The Pillar portal reports that during its regular news summary, the “pope” Leo XIV criticized Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s plans to bless same-sex couples, yet simultaneously urged Catholics to move away from “sexual issues” and prioritize “justice, equality, and religious freedom.” The portal also covered the SSPX’s announcement of upcoming episcopal consecrations without pontifical mandate, the Hungarian elections, and the Vatican prosecutor’s investigation into the validity of Benedict XVI’s resignation. While the article presents itself as neutral commentary, it implicitly normalizes the doctrinal erosion and institutional chaos of the conciliar sect, treating grave matters of faith and discipline as mere political or administrative affairs.
The “Pope” Redefines Moral Priorities: A Modernist Manifesto
The most theologically significant element of this article is the statement attributed to Leo XIV: “I believe it is very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual issues. We tend to think that when the Church speaks of morality, the only moral issue is a sexual one… In reality, I believe there are much larger and more important issues—such as justice, equality, the freedom of men and women, and religious freedom—that should take priority over that particular issue.”
This statement is not merely a pastoral opinion; it is a direct contradiction of the perennial Catholic teaching on the hierarchy of truths and the nature of sin. By relegating sexual morality—which pertains to the Sixth and Ninth Commandments and the sanctity of marriage as defined by Our Lord Himself (Matthew 19:4-6)—to a secondary concern, the “pope” effectively denies the gravity of sins against nature and the natural law. The Church has always taught that “the unity of the Church is not founded upon agreement about social or political questions, but upon the profession of the same faith, the participation in the same sacraments, and the submission to the same pastors (Pius XI, Mortalium Animos). To suggest that unity should not revolve around sexual issues is to imply that the objective moral law, particularly regarding chastity, is negotiable—a hallmark of Modernism.
This approach aligns perfectly with the condemned proposition in the Syllabus of Errors: “The principle of non-intervention, as it is called, ought to be proclaimed and observed” (Proposition 62), and with the modernist tendency to reduce religion to a purely social and ethical function, stripping it of its supernatural and dogmatic content. The “pope’s” language echoes the spirit of the 1960s revolution, where the “spirit of the law” was elevated above the letter, and doctrinal clarity was sacrificed on the altar of “pastoral sensitivity.”
The Linguistic Camouflage of Apostasy
The article’s tone is carefully calibrated to present these doctrinal shifts as reasonable and balanced. Phrases like “broaden the scope of moral issues” and “much larger and more important issues” are not neutral descriptors; they are rhetorical devices designed to make the abandonment of Catholic moral teaching appear as a maturation or deepening of the Church’s social doctrine. This is the language of the hermeneutic of discontinuity, which the conciliar sect employs to justify its rupture with tradition.
Moreover, the article’s treatment of the SSPX’s planned episcopal consecrations as merely “schismatic” without addressing the underlying theological crisis—namely, the legitimacy of the conciar authorities themselves—reveals its own ideological captivity. The SSPX, while erring in its recognition of the post-conciliar “popes” and its canonical irregularity, is at least acting out of a perceived necessity to preserve the sacramental life of the Church. The article, however, frames the issue purely in terms of obedience to the current Vatican administration, as if the latter possessed unquestionable authority. This is a classic example of the conciliar sect’s tactic of reducing all dissent to a matter of discipline, thereby avoiding the substantive theological questions.
The Omission of Supernatural Realities
Perhaps the most glaring deficiency in the article is its complete silence on the supernatural dimension of the Church’s mission. There is no mention of the salvation of souls, the necessity of grace, the reality of sin, or the final judgment. The “Church” is presented as a human institution concerned with “justice, equality, and religious freedom”—categories that, while not inherently evil, are here divorced from their proper theological context. This is precisely the error condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church” (Proposition 19). The article’s focus on political and social issues, to the exclusion of the Church’s primary mission of leading souls to Heaven, reflects the naturalism and laicism that Pius XI warned against in Quas Primas.
The Hungarian Election: A Case Study in Conciliar Myopia
The article’s coverage of the Hungarian elections further illustrates its worldly perspective. While it acknowledges Viktor Orbán’s support for the Church, it does so in purely political terms, without any reference to the supernatural mission of the Church or the duty of Catholic rulers to uphold the social reign of Christ the King. The defeat of Orbán is treated as a political event, not as a potential spiritual setback for the faithful in Hungary. This is consistent with the conciliar sect’s abandonment of the Church’s traditional teaching on the relationship between Church and State, as articulated in Quas Primas: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church” (Pius XI). The article’s failure to connect political events to their spiritual consequences is symptomatic of the post-conciliar Church’s loss of its prophetic voice.
The Benevacantist Conspiracy Theory: A Smokescreen for Institutional Illegitimacy
The article’s dismissive treatment of the “Benevacantist conspiracy theory”—the claim that Benedict XVI’s resignation was invalid—is revealing. While the article mocks the idea as “ludicrous” and “absurd,” it fails to address the substantive theological and canonical arguments that underpin sedevacantism. The fact that the Vatican prosecutor is investigating the matter at all suggests that the question is not as settled as the article implies. More importantly, the article’s ridicule of sedevacantism serves to delegitimize any challenge to the current Vatican administration, regardless of its theological merits. This is a classic example of the conciliar sect’s strategy of using ridicule and ad hominem attacks to avoid engaging with serious doctrinal objections.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy of Conciliar Catholicism
The article from The Pillar is a microcosm of the conciliar sect’s spiritual and doctrinal bankruptcy. By subordinating the moral law to social justice, reducing the Church’s mission to political advocacy, and ridiculing those who question the legitimacy of the current Vatican administration, it exemplifies the very errors that the pre-conciliar Magisterium condemned. The “pope’s” statement on sexual morality is not a development of doctrine but a betrayal of it, and the article’s failure to recognize this is a testament to the depth of the crisis facing the Catholic faithful. The only remedy is a return to the unchanging teaching of the Church, as articulated by the saints and doctors of the pre-conciliar era, and a rejection of the modernist revolution that has led to the current state of apostasy.
Source:
Motivation, a question of time, and shaking hands (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 24.04.2026