The Naturalistic “Witness” of a Conciliar Publication
The cited article from The Pillar portal, dated February 20, 2026, presents a quintessential example of the post-conciliar “Church’s” attempt to frame Catholic action in purely natural, psychological, and sociological terms, while fully recognizing the authority of the current antipope, “Pope Leo XIV,” and the structures of the abomination of desolation. It begins with a personal narrative of speaking at a “40 Days for Life” campaign, reducing the fundamental pro-life witness to a matter of overcoming “stage fright” to express a vague, sentimental “love” for abortionists. This is followed by a series of news items reporting on scandals and canonical processes within the “Chaldean Catholic Church,” the “Vatican-ordered investigation,” the “Prelature of Opus Dei,” and the illicit consecration plans of the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), all treated as legitimate realities within a functioning ecclesial system. The article’s underlying thesis is that the mission of the Church is primarily a matter of natural human persuasion and emotional appeal, conducted within the framework of the post-Vatican II “Church,” which it accepts as the true Catholic Church.
I. Factual Deconstruction: The Acceptance of the Conciliar Revolution
The article operates on the fundamental, unexamined premise that the entities it describes are part of the Catholic Church. It refers without qualification to:
- The “Vatican-ordered investigation” into a “Chaldean Catholic Bishop.”
- “Pope Leo XIV” as the legitimate pontiff, noting his meeting with the leadership of Opus Dei and his travel schedule.
- The “SSPX” as a “society” within the Church whose superior makes decisions about “illicit consecration,” implying a canonical status that is, in reality, non-existent.
- The “adult baptism boom” in Belgium as a positive sign within a “diocese.”
Every one of these references is a factual error from the perspective of integral Catholic faith. The “Vatican” since 1958 is occupied by a series of antipopes; the “Chaldean Catholic Church” is a schismatic Eastern sect in communion with the conciliar sect; Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the New Advent; the SSPX, while preserving the Traditional Mass, is a schismatic group that recognizes the authority of the antipopes by negotiating with them and acknowledging their power to “order investigations” and “accept resignations.” The article treats these as normal ecclesial facts, thereby propagandizing for the legitimacy of the entire post-conciliar structure.
II. Linguistic and Rhetorical Analysis: The Tone of Naturalistic Humanism
The language used is deliberately vague, psychological, and devoid of supernatural terminology. The core of the pro-life “witness” is described as:
“the most basic and necessary gesture, is for us — all of us — to swallow our fears of appearing ridiculous, of being rejected and disparaged, and speaking the truth we know with love.”
The “truth” is not specified as a supernatural, divinely revealed dogma (e.g., the sanctity of human life as an immediate consequence of the Incarnation and the Redemption), but as a personal, subjective knowledge. The “love” promoted is not the theological virtue of caritas, which orders all things to God, but a natural, affective sentiment: “to tell people they are loved.” This reduces the entire conflict over abortion to a failure of interpersonal communication and emotional validation, ignoring the mortal sin of procured abortion, the divine law “Thou shalt not kill,” and the eternal damnation that awaits unrepentant murderers and their accomplices. The article quotes St. John Paul II’s description of the “culture of use,” but fails to root this in the supernatural order. It states:
“the only truly, objectively unalienable freedom is the freedom to love.”
This is a profound error. The only truly unalienable freedom is the freedom to serve God and attain eternal salvation. “Love” in the naturalistic sense is not a freedom but a duty, and it is ordered first to God, then to neighbor for God’s sake. The article’s framework is Pelagian and humanistic, focusing on human effort and feeling rather than on grace, the sacraments, and the necessity of the state’s public recognition of Christ’s Kingship (as defined by Pius XI in Quas Primas). The silence on the sacraments, on the state of grace, on the duty of Catholic rulers to repress heresy and blasphemy, and on the Final Judgment is deafening and damning.
III. Theological Confrontation: The Absence of Christ the King
The article’s worldview is the exact opposite of the Catholic doctrine so clearly proclaimed by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas, which is provided in the CONTEXT files. Pius XI established the feast of Christ the King specifically as a remedy against the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism.” He taught that the Kingdom of Christ “encompasses all men” and that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations” only because they are “the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church.” He warned that when “God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.”
The Pillar article contains not a single reference to Christ’s Social Kingship. Its “love” is a purely private, individualistic sentiment. It does not call for the public consecration of nations to the Sacred Heart of Jesus (as commanded by Pius XI in Quas Primas). It does not condemn the secular state’s legalization of abortion as a supreme act of apostasy and rebellion against the Creator. It does not demand that Catholic politicians, by the laws of God, have the duty to forbid abortion by civil law, as taught by the Syllabus of Errors (condemning proposition #64: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes…”). Instead, it promotes a “witness” that is indistinguishable from a secular human rights campaign. This is the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place: the replacement of the supernatural, hierarchical, and juridical Church with a naturalistic, democratic, and therapeutic association.
IV. The Symptomatic Error: The SSPX’s Schismatic Path
The article’s treatment of the SSPX is particularly revealing of the conciliar mindset. It reports on their “illicit consecration” plans with a tone of detached, almost bureaucratic interest, as if discussing a disciplinary matter within a legitimate order. It notes their “doubling down” and their “supremely amusing exercise in sophomoric self-justification,” but crucially, it does not identify the fundamental issue: the SSPX’s persistent recognition of the antipopes’ authority.
The SSPX’s error is twofold. First, by negotiating with “Pope Leo XIV” and his predecessors, acknowledging their power to “accept resignations” and “order investigations,” they implicitly accept the legitimacy of the occupiers of the See of Rome. This is a direct contradiction of the sedevacantist position, which holds, based on St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, that a manifest heretic cannot be pope and that any election of a heretic is “null, void, and of no effect.” The SSPX’s position is a compromise that acknowledges the material occupant while rejecting his formal acts, a distinction that collapses in practice.
Second, their planned “illicit consecration” without a papal mandate is, according to Canon 1382, a schismatic act. However, their reasoning is based on a perceived “crisis” within the “Church,” not on the recognition that the See is vacant. They seek to preserve the episcopal succession within the conciliar structure, which is impossible. Their “traditionalism” is therefore merely aesthetic and disciplinary, not doctrinal or juridical. They are a “schism within a schism,” as the instructions correctly term them, a protest group within the neo-church that ultimately reinforces the illusion of a legitimate Catholic hierarchy in Rome. The article’s failure to expose this as a fatal compromise makes it complicit in perpetuating the SSPX’s error.
V. The Root Error: Modernist Hermeneutics and the Rejection of Infallibility
The entire article is a fruit of the Modernist heresies condemned by St. Pius X in the constitution Lamentabili sane exitu and the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis. Its methodology is evident:
- Proposition #59 from Lamentabili: “Christ did not proclaim any specific, all-encompassing doctrine suitable for all times and peoples, but rather initiated a certain religious movement…” The article treats the pro-life “witness” as a movement of natural love, not as the application of an immutable, specific divine law.
- Proposition #65: “The Church is incapable of effectively defending evangelical ethics, because it steadfastly adheres to its views, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.” The article’s entire tone suggests that the “Church’s” (i.e., the conciliar sect’s) stance on life must be communicated in a “loving,” non-confrontational way to be effective, implying the old, direct, and dogmatic approach was a failure.
- The Syllabus of Errors, Proposition #21: “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion.” The article’s universalistic language about “love” and “witness” implicitly denies the Catholic Church’s exclusive claim to truth and the consequent duty of the state to recognize it alone.
The article’s silence on the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (outside the Church there is no salvation) is absolute. It speaks of “people” and “mothers” in the abstract, not of Catholic souls and the necessity of their being in the true Church, led by a true pope, to be saved. This is the hallmark of the conciliar “hermeneutic of continuity,” which empties Catholic doctrine of its supernatural, exclusive, and juridical content, reducing it to a vague ethical and spiritual sentiment.
VI. Conclusion: An Apostate Publication Promoting Apostasy
The Pillar article is not merely a flawed piece of commentary. It is a sophisticated instrument of the ongoing apostasy. By:
- Accepting the legitimacy of the antipope “Leo XIV” and the conciliar structures,
- Reducing the pro-life fight to a naturalistic appeal to “love” devoid of supernatural dogma and the necessity of the Social Kingship of Christ,
- Failing to condemn the SSPX’s schismatic compromise, and
- Omitting all reference to the absolute primacy of God’s law, the duty of Catholic states, the horror of mortal sin, and the Four Last Things,
it propagates the very errors of Modernism and secularism condemned by Pius IX, Pius X, and Pius XI. It directs souls away from the immutableFaith and toward the “Church of the New Advent,” where truth is a matter of personal feeling and “dialogue.” The only “direction of travel” it offers is further into the abyss of naturalism. The faithful are called not to “swallow fears” to speak a vague “love,” but to confess the integral Catholic faith, reject the antipopes and their entire sect, and work for the restoration of all things in Christ the King, as defined by the Magisterium before the dawn of the conciliar revolution.
Therefore, the article is a manifestation of theological and spiritual bankruptcy, a symptom of the “great apostasy” foretold by St. Paul, and an active participant in the deception of the faithful.
Source:
Love of life, the direction of travel, and the joy of aliens (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 20.02.2026