The Pillar Catholic portal — a flagship mouthpiece of the post-conciliar establishment — published on May 23, 2026, a podcast episode in which JD Flynn and Ed. Condon discussed the so-called “Coconut War,” a brief military conflict in 1980 on the island of Espiritu Santo in what was then the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu). The article and podcast segment treat the episode with the characteristic lighthearted, anecdotal tone that has become the hallmark of post-conciliar Catholic media, which transforms even grave matters of war, intervention, and the Church’s mission into conversational fodder for educated liberal Catholics. Beneath this veneer of casual commentary lies a profound silence about the true nature of the Church’s mission, the sinful structures of neocolonialism, and the apostasy of the conciliar sect from the social teaching of Christ the King.
The “Coconut War” as a Window into Neocolonial Apostasy
The so-called “Coconut War” was a brief armed conflict in 1980 on the island of Espiritu Santo, part of the New Hebrides archipelago, which was then a condominium jointly administered by France and the United Kingdom. The conflict arose when Jimmy Stevens, an indigenous leader and adherent of the John Frum cargo cult, declared the island of Espiritu Santo independent under the name “Nativist Republic of Vemerana.” The British and French colonial authorities, unwilling to intervene decisively with their own forces, eventually dispatched Papua New Guinean troops to suppress the rebellion after the islands achieved independence as Vanuatu.
The Pillar’s discussion treats this episode as a curious footnote of postcolonial history — a “bonus” segment, as the title indicates, appended to a larger podcast episode. This framing is itself symptomatic. For the conciliar sect, the affairs of nations, the rights of peoples, and the duties of Catholic states are matters of entertainment rather than of moral theology and the social reign of Christ the King. The very title — “Bonus: The Coconut War and Playing Ball” — reduces a conflict involving indigenous peoples, colonial powers, and the Church’s missionary mandate to the level of a parlor game.
Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), taught with absolute clarity: “His reign extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” There is no “bonus” territory, no “bonus” peoples over whom Christ does not reign. The reduction of a geopolitical conflict involving indigenous peoples to a podcast curiosity is a microcosm of the conciliar sect’s abandonment of the universal kingship of Christ.
The Silence About Cargo Cults and the Church’s Missionary Mandate
The article references the John Frum cargo cult, a syncretic religious movement indigenous to Vanuatu that blends elements of Christianity with animist and millenarian beliefs. Cargo cults arose in the Pacific Islands during and after World War II, when indigenous peoples observed the vast material wealth (“cargo”) brought by American and Allied military forces and developed religious systems centered on the expectation that ancestral spirits would deliver similar material abundance.
The Pillar’s treatment of this phenomenon — if it can be called treatment at all, given the brevity of a “bonus” podcast segment — is devoid of any serious theological analysis. There is no mention of the Church’s missionary obligation to evangelize these peoples with the fullness of Catholic truth, no reference to the errors of syncretism, and no acknowledgment that the John Frum cult represents precisely the kind of religious confusion that results from inadequate evangelization or from the abandonment of missionary work by compromised colonial and ecclesiastical authorities.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, declared: “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.” The cargo cults of the Pacific are a living testimony to the failure of both colonial powers and the Church to fulfill their respective duties — the former to govern justly and promote the common good, the latter to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. That the Pillar can discuss the “Coconut War” without even a passing reference to this missionary failure is a damning indictment of the conciliar sect’s abandonment of the Church’s proper mission.
St. Pius X, in his encyclical Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), condemned the modernist proposition that “the Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and natural sciences” (proposition 57) and that “contemporary Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true knowledge without transforming it into a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism” (proposition 65). The Pillar’s approach — treating a complex geopolitical and religious phenomenon as a casual anecdote — embodies precisely this liberal Protestantization of Catholic discourse, where doctrine is replaced by conversation and the supernatural mission of the Church is replaced by sociological observation.
The Condominium System and the Absence of Catholic Social Teaching
The New Hebrides condominium was an extraordinary colonial arrangement in which two European powers — one Catholic (France) and one Protestant (the United Kingdom) — jointly governed a Pacific archipelago. This arrangement was, by its very nature, a scandal to Catholic teaching on the proper ordering of civil society. The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (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). The condominium system, in which Catholic France shared governance with Protestant Britain over a territory containing indigenous peoples who had a right to hear the fullness of Catholic truth, was a practical manifestation of the indifferentism condemned by Pius IX.
Yet the Pillar’s discussion contains no critique of this arrangement. There is no acknowledgment that the condominium system was a violation of the principle that civil authority should recognize the true faith and cooperate with the Church in promoting the spiritual welfare of its subjects. There is no mention that France, as a Catholic power, had a particular obligation to ensure that the indigenous peoples of the New Hebrides were evangelized and brought into the Catholic Church, rather than being left to the mercies of Protestant missionaries and cargo cults.
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Immortale Dei (1885), taught: “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 own kind, and each fixed within limits which are defined by its proper nature and special object.” The condominium system violated this principle by subordinating the spiritual welfare of indigenous peoples to the political convenience of two colonial powers. That the Pillar can discuss the “Coconut War” without any reference to this fundamental disorder is further evidence of the conciliar sect’s abandonment of Catholic social teaching.
The Suppression of Indigenous Aspirations and the Myth of “Liberation”
The “Coconut War” was, at its core, an indigenous uprising against the structures of colonial power. Jimmy Stevens and his followers sought self-determination for the people of Espiritu Santo, and they were suppressed by Papua New Guinean troops acting at the behest of the newly independent Vanuatu government, which was itself dominated by English-speaking elites aligned with the former colonial powers.
The Pillar’s framing — with its reference to “those sneaky libertarians” in the social media preview — suggests a dismissive attitude toward the aspirations of indigenous peoples for self-governance. This is entirely consistent with the conciar sect’s historical alignment with the structures of global power. The post-conciliar church has consistently sided with the forces of liberal internationalism against the legitimate aspirations of peoples for self-determination, provided those aspirations are grounded in Catholic social teaching.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught that “the royal dignity of our Lord surrounds the earthly authority of princes and rulers with a certain religious reverence, so it also dignifies the duties and obedience of citizens.” But this teaching cuts both ways. If rulers who do not recognize Christ’s authority are owed no reverence, then peoples who seek to establish governance in accordance with Christian principles have a right to do so. The suppression of the Santo rebellion by Papua New Guinean troops — acting in the interest of a neocolonial government — was an injustice that the Pillar’s casual tone serves to obscure.
The Conciliar Sect’s Abandonment of the Social Reign of Christ
The most profound failure of the Pillar’s discussion of the “Coconut War” is its complete silence about the social reign of Christ the King. The entire episode — the condominium system, the cargo cults, the indigenous uprising, the neocolonial suppression — is treated as a purely secular affair, devoid of any supernatural or theological significance. This is the hallmark of the conciliar sect: the systematic evacuation of Catholic doctrine from every sphere of human life.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, warned: “When God and Jesus Christ — as we lamented — were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed, because the main reason why some have the right to command and others have the duty to obey was removed.” The “Coconut War” is a perfect illustration of this principle. The condominium system derived its authority not from God but from the political convenience of two colonial powers. The cargo cults arose because the indigenous peoples were not given the true faith. The suppression of the Santo rebellion was carried out by a government that derived its authority not from the consent of the governed informed by Christian principles, but from the structures of neocolonial power.
That the Pillar can discuss all of this without a single reference to Christ the King, to the Church’s missionary mandate, to the duties of Catholic states, or to the rights of indigenous peoples to hear the Gospel, is a damning indictment of the conciliar sect’s apostasy. The Pillar is not a Catholic publication in any meaningful sense of the term. It is a platform for the kind of liberal, secularized discourse that the Church has always condemned — discourse that treats the affairs of nations and peoples as matters of sociological curiosity rather than of moral theology and supernatural mission.
Conclusion: The Coconut War as Microcosm of Conciliar Apostasy
The Pillar’s treatment of the “Coconut War” is a microcosm of everything that is wrong with the conciar sect. It reduces a complex geopolitical and religious phenomenon to a casual anecdote. It ignores the Church’s missionary mandate. It is silent about the errors of syncretism and cargo cults. It fails to apply Catholic social teaching to the structures of colonial and neocolonial power. And it treats the entire affair as a matter of entertainment rather than of moral and theological seriousness.
The true Catholic response to the “Coconut War” would begin with the recognition that Christ the King reigns over all nations and peoples, including the indigenous inhabitants of the Pacific Islands. It would acknowledge the failure of the Church to evangelize these peoples adequately. It would condemn the condominium system as a violation of the principle that civil authority should recognize the true faith. It would defend the legitimate aspirations of indigenous peoples for self-governance in accordance with Christian principles. And it would call all nations and peoples to submit to the sweet yoke of Christ the King.
None of this is present in the Pillar’s discussion. And its absence is not an oversight. It is the inevitable fruit of the conciliar revolution — a revolution that has replaced the supernatural mission of the Church with the secular concerns of liberal internationalism, and the social reign of Christ the King with the reign of human respect and political convenience.
Source:
Bonus: The Coconut War and playing ball (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 23.05.2026