On April 9, 2016, appearing in the Orlando Sentinel, was an interesting article, whose headline offered the following declaration: “Grace for Divorced Catholics” (A3). Needless to say, that news might be of interest to a segment of the population; however, the subtitle was phrased as a contrast: “But Pope Reiterates Ban on Abortion, Contraception and Same-Sex Marriage.”

What does the subtitle say about the philosophy of the writers? What it says is that they approve of morality becoming less strict. In other words, the headline writer wants Catholics to know that there is “grace” (comfort, encouragement) for divorced Catholics, but those who want abortions, birth control, or to marry a member of the same sex are out of luck. Rats! All the praise in the article is for the concessions the pope is making; anytime he stands against the sins society wants to engage in, disappointment is expressed—as if to say, “Sigh, not yet.”

The article does not question the pope’s changes on divorce; they are just portrayed as him trying to create a “more merciful church.” So, up to now they have apparently not been a very merciful religious group. Hmm. And would they be even more merciful if they allowed abortions or accepted homosexual couples? Followed to its logical conclusion, they would be the most merciful church around if they just allowed their members to commit any sin they desire yet still be considered in good standing.

This news story centers on a 260-page document written by the head of the Roman Catholic Church, and he titled it Amoris Laetitia, which means, “The Joy of Love.” In this document we find these words: “By thinking that everything is black and white, we sometimes close off the way of grace and of growth.” Perhaps a person should ask, “Could we apply this “wisdom” to the Ten Commandments? “Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy” (Ex. 20:8). So, is that one of those back-and-white issues? Was that command for every Sabbath? We do not need to wonder. A certain man violated the commandment and was brought to Moses for judgement. God told all the congregation to stone Him (Num. 15:32-36). What? Why not let the man live and be a more merciful Israelite nation?

Yes, Francis is trying to have a more inclusive church, but as of this moment in time, he is not willing to include those who violate other teachings. On homosexual marriage he wrote that “same-sex marriage may not simply be equated with marriage.” He added: “No union that is temporary or closed to the transmission of life can ensure the future of society.” As for abortion, he wrote: “So great is the value of human life, and so inalienable the right to life of an innocent child growing in the mother’s womb, that no alleged right to one’s own body can justify a decision to terminate that life….”

Complaints

Catholics for Choice did not like Amoris Laetitia. They thought that this latest papal document displayed the “immense chasm” between the church’s official policy and the practice of everyday Catholics. Apparently, then, everyday Catholics pay for and receive abortions, although their religion teaches against it. This faction of the Catholic Church argues: “The law says one thing but Catholics the world over behave according to their conscience.”

So what does that mean? Okay, the pope and Catholic doctrine may describe certain behavior as wrong, but if it doesn’t violate a person’s conscience, is it actually all right? Well, then, is there any sin that man has invented that could not be justified on that basis? We know that even murderers have killed innocent people without it violating their consciences. The conscience is not an infallible guide (Acts 23:1).

Another group that was not in agreement with the pope is called DignityUSA, which consists of Catholics who advocate for “rights” for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Catholics and their families. They claim that the pope “failed to fully embrace an entire community.” Horrors! He may have excluded the entire community of child molesters, too; is anyone speaking out for them? The words of the Executive Director of an organization that demands rights for homosexuals and transgenders conclude this piece, showing where the sympathies of the writers lie. Those words are:

Pope Francis has continued the characterization of LGBT people as unable to fully reflect the fullness of God’s plan for humanity. This document continues to demonstrate a tragic ignorance.

Seriously? Exactly which of God’s plans is that? God’s plan for humanity has never included those who practice homosexuality. He destroyed those in Sodom and Gomorrah who practiced the sin (Gen. 18:20; 19:1ff). Under the Law of Moses they were to be put to death (Lev. 20:13). Under Christianity, homosexuality is defined as a sin that ought to be repented of. Where is God’s plan for them to be accepted into society while continuing in their sin? The “tragic ignorance” exists on the part of those who continually reject what the Bible teaches on the subject.

There must be an entire community comprised of porn stars. How many thousands of such “movies” are made every year? Is someone standing up for them, claiming that rejecting them means that the church is not reflecting the fullness of God’s plan for humanity? In other words, is no classification of deviancy, as defined by the Scriptures, legitimate? Is the upshot of these protests that mankind eventually legitimizes all sins—no matter what they are?

The Main Difference

What the reader does not find in this article is one reference to Holy Scriptures. This is the main difference between Roman Catholicism and Christianity. Their teaching depends on what a pope thinks at any given time; ours is determined by what the Bible teaches. This statement is not intended to demean Catholics; it is simply a statement of fact, and the article proves it. The emphasis throughout the article is that Francis is changing some positions on divorce so that the Church will be more merciful. It also makes the case for the pope to be more merciful on other moral matters, but nowhere does anyone ask, “What do the Scriptures teach?”

Christians, for example, do not ask, “How can we be more inclusive?” but rather, “How did God address this issue?” On abortion, the Bible makes it clear that what is in the womb is alive. Jacob and Esau were struggling within Rebekah prior to their births (Gen. 25:22-24). John the Baptizer leaped in the womb of his mother, Elizabeth, when Mary came to visit her and offered a greeting (Luke 1:41-44). Other passages discuss how we are fearfully and wonderfully made while yet existing in the womb (Ps. 139:13-16). God knew Jeremiah before he was born (Jer. 1:5).

God has not appointed a spokesman to tell the world what His doctrine is in every culture in every generation. He has imparted to us the Word, which has taught the same truth since the first century. It does not change, and it is always profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17). No man nor committee is going to tell us one of these days that divorce is now acceptable where God had before prohibited it. If even one principle can be changed, then all teachings could be altered and (in some cases) discarded. What that means is that in 2030 there could be a new pope, and he might decide that Roman Catholicism should be a more merciful church. He could write a 260-page paper that allows members to have abortions. The reason this could occur is that he is the authority—not Christ or the Bible.

In the article under consideration, not one passage of Scripture is cited concerning divorce. Jesus has not changed His teaching on the subject since the first century. Divorce and remarriage is still unacceptable unless the divorce was for fornication. It remains true that, from the beginning, God designed marriage to be permanent (Matt. 19:3-9). What mere human beings think about the matter is irrelevant. Some think no one should ever get a divorce under any circumstance; some think divorces should be dispensed like paper towels. The only question of any consequence is, “What does God think?” When many were practicing contrary to His will in the days of Ezra, and Nehemiah, they all needed to repent. Many had to put away their “wives” because they were not entitled to have them (Ezra 10:11-12, 18-19, 44). Truth must always take precedence over our feelings on any subject.

All of the arguments expressed in the article presuppose that God has not made a determination on every moral issue, but the Bible teaches that He has. They further express the hope that what God has said in the past can be changed. God, however, does not reconsider His will every so often and change the Scriptures. This is a characteristic of men—not Deity.

For example, in the Book of Mormon monogamy is clearly taught. The reader notes that David and Solomon having many wives was “an abomination before me, saith the Lord” (Jacob 2:24). Every man was to have but one wife (v. 27). However, in a later book, Joseph Smith wrote that polygamy was acceptable; a section of the book specifically address his wife Emma, exhorting her to accept the teaching (Doctrines and Covenants 132:51-56). Years later, the Mormons wanted Utah to be a state, which would never happen if polygamy were to continue to be practiced. The Mormon leadership got a “new” revelation that all Mormons should go back to monogamous relationships. Now, with homosexual marriage being allowed (marriage being redefined), one wonders how long it will be until they have another revelation that again authorizes polygamy.

The strange thing is that adherents in these religions never seem to notice or, at least, be bothered that their teachings change. The Bible describes an eternal God. Can He really not decide whether polygamy is acceptable or whether monogamy is better? Must He vacillate constantly? Do we really hope that our favorite sin will be allowed next year—even though this year it is wrong? People have often laughingly pointed out that under the Old Covenant, God did not issue The Ten Suggestions. Yet that seems to be precisely what some people want.

Sure, homosexuality used to be wrong, but some famous rock singers are homo- or bi-sexual; so we ought to change our outlook. Sure, divorce is wrong, but a family member has obtained one; so the Bible really needs to be re-interpreted. One of my unmarried friends has been committing fornication for years, and he’s a great guy; can’t we get a special exemption for him? Uncle George is the salt of the earth—when he’s sober. Why can’t some sins be exempt from condemnation? By the time this line of thinking comes to an end, not one sinner will be left on earth who merits condemnation. We will find a way to save even the atheists.

God gave us the Bible as our moral standard. It is the perfect law of liberty (James 1:5). When a person obeys the gospel, his sins are washed away. He is washed, sanctified (made holy), and justified—made free from sin (John 8:31-32). He can no longer walk in sin (Rom. 6:3-11; Eph. 5:1-11; 1 Thess. 4:1-7). This arrangement changes when a man such as a modern-day prophet, a pope, or someone making new declarations by the alleged power of the Holy Spirit is put in charge of Christianity. All doctrines relating to holiness are then up for grabs, and the sinful desires of human beings demand to be sanctified. Jesus, however, has not relinquished His power to anyone. He still possesses all authority in heaven and on earth (Matt. 28:18).