EWTN News, the propaganda organ of the conciliar sect, reports that a “priest” of the neo-church in Mexico, Alberto Medel — presented as coordinator of the “theological committee for the college of exorcists of the Primatial Archdiocese of Mexico” — complained of “discrimination” and “violation of human rights” when functionaries of the Secretariat of Foreign Affairs (SRE) initially demanded he remove his clerical attire for a passport photograph. The “priest” appealed to the Mexican Constitution, a Supreme Court ruling permitting Muslim hijabs, and the “apostolic nuncio” of the antipope, framing the incident as “anticlericalism” and “Christianophobia.” This sordid spectacle reveals the total capitulation of the neo-clergy to the secularist state and their enthusiastic embrace of the condemned heresy of religious liberty.
The Farce of a False Priesthood Begging Caesar for Crumbs
On the Factual Level, the entire narrative rests on a fiction: Alberto Medel is not a Catholic priest. He is a functionary of the conciliar sect, “ordained” under the invalid Montinian rite of 1968, which severed the sacramental form necessary for the priesthood. His “Primatial Archdiocese of Mexico” is not a particular Church of Christ, but an administrative district of the neo-church occupying the visible structures. His “college of exorcists” is a modernist novelty unknown to the Tradition of the Church, which reserves the major exorcism to bishops with true jurisdiction — jurisdiction which does not exist in the post-conciliar hierarchy. The incident occurred at the SRE, an organ of the Masonic Mexican state born of the anti-Catholic Revolution of 1917. Medel’s “clerical attire” is, in his own words, “not a uniform; it is my way of life” — a Protestantized reduction of the habitus of a priest to a mere lifestyle choice, stripping it of its ontological signification as a sign of the character indelebilis conferred by valid Holy Orders.
Secularist Newspeak: ‘Human Rights’ Replace the Rights of God
On the Linguistic Level, the vocabulary betrays the apostasy. Medel speaks exclusively the language of the Enlightenment and the Masonic lodge: “human rights,” “non-discrimination,” “religious freedom,” “anticlericalism,” “Christianophobia.” Not once does he invoke the Social Reign of Christ the King; not once does he remind the state that its authority comes a Deo (Rom 13:1) and that it is bound to profess the true religion. He adopts the stance of a supplicant before a sovereign secular power, demanding “tolerance” for his “choice of faith.” This is the rhetoric of Dignitatis Humanae, the pastoral catastrophe of Vatican II which declared that the human person has a “right to religious freedom” — a proposition explicitly condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (Props. 15, 55, 77, 78, 79): “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Condemned); “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Condemned); “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Condemned). Medel’s language is the language of the condemned errors.
Theological Bankruptcy: Indifferentism as State Policy
On the Theological Level, the core of the controversy is the Supreme Court ruling of December 11, 2025, which Medel cites as precedent. That ruling equated the Catholic clerical collar with the Muslim hijab, declaring that regulations must be interpreted “in a manner consistent with freedom of religion, ideology, and conscience.” This is indifferentism enshrined as constitutional law. It teaches that truth and error have equal rights before the civil power. Pope Pius IX condemned this in the Syllabus (Prop. 16): “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Condemned). Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832) called it a “most pernicious error.” Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925) thundered against the very plague afflicting Mexico: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed… the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation.”
The Mexican “priest” does not demand that the State recognize Christ the King; he demands that the State recognize his “right” to be a generic “religious minister” on the same footing as an imam or a rabbi. He accepts the laicist premise that the State is the source of rights (Syllabus, Prop. 39: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” — Condemned) and begs for a concession. He cites the “Mexican Constitution” — a document born of the Masonic Revolution, explicitly anti-Catholic in its Articles 3, 24, 27, and 130 — as his shield. This is suicidal for a true priest. A true priest, like the Cristero martyrs ¡Viva Cristo Rey!, would have told the SRE functionary: “Non possumus — I serve Christ the King, not the Masonic Constitution.” Instead, Medel seeks a “written commitment and an instruction to all offices” — a bureaucratic guarantee from the enemies of the Church.
Symptomatic of the Conciliar Apostasy: The Neo-Church as Supplicant to the Synagogue of Satan
On the Symptomatic Level, this episode is the perfect icon of the post-conciliar religion. The neo-church has no interest in the Rights of God (iura Dei), only in the “human rights” of its functionaries. It has no interest in converting the Mexican state to the Catholic Faith (the only true evangelization), but only in securing “space” for its “way of life” within the Masonic order. The presence of the “apostolic nuncio” Joseph Spiteri — representative of the usurper antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) — at the parish anniversary confirms the seamless unity between the “priest” on the ground and the “pope” in the Vatican: both are agents of the paramasonic structure that has occupied the Holy See since 1958.
The “priest” boasts of hearing confessions “in airports, on airplanes, on buses, and out on the street” while wearing the attire. But if his orders are invalid (as they are, per the defect of form in the 1968 Pontificale Romanum and the heretical intention of the “bishops” who conferred them), those “confessions” are simulations, sacrileges that leave souls in their sins. The “exorcisms” of his “college” are theatrical performances devoid of juridical and sacramental power. The whole structure is a theatrum mundi of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Mt 24:15).
Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio (1559), cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, declares that any prelate who “has defected from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… his promotion or elevation… shall be null, void, and of no effect.” The entire hierarchy of the “Primatial Archdiocese of Mexico,” by adhering to the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, new mass), has defected from the Faith. They hold no jurisdiction. Medel is a layman in a costume, petitioning a Masonic bureaucracy for permission to wear it.
The tragedy is not that the SRE denied him a passport photo; the tragedy is that a man claiming to be a priest of Jesus Christ thinks the solution to the Church’s persecution is a better administrative regulation from the persecutors. “We Catholic priests are second-class citizens whose freedoms and rights are restricted because of our choice of faith,” he whines. No. True Catholic priests are not citizens of this world first (Phil 3:20); they are ambassadors of a Kingdom “not of this world” (Jn 18:36). They do not demand “rights” from the City of Man; they demand the conversion of the City of Man to the City of God. The silence of Medel and EWTN on the Kingship of Christ, the duty of the State to profess the true religion, and the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus) is the gravest accusation. It proves they serve the father of lies, not the Father of Lights.
“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 and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom, either by combating the triple concupiscence of the world through religious vows, or by striving for perfection…”
—Pius XI, Quas Primas (1925). But this “freedom” is the libertas Ecclesiae, the freedom to fulfill the Divine Mandate, not the Masonic “religious liberty” to coexist with error. Medel and his masters have chosen the latter. They have their reward: a passport photo, and the continued silence of the neo-church before the Kingship of Christ.
Source:
Priest refuses to remove his clerical attire after being told he must to renew passport in Mexico (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 06.11.2026