The National Register portal reports on a commentary by Father Raymond J. de Souza analyzing Pope Leo XIV’s diplomatic overtures to Spain and Monaco as a deliberate shift from Pope Francis’s approach. The article highlights how Leo welcomed King Charles III and Queen Camilla as “Royal Confraters,” installed King Felipe VI as honorary canon at St. Mary Major, and made a lightning visit to Monaco — all framed as “easing frictions” and reengaging Catholic Europe. What is conspicuously absent from this entire discussion is any mention of the Catholic Church’s duty to proclaim the Social Kingship of Christ over all nations, not to cozy up to monarchs who preside over abortion, religious indifferentism, and secular governance.
The Reign of Christ the King Reduced to Court Protocol
The entire framing of this article reveals the bankruptcy of post-conciliar ecclesiology. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors.” The Holy Father taught that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.” Yet here we see the conciliar sect’s “pope” engaging in diplomatic pleasantries with monarchs whose kingdoms have embraced nearly every error condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
King Felipe VI presides over Spain — a nation that has legalized abortion, embraced gender ideology, and systematically dismantled Catholic influence in public life. Prince Albert II of Monaco, while having vetoed one abortion liberalization law, governs a playground of oligarchs and financiers, not a Catholic state in any meaningful sense. The article celebrates that “Catholicism is the official state religion” of Monaco, as if a legal designation on paper could substitute for the actual social reign of Christ the King demanded by Quas Primas: “His reign encompasses all human nature, it is clear that there is no power in us that is exempt from this reign.”
The Hermeneutic of Continuity as Camouflage
The article explicitly frames Leo’s approach as a restoration: “Pope Leo XIV is taking a different approach” from Francis, reengaging “the historic center of European power.” It notes that “St. John Paul the Great visited Spain five times in 26 years, and Pope Benedict XVI visited three times in eight years.” This is the classic hermeneutic of continuity — the Modernist tactic of presenting novelty as restoration while maintaining the same fundamental errors.
The pre-conciliar popes engaged with Catholic monarchs not for diplomatic “friction-easing” but to advance the Social Kingship of Christ. When Pope Leo XIII consecrated the human race to the Sacred Heart in 1899, it was an act of spiritual authority, not statecraft. When Pius XI wrote Quas Primas, he declared that rulers must “fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” The duty of the papacy is to demand that kings govern according to Catholic principle, not to flatter them with honorary canopies and throne installations.
Silence on the Spiritual Catastrophe of Europe
What does Father de Souza’s commentary omit? Everything that matters. There is no mention that Spain has become a post-Christian society where the Catholic faith is marginalized in public life. There is no mention that France — which the article notes Leo will likely visit — has banned religious symbols in schools, legalized same-sex marriage, and seen its Catholic population collapse into indifference. There is no mention that Britain under King Charles III has become a beacon of progressive secularism, with the Church of England ordaining transgender clergy and blessing same-sex unions.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned the proposition that “in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship” (Proposition 77). He further condemned the idea that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Proposition 55). Yet every nation Leo XIV is courting operates on precisely these condemned principles. The “frictions” being eased are not between the Holy See and Catholic nations — there are no Catholic nations left in Europe — but between the conciliar sect and secular powers that have abandoned Christ the King.
The “Royal Confrater” Scandal
The article notes with approval that King Charles III was named a “Royal Confrater” of St. Paul Outside the Walls, with “a designated throne provided for him and his successors.” This is a grotesque parody of Catholic tradition. The pre-Reformation English crown’s link with the papacy existed when England was Catholic and the English monarchs defended the faith. Today, Charles III is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England — a heretical sect founded by Henry VIII’s schism. To honor him with a papal throne is to legitimize the Anglican apostasy and mock the martyrs who died rather than submit to it.
St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), condemned the Modernist proposition that “the organic structure of the Church is subject to change, and the Christian community, like the human community, is subject to continuous evolution” (Proposition 53). The conciliar sect’s adaptation to the spirit of the age — honoring Protestant monarchs, ignoring Catholic principle, reducing the papacy to diplomacy — is precisely this condemned evolution.
The Peripheries vs. the Center: A False Dichotomy
The article contrasts Francis’s preference for the “peripheries” with Leo’s return to the “historic center of European power.” But both operate within the same Modernist framework. Francis visited the Baltic states and Albania; Leo visits Monaco and Spain. Neither demands the conversion of these nations to the Catholic faith. Neither proclaims that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Neither insists that the state must publicly recognize Christ’s royal authority.
The true “periphery” is the remnant of the Catholic Church that still professes the integral faith. The true “center” is the See of Peter — which has been occupied by usurpers since 1958. The conciliar sect’s travels to Protestant, Orthodox, and secular nations are not evangelization but capitulation. As Pius XI warned, “the more the sweetest Name of our Redeemer is omitted with unworthy silence in international gatherings and parliaments, the more loudly it must be confessed” (Quas Primas). Leo’s silence on Catholic principle during these diplomatic visits is itself a confession — of apostasy.
The Duty of the Hour
The Catholic response to these events is not to welcome a “return to normalcy” in papal diplomacy but to recognize that the conciliar sect has abandoned its divine mission. The true Church, preserved in the faithful who profess the integral Catholic faith, must reject all communion with the structures occupying the Vatican. The Social Kingship of Christ demands not diplomatic courtesy with secular rulers but their submission to the Gospel — or the frank acknowledgment that they are enemies of the Cross.
Pope Pius IX declared in the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” — this is Proposition 80, condemned. Leo XIV’s overtures to Spain and Monaco are precisely this condemned reconciliation. The “frictions” being eased are between the conciliar sect and the spirit of the world. For the true Church, these frictions must remain — and intensify — until Christ the King is acknowledged by all nations, or the world faces the judgment it has chosen.
Source:
Noting Pope Leo’s Key Overtures to Spain and Monaco (ncregister.com)
Date: 09.04.2026