[National Catholic Register] portal reports on an interview with Sam Brownback, former U.S. ambassador-at-large for international religious freedom, who accuses the Vatican of prioritizing diplomatic relations with the Chinese Communist Party over defending persecuted Catholics. The article presents a narrative of global religious persecution while promoting a fundamentally naturalistic framework of “religious freedom” that stands in direct opposition to Catholic doctrine on the obligations of civil society and the exclusive rights of the true Church. The entire premise of the interview rests upon a modernist distortion of the relationship between Church and State, treating the Catholic Church as merely one among many competing faiths deserving of “protection” from government, rather than the sole divinely instituted society to which all nations owe obedience.
The Heresy of Religious Liberty as a “Human Right”
The foundational error permeating this interview is the uncritical acceptance of the modernist concept of “religious freedom” as an inherent right of the individual, independent of truth. Brownback states: “This is a right given by God to decide whether you want to follow him or not, and no government has the right to limit that.” This proposition is a direct echo of the condemned errors of Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae, which proclaimed a civil right to immunity from coercion in religious matters. From the perspective of integral Catholic teaching, this is a manifest heresy. Truth obliges the intellect and will; error has no rights. As Pope Pius IX declared in the Syllabus of Errors, it is an error that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15), and that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16).
Pope Leo XIII, in Libertas Praestantissimum, explicitly refuted the notion that the individual conscience is the ultimate arbiter of religious truth, teaching that the liberty of conscience is a right only when it adheres to truth and duty, not when it wanders in error. Brownback’s assertion that the government’s role is “to protect the right the individual has” to choose his religion is a recipe for indifferentism—the very plague condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos as the “absurd and erroneous proposition” that “liberty of conscience” must be maintained for every man. The true Catholic teaching, as articulated by Pius XI in Quas Primas, is that the State must recognize the reign of Christ the King and that “the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ,” meaning the State has no right to grant equal status to false religions. By advocating for a government policy of neutrality between Catholicism, Buddhism, Islam, and Falun Gong, Brownback promotes the very indifferentism that the Church has consistently condemned as the foundation of secular apostasy.
The Vatican’s Betrayal: Diplomacy Over Doctrine
Brownback criticizes the Vatican for its “quiet diplomacy” and the “secret deal” with the Chinese Communist Party, noting that nine Catholic bishops are in detention or missing. While the suffering of the faithful under communist persecution is a tragic reality that demands the Church’s attention, the framing of the Vatican’s failure is deeply flawed. The post-conciliar structures occupying the Vatican have consistently demonstrated that their primary allegiance is not to the immutable Catholic faith but to geopolitical maneuvering and the preservation of their own institutional power. The agreement with Beijing is not an anomaly but the logical fruit of the conciliar revolution’s embrace of false ecumenism and religious liberty.
The “Vatican” criticized in this article is not the Holy See of Pius XI or Leo XIII, which would never negotiate the appointment of bishops with an atheistic regime. It is the conciliar sect, which, having abandoned the doctrine of the Church’s exclusive right to govern itself free from secular interference (as condemned in Quas Primas and the Syllabus, Proposition 19), inevitably capitulates to totalitarian demands. Brownback’s hope that “Pope Leo” (referring to the current usurper) might change course is naive, as the entire post-conciliar apparatus is structurally committed to the very modernist principles that enable such betrayals. The “Vatican’s” silence is not a strategic failure; it is the natural consequence of an institution that has lost its supernatural identity and operates as a mere diplomatic NGO among many.
The Naturalistic Reduction of Communism’s Threat
Brownback’s analysis of communism, while correctly identifying its atheistic nature, remains trapped in a naturalistic paradigm. He states: “Communism is officially atheistic. Any power or authority that’s higher than the government is an existential threat to them.” While true, this analysis omits the supernatural dimension of the struggle. Communism is not merely a political system that dislikes competition; it is, as the Church has consistently taught, an intrinsic evil and a tool of the synagogue of Satan. Pope Pius XI, in Divini Redemptoris, described communism as “a system full of errors and sophisms” that subverts the social order and leads to the “barbarism of revolution.” Brownback’s call to “break these two economies apart” and source goods elsewhere is a purely material solution to a spiritual crisis.
The integral Catholic response to communism is not merely economic decoupling but the public and official recognition of Christ the King by all nations. As Pius XI wrote in Quas Primas, the rejection of Christ’s reign by states leads to the destruction of the foundations of authority and the shaking of human society. The solution to the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution is not a better trade deal or a more robust lobbying effort for “religious freedom,” but the conversion of nations to the Catholic faith and the establishment of social orders based on divine law. Brownback’s reliance on “personal stories” and “economic leverage” exposes the bankruptcy of a purely naturalistic approach to spiritual warfare.
The Cult of Man and the Denial of Martyrdom
The article highlights the suffering of Christians, Uyghur Muslims, Tibetan Buddhists, and Falun Gong practitioners under the Chinese regime. While the suffering of any human being is a matter of natural compassion, the article’s implicit equivalence of these groups is doctrinally problematic. The Catholic Church teaches that there is no salvation outside the Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) and that the sufferings of those who die outside the faith, while tragic, do not merit the crown of martyrdom if they are not suffered for Christ and His truth. By placing the persecution of Catholics on the same level as that of Buddhists and Falun Gong (a syncretic new religious movement with no claim to truth), the article implicitly denies the unique dignity of the Catholic faith and the specific nature of Catholic martyrdom.
Furthermore, Brownback’s statement—“The answer is religious freedom for everybody, everywhere, and that right protected and enforced by governments”—is a clear manifestation of the “cult of man” condemned by the Church. It elevates human autonomy and choice above the objective truth of divine revelation. It suggests that the purpose of government is to facilitate individual spiritual preferences rather than to promote the common good, which is defined by the Church as the condition that allows men to know and serve God. This is the very essence of the modernist error: the subordination of divine law to human will, of truth to freedom.
Conclusion: The Bankruptcy of Naturalistic Diplomacy
The interview with Sam Brownback, as reported by the National Catholic Register, is a textbook example of the modernist approach to persecution: it identifies the symptoms (imprisonment, surveillance, economic coercion) but prescribes the wrong medicine (religious freedom, economic decoupling, diplomatic pressure). It operates entirely within the framework of naturalistic humanism, ignoring the supernatural realities of sin, grace, and divine judgment. It treats the Catholic Church as one actor among many in the global “religious freedom” lobby, rather than the sole ark of salvation to which all nations must submit.
The true solution to the persecution of the faithful in China—and everywhere else—is the restoration of the social reign of Christ the King, the rejection of the modernist heresy of religious liberty, and the return of the Church to her traditional mission of evangelization and the conversion of nations. Until the structures occupying the Vatican repent of their modernist errors and reaffirm the unchanging doctrine of the Church, their “diplomacy” will remain a betrayal of the faithful, and their silence will indeed fuel the fires of persecution—not because they speak too little, but because they have ceased to speak the truth.
Source:
Sam Brownback: Our Silence Fuels China’s Religious Persecution (ncregister.com)
Date: 26.05.2026