with the agent. But I’m not convinced that lethal force was the appropriate reaction from the agent. Unfortunately, I agree with others that we’re extremely unlikely to ever see a thorough evaluation of this.
Marc, the problem is that a decision by the federal agent was made in a knee-jerk reaction where his proper judgement was compromised. It was the heat of the moment. I agree with you, from an academic and moral point of view, that he overreacted and made a kneejerk poor judgement in the heat of the moment. He should have just jumped out of the way. And how he could have a gun in one hand, a phone in the other as he is videoing what is happening and then react properly is of concern. Was he watching the events unfold on his phone or was he looking directly at the woman coming at him, as he perceived it?
That’s true, Father. But law enforcement should be trained to handle these exact sort of kneejerk situations… So part of what I’m curious about is the agent’s training and level of experience.
This is for the "Sunday morning quarterbacks" questioning the ICE agents actions. Walk in HIS shoes before you form your judgment. This agent has got to be the bravest man in the US to even stay in that role.
https://nypost.com/2026/01/08/us-news/ice-agent-who-opened-fire-on-renee-good-was-dragged-hospitalized-by-illegal-migrant-driver-last-year/
And, unlike the national fake news media which is an arm of the DNC, here is report from a non-DNC aligned news group:
https://pjmedia.com/victoria-taft/2026/01/10/the-ice-video-is-out-and-now-feds-need-an-apology-from-frey-walz-kotek-and-the-crazy-philly-cop-please-n4948106
There are — and must be — objective criteria establishing when and to what extent force can properly be used by law enforcement. It isn’t improper Monday-morning quarterbacking to suggest that those criteria be applied here. Without such things, we would not be a country governed by the rule of law.
marc, there are protocols. You are just second guessing a split-second decision that you don't like. That "victim" was a loon and hardcore leftist and her actions brought about her demise. She was not "protesting" with a sign on a sidewalk but obstructing a legitimate law enforcement effort. And again, try walking in his shoes. The Rule of Law has been perverted by the Left, just like the nonsense of mostly "peaceful" protests, while downtown Minneapolis was burning in memory of St. Floyd of Fentanyl. The vast majority of violence today is from the Democratic Party's hard-core left, and you have Dem politicians egging them on. Did you even read Turley or Epstein's opinions I posted here? If I were President Trump, I would declare the Democratic Party a terrorist organization along with its brownshirts, BLM and Antifa, and go after those who are funding these alleged "spontaneous" protests which result in violence, property destruction, and death. There is no moral equivalency between the two political parties.
Post a Comment