At best, his statement that I have referenced, is ambiguous. I’m not referring to other statements that he has made, just this one.
“Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them,”
I fully understand that people have their own view of good and evil, however, in this sentence when the pope refers to “he” the pope is referring to the individual’s conception of evil. If an individual can conceive or determine what is evil, then an individual can determine, conceive or rationalize which actions and thoughts are evil.
So for example, I might think that the act of homosexuality is evil and you might not or vice versa. But if I have the ability to “conceive” that an act is evil or not, I have made a moral determination and that’s moral relativism.
I do think that this pope good person, but it does seem that he lacks clarity, and certainly does not possess the high level of intellectual vigor that the last two popes had. I think you would have to admit at least, that this statement is ambiguous and unfortunately this is the type of thing that will lead to confusion and dissension among the flock.
You are hanging to much on the single word “conceives.” The Pope means by that, “thinks,” or “judges.” Which is the function of the intellect. Which is also called the “conscience.” (A word I wish had never been invented.
If a man thinks or judges that sodomy is not evil, then he has no obligation to refrain from practicing it. He does not sin when he practices it. He WILL suffer lots of negative consequences, but sin is not one of them.
A relativist would say that, because of the man’s judgment, sodomy “for him” (a meaningless expression) is not wrong or evil. A relativistic priest would say that, in such a situation, the man can practice sodomy AND be a practicing Catholic.
A non-relativistic priest would say that the man can practice sodomy without moral culpability, but he would not tell the man he can at the same time be a practicing Catholic. Moral culpability is dependent on one’s sincere judgments, and one’s sincere judgments MUST be followed, whether they are objectively right or wrong. Being a practicing Catholic is an objective situation knowable by objective criteria.
Cardinal Donald Wuerl and most bishops in the U.S., by refusing to obey Canon 915 (i.e., they refuse to deny Communion to pro-abortion activists), teach that a person can be a pro-abortion activist AND be morally blameless, AND be a practicing Catholic. Their teaching is loud and clear: promoting abortion is not a sin. They are true relativists. Actually, they are lawless.
I personally, think the Pope has been careless in his speech on many occasions. But your position seems to be that he is deliberately teaching fundamental error. And your primary “evidence” is the way he used the word “conceive.” I think you are unfairly insisting on a non-existent distinction between “conceiving” and “thinking” or “judging.” You haven’t convinced me that he has knowingly taught relativism.