The Conciliar Sect’s Hollow “Pro-Life” Facade Under Scrutiny
The EWTN News portal (January 30, 2026) attempts to portray usurper Robert Prevost (“Leo XIV”) as a champion of life and family during his tenure as “bishop” of Chiclayo, Peru. The article cites collaborators praising his promotion of “public policies” for families, opposition to abortion, and defense of marriage as “between one man and one woman.” This narrative crumbles when measured against the sine qua non (indispensable) criteria of integral Catholic doctrine.
Illegitimate Authority Invalidates All Actions
Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code explicitly states: “Any office becomes vacant by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric… publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” Prevost’s adherence to the Vatican II sect—which promulgated heresies like religious liberty in Dignitatis Humanae—constitutes public defection. St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice confirms: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” As the conciliar sect lacks valid Holy Orders since the 1968 Pontificalis Romani, Prevost’s “episcopal” acts are juridically and sacramentally null. Pius XII’s Sacramentum Ordinis declares new rites “invalid if words/form are altered”—which Paul VI did.
He said that marriage is between one man and one woman, that life must be defended from the moment of conception, and that abortion should not be permitted or legalized.
This apparent orthodoxy masks doctrinal betrayal. The conciliar sect’s “defense of life” deliberately omits the non possumus (we cannot) of Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors, which condemns the notion that “the Church ought to adapt her doctrines to modern needs” (Proposition 80). True Catholic action requires submission to the Social Kingship of Christ, as Pius XI’s Quas Primas mandates: “Nations must obey Christ” (n. 18). Prevost’s promotion of “public policies” accepts the Masonic lie of Church-State separation—condemned in Syllabus Proposition 55.
The Fatal Omission: Supernatural Finality
Valdivieso’s statement that Prevost supported “scientific research to strengthen public policies” exposes the conciliar sect’s naturalism. Catholic doctrine subordinates all temporal action to man’s supernatural end: salvation. As Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum teaches, civil laws must facilitate “the pursuit of heaven” (n. 21). The article’s celebration of a “nursing mothers’ room” and “family-centered approach” reduces marriage to a social construct, ignoring its sacramental essence. Pius XI’s Casti Connubii defines marriage’s primary purpose as “the procreation and education of children for heaven” (n. 17).
Fr. Jorge Millán’s claim that errors in the Church arise from “difficult pastoral circumstances” rather than “bad intentions” directly contradicts Pius X’s Pascendi, which identifies Modernism’s essence as “the vitiation of dogma through adapting it to sentiment” (n. 39). The suggestion that Leo XIV will “let them in and then teach” echoes the condemned ecumenism of Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio—a betrayal of Pope Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctam: “Outside the Church, no salvation.”
Bioethics Without the Cross: A Satanic Distraction
Valdivieso’s hope that Leo XIV will address “embryonic manipulation” and “transhumanism” while ignoring the conciliar sect’s foundational heresies exemplifies the Modernist trap. St. Pius X’s Lamentabili condemns the idea that “dogmas evolve” (Proposition 22)—yet the entire Vatican II edifice rests on this error. To discuss bioethics while tolerating invalid sacraments and false worship is akin to Nero fiddling as Rome burned. The true crisis isn’t technological, but apostasy—the rejection of Christ the King’s authority.
The article’s focus on Peru’s “March for Life” where Prevost declared “Long live life!” rings hollow when his sect permits Communion for adulterers (Amoris Laetitia). Pius XII’s Mediator Dei warns: “Liturgical innovation inevitably breeds doctrinal error” (n. 59). How can a man presiding over invalid Masses—which deny the propitiatory Sacrifice—defend life? As the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Chap. 2) teaches, the Mass must “appease God’s wrath”—a truth obliterated by the Protestantized “Eucharistic celebration.”
Conclusion: A House Built on Sand
The conciliar sect’s “pro-life” posturing collapses under Catholic scrutiny. As Pius IX’s Syllabus declares, “The Roman Pontiff cannot reconcile himself with progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). Until Prevost renounces Vatican II and submits to the depositum fidei (deposit of faith), his actions are but “sounding brass” (1 Cor. 13:1). True Catholics heed St. Paul: “Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what fellowship hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14).
Source:
Pope Leo’s pro-life and pro-family legacy as bishop in Peru remembered (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 30.01.2026