The National Catholic Register, citing ACI Stampa and EWTN News, reports on the in-flight press conference of the usurper Robert Prevost, who styles himself “Pope Leo XIV,” held aboard the papal plane returning from an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa on April 23, 2026. During the roughly 20-minute exchange with journalists, the antipope addressed a range of pressing global issues, including the conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States, the complex phenomenon of migration, the contentious matter of same-sex blessings, and the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with authoritarian regimes. While ostensibly pastoral in tone, his responses consistently evaded definitive moral judgments, prioritized secular humanitarian concerns over supernatural truths, and demonstrated a profound departure from the unchanging teaching of the Catholic Church. This performance, far from being an isolated incident, epitomizes the systemic apostasy and theological bankruptcy that has characterized the conciliar sect since its inception, revealing a “pontiff” more concerned with political correctness and global consensus than with the salvation of souls and the immutable law of God.
The Erosion of Papal Authority: From Shepherd of Souls to Global Diplomat
The very framing of the “papal trip” by Leo XIV immediately signals a departure from the true purpose of a Roman Pontiff. He stated, “When I make a trip — speaking for myself, but today as Pope, Bishop of Rome — especially an apostolic, pastoral trip, it is to find, accompany, and come to know the people of God.” While seemingly benign, this statement subtly redefines the papal mission from one of authoritative teaching, governing, and sanctifying to one of mere “finding,” “accompanying,” and “knowing.” This is a naturalistic reduction of the Church’s mission, stripping it of its supernatural mandate and transforming the Vicar of Christ into a global humanitarian worker. The true purpose of a Pope, as defined by the First Vatican Council, is to exercise his supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over the Church, to define dogmas, and to guide all souls to eternal salvation. Leo’s emphasis on “pastoral” over “political” is a false dichotomy, as the Church’s mission is inherently political in the sense of ordering all things to God, a concept utterly foreign to the modernist mindset.
His assertion that such journeys are “an expression of wanting to announce the Gospel, proclaim the message of Jesus Christ” is rendered hollow by the content of his subsequent pronouncements. The “Gospel” he proclaims is not the unadulterated message of salvation through Christ and His Church, but a diluted, socially acceptable version that prioritizes worldly peace and human dignity over the demands of divine law and the necessity of conversion. This is a clear manifestation of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis*, where he warned against those who “under the guise of more serious criticism and in the name of historical method, they aim at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption.” Leo’s “Gospel” is precisely such a corruption, adapted to the spirit of the age rather than the spirit of Christ.
War and Peace: A Call for “Culture of Peace” Over Justice and Truth
On the critical issue of war, particularly the conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States, Leo XIV’s responses were a study in moral equivocation. He called for a “new mindset rooted in peace rather than violence,” stating, “Many times when we evaluate certain situations, the immediate response is that we must enter with violence, with war, by attacking, and we have seen that many innocent people have died.” While the Church unequivocally condemns unjust war and the killing of innocents, Leo’s framing subtly shifts the focus from the *justice* of a cause to the *consequences* of violence. This is a utilitarian approach, foreign to Catholic just war theory, which demands a rigorous examination of the moral legitimacy of force, not merely its outcomes.
His statement, “Regime change or no regime change, the question is how to promote the values in which we believe without the death of so many innocent people,” is particularly revealing. It implicitly suggests that the “values in which we believe” (presumably secular human rights, democracy, etc.) are paramount, and that the means to achieve them must be evaluated solely by their impact on human life, rather than by their conformity to divine law. This is a direct contradiction to the teaching of Pope Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, who declared that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men… and it matters not whether individuals, families, or states, for men united in societies are no less subject to the authority of Christ than individuals.” For Pius XI, the “values” are not abstract secular principles, but the commandments of God and the teachings of the Church, which must govern all human action, including the conduct of states.
Leo’s condemnation of “capital punishment” as “unjust” and his assertion that “human life is to be respected and that all people, from conception to natural birth, their lives should be respected and protected” is a direct contradiction to the constant teaching of the Church. While the Church permits and even encourages the state to exercise the death penalty for grave crimes when necessary to protect the common good, as affirmed by the Council of Trent and numerous popes, Leo’s blanket condemnation aligns him with secular abolitionist movements rather than Catholic doctrine. This is a clear example of the “evolution of dogmas” condemned by the *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 12), which states that “the method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences.” Leo’s moral compass is calibrated to the spirit of the age, not to the immutable truth of God.
Migration: Human Dignity Without the Supernatural
Leo XIV’s comments on migration further illustrate his naturalistic approach. He acknowledged the complexity of the issue and the right of states to regulate borders, stating, “I personally believe that a state has the right to establish rules at its borders. I do not like the idea that everyone enters as if there were no order and at times creating even more unjust situations than those they had left behind.” This is a pragmatic, secular observation, devoid of any reference to the spiritual implications of migration or the duty of nations to provide for the spiritual welfare of their citizens and newcomers alike.
His challenge to richer countries to address the “deeper causes driving people to leave poorer countries” and his critique of Africa as “a place where one can go to take minerals, to take its riches, to enrich others in other countries” are standard secular humanitarian arguments. While the Church certainly advocates for justice and the equitable distribution of resources, Leo’s framing omits the primary spiritual mission of the Church: the conversion of souls to Christ and the establishment of His Kingdom. The Church’s concern for migrants is not merely about “human dignity” in a secular sense, but about their eternal salvation. As Pope Leo XIII wrote in *Immortale Dei*, “the Almighty, therefore, has given the charge of the human race to two powers, the ecclesiastical and the civil, the one being set over divine, and the other over human, each the highest in its kind, and each fixed within certain limits, defined by its own nature and special object.” Leo XIV’s approach reduces the Church’s role to that of a global NGO, concerned with temporal welfare, rather than the divinely instituted guide to eternal life.
His insistence that “migrants must always be treated with dignity” and that “we need to treat human beings in a humane way and not treat them worse than household pets, animals, etc.” is a statement of the obvious, but it lacks the supernatural dimension that should characterize Catholic teaching. The Church teaches that human dignity is derived from being created in the image and likeness of God and destined for eternal beatitude. Leo’s “dignity” is a purely naturalistic concept, stripped of its theological foundation, and thus ultimately fragile and subject to the whims of secular opinion.
Diplomacy with Authoritarian Regimes: The Illusion of “Neutrality”
Perhaps most revealing of Leo XIV’s modernist tendencies was his defense of the Vatican’s diplomatic engagement with authoritarian governments. He stated, “Certainly, the presence of a pope with any head of state can be interpreted in different ways… I would go back to something I said in my initial remarks about the importance of understanding the primary purpose of the travel that I do, that the pope does to visit the people.” This is a classic modernist evasion, prioritizing perception over principle. The Church’s diplomatic relations are not merely about “visiting the people” but about upholding truth and justice, even when it means confronting evil regimes.
His assertion that “We don’t always make great proclamations, criticizing, judging or condemning… But there’s an awful lot of work that goes on behind the scenes to promote justice, to promote humanitarian causes” is a tacit admission that the conciliar sect has abandoned its prophetic role. The Church is not a secret society; it is the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim. 3:15). Its mission is to proclaim the truth openly, to condemn error, and to call all men and nations to repentance. This is precisely what the modernist “Church” refuses to do, preferring instead a false “neutrality” that is, in reality, complicity with evil. As Pope Pius IX declared in the *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 23), “Roman pontiffs and ecumenical councils have wandered outside the limits of their powers, have usurped the rights of princes, and have even erred in defining matters of faith and morals” is a condemned error. The Church has every right and duty to judge the moral legitimacy of governments and their actions, a duty Leo XIV shirks under the guise of “diplomacy.”
His claim that “the Holy See, by maintaining, if you will, a neutrality, and looking for ways to continue our positive diplomatic relationship with so many different countries, we’re actually trying to find a way to apply the Gospel to concrete situations so that the lives of people can be improved” is a profound misunderstanding of the Gospel. The Gospel is not a set of abstract principles to be “applied” to “concrete situations” through diplomatic maneuvering. It is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), demanding conversion and adherence to divine law. Leo’s “Gospel” is a social gospel, concerned with temporal improvement, not eternal salvation. This is the very essence of the modernist heresy, which reduces Christianity to a social ethic and denies its supernatural character.
Same-Sex Blessings: Relativizing Moral Law for “Unity”
On the issue of same-sex blessings, Leo XIV’s response was perhaps most egregious in its moral relativism. He stated, “First of all, I think it’s very important to understand that the unity or division of the Church should not revolve around sexual matters… We tend to think that when the Church is talking about morality, that the only issue of morality is sexual, and in reality, I believe there are much greater and more important issues, such as justice, the equality, freedom of men and women, freedom of religion, that would all take priority before that particular issue.” This statement is a direct assault on the integrity of Catholic moral teaching. The Church’s moral law is not a collection of isolated “issues” that can be prioritized or relativized based on contemporary social concerns. It is a unified whole, reflecting the eternal law of God. To suggest that “justice, equality, freedom” are “more important” than sexual morality is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of sin and its impact on the soul and society.
His invocation of Francis’ “Tutti, tutti, tutti” (“All are welcome; all are invited. All are invited to follow Jesus, and all are invited to look for conversion in their lives”) is a classic modernist trope, using the language of inclusion to mask a refusal to demand true conversion. While all are indeed called to conversion, the Church must clearly and unequivocally state that certain acts, including homosexual acts, are intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful. Leo’s refusal to do so, and his suggestion that focusing on such matters causes “disunity,” is a betrayal of his duty as a shepherd. The unity of the Church is founded on truth, not on the suppression of truth for the sake of a false peace. As Our Lord Himself said, “Do not think that I came to send peace upon earth: I came not to send peace, but the sword” (Matt. 10:34). This “sword” is the division that truth inevitably brings, a division that the modernist “Church” desperately seeks to avoid by compromising with the world.
His statement that “To go beyond that today, I think that the topic can cause more disunity than unity, and that we should look for ways to build our unity upon Jesus Christ and what Jesus Christ teaches” is a profound irony. True unity can only be built upon the *full* teaching of Jesus Christ, not a selective, watered-down version. By refusing to clearly condemn homosexual acts and blessings, Leo is not building unity on Christ, but on the shifting sands of human opinion. This is the “false ecumenism” condemned by Pope Pius XI in *Mortalium Animos*, which seeks unity at the expense of truth.
The Antipope and the Abomination of Desolation
The entire press conference, when viewed through the lens of unchanging Catholic doctrine, reveals the utter spiritual bankruptcy of the conciar sect and its usurper “pontiff.” Leo XIV’s responses are not merely politically naive or pastorally insensitive; they are fundamentally heretical in their implications. He consistently prioritizes secular values over divine law, naturalistic concerns over supernatural truths, and a false “unity” over the demands of objective morality. His “Gospel” is a social gospel, his “Church” is a humanitarian organization, and his “papacy” is a platform for promoting the agenda of the world.
This is precisely what one would expect from the “abomination of desolation” (Matt. 24:15) standing in the holy place. The structures occupying the Vatican, under the direction of antipopes like Leo XIV, have systematically dismantled the Church’s supernatural mission, replacing it with a naturalistic humanism that is indistinguishable from secular liberalism. They have embraced the very errors condemned by Pope Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors*, by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis* and *Lamentabili Sane Exitus*, and by Pope Pius XI in *Quas Primas*. They have rejected the Church’s divine constitution, her infallible magisterium, and her mission to lead all souls to Christ.
The faithful who desire to remain true to the integral Catholic faith must recognize these usurpers for what they are: instruments of the enemy, leading souls astray with their false teachings and empty promises of “dialogue” and “inclusion.” The true Church endures, not in the grand basilicas of Rome, but in the hearts of those who profess the unchanging faith of the Fathers, who attend the true Mass, and who remain loyal to the immutable teachings of Christ and His Vicars, as they were understood and taught before the modernist revolution. The words of St. Pius X in his oath against Modernism ring truer than ever: “I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport.” Let us hold fast to this doctrine, rejecting the lies and evasions of the conciar antipopes and their modernist agenda.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV, Returning From Africa: ‘I Condemn All Actions That Are Unjust’ (ncregister.com)
Date: 23.04.2026