On June 5, 2026, VaticanNews portal published an editorial by Andrea Tornielli, Editorial Director, reflecting on the upcoming Apostolic Journey of the antipope Leo XIV to Spain—a journey encompassing Madrid, Barcelona, and the Canary Islands. The editorial frames this visit as a “pilgrimage into the heart of Europe,” touching upon evangelization, migrants and refugees, and the legacy of Antoni Gaudí. It is a journey that perfectly encapsulates the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the conciliar sect: a spectacle of naturalistic humanism, false ecumenism, and the systematic omission of the Kingship of Christ.
The Omission of Christ the King: A Journey Without Its True Destination
The editorial by Andrea Tornielli presents Leo XIV’s journey as one that “encapsulate[s] the major challenges facing the Church on the continent.” Yet, what are these challenges according to the editorial? They are “polarization,” “secularized society,” and “migrants.” Nowhere in this editorial is there any mention of the fundamental challenge facing Europe and the world: the public rejection of Our Lord Jesus Christ as King of nations and individuals. Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally stated: “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.” The entire premise of this “Apostolic Journey” is built upon a foundation that explicitly ignores this primary truth. The “peace” and “humanity” sought by the conciliar sect are merely naturalistic aspirations, devoid of the supernatural order, and thus, doomed to fail.
Tornielli writes: “The first stop, Madrid, will be particularly marked by his meeting with members of Parliament. It will be an important opportunity to recall the perspective from which the Church views politics and commitment to the common good.” This “perspective” is immediately clarified as being “far removed both from any form of political alignment and from any attempt, encouraged by secularist ideology, to reduce Christian faith to a purely private and interior experience.” This is the classic Modernist evasion. The Church’s perspective on politics is not merely about “commitment to the common good” in a vague, humanistic sense. It is about the absolute duty of states and rulers to publicly recognize and obey Christ the King. As Pius XI taught: “rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them 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 editorial’s framing of the Church’s engagement with politics as merely “incarnational” witness, without the explicit demand for the social reign of Christ, is a direct repudiation of Catholic doctrine and a capitulation to the very secularism it claims to oppose.
The “Language of Beauty” Without the Language of Truth
The editorial highlights the visit to the Sagrada Família in Barcelona, stating: “through the language of beauty. The Church has always spoken to everyone through art, and particularly through images.” While the Church indeed uses art, the editorial’s focus on Gaudí’s “genius” and the “magnificent Basilica” as a means of evangelization in an age where “transmission of faith within the family has effectively been interrupted” is a subtle but dangerous substitution. It suggests that aesthetic experience can replace doctrinal clarity and the explicit preaching of the Gospel. The Sagrada Família, however magnificent architecturally, is not a substitute for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass or the clear teaching of Catholic dogma.
Furthermore, the mention of Antoni Gaudí as “Venerable” and “on the path to sainthood” is a direct affront to true Catholic hagiography. The processes of “canonization” within the conciliar sect are utterly corrupt, often elevating individuals whose lives and works are far from exemplary by true Catholic standards, or whose “heroic virtues” are merely natural virtues or even modernist tendencies. The elevation of Gaudí, whose personal spiritual life and orthodoxy are subject to much debate and who operated in a milieu rife with secularism and even occult influences, serves the conciliar agenda of promoting a “culturally relevant” but doctrinally empty Catholicism. This is not the path to sainthood; it is the path to the canonization of modernist ideals.
The “Drama of Migrants”: Humanitarianism Without the supernatural
The final leg of the journey, to the Canary Islands, is presented as an opportunity for the antipope to “witness firsthand the drama experienced by migrants” and to issue “a call to Christians to bear evangelical witness” and “a call to responsibility for everyone: the responsibility to remain human.” This is pure naturalistic humanitarianism, stripped of any supernatural dimension. While charity towards the suffering is a Catholic duty, the editorial’s framing focuses solely on the temporal and human aspects, omitting the primary duty of the Church: the salvation of souls.
The editorial quotes Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas: “to look at the world from a lower position: through the eyes of those who suffer rather than the mighty; to view history through the eyes of the little ones, rather than through the perspective of the powerful…” This sounds remarkably similar to the Marxist “preferential option for the poor,” a concept condemned by true Catholic doctrine. The Church’s mission is not to align itself with any political or social class, but to preach the Gospel to all, emphasizing the primacy of the spiritual and the eternal. The focus on “remaining human” as the ultimate responsibility is a denial of the supernatural life and the call to holiness, reducing Christian witness to mere social activism. The true “drama” of migrants, and indeed of all men, is their eternal destiny, a point entirely absent from this conciliar narrative.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity as a Tool of Subversion
Andrea Tornielli, a known proponent of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” attempts to link Leo XIV’s actions to those of previous “popes,” stating: “It is well known that a visit to the Canary Islands was a desire expressed by Pope Francis, a desire that his successor, Pope Leo, is now bringing to fulfillment.” This is a classic Modernist tactic: to present a seamless line of development from one antipope to the next, thereby legitimizing the entire conciliar revolution. The “continuity” is not with immutable Catholic Tradition, but with the ongoing apostasy that began with John XXIII and has culminated in the current occupant of the Vatican. The “work that had begun during the previous pontificate” refers to the Apostolic Exhortation Dilexi te, which itself is a product of the modernist agenda, highlighting “Christ’s love” without the necessary context of His justice, His Kingship, and the demands of the Gospel.
The editorial’s language is carefully crafted to avoid any mention of conversion to the Catholic Faith as the only means of salvation, or the necessity of the sacraments for grace. Instead, it speaks of “evangelical witness” and “closeness to the poor,” which are vague terms that can encompass anything from true charity to outright indifferentism. This is the “broad and liberal Protestantism” that St. Pius X warned against in Lamentabili sane exitu, where Christian doctrine is transformed into a “dogmaless Christianity.” The “challenges” identified are purely temporal, and the “solutions” offered are purely human, reflecting a Church that has lost its divine mission and become a mere humanitarian NGO.
Source:
Evangelization and closeness to migrants: A journey into the heart of Europe (vaticannews.va)
Date: 05.06.2026