NC Register/CNA reports that on March 10, 2026, the antipope known as “Pope Leo XIV” conferred the title of “chaplain to His Holiness” (with the associated title “monsignor”) upon Father Michael J.K. Fuller, General Secretary of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). Fuller has served the USCCB for a decade, previously heading the Secretariat for Doctrine and Canonical Affairs. Archbishop Paul S. Coakley, USCCB president, praised Fuller’s “pastoral heart” and “theologian’s mind.” Fuller holds advanced theological degrees and has published works including *The Virgin Martyrs: A Hagiographical and Mystagogical Interpretation*. This act is presented as recognition of exemplary service to the episcopal conference.
The Apostasy of Honoring a Modernist Administrator
The conferral of a pontifical honor by the antipope “Leo XIV” upon a senior official of the USCCB is not a routine ecclesiastical act but a public manifestation of the theological and structural apostasy that defines the post-conciliar “Church.” The event encapsulates the complete inversion of Catholic order: a false pontiff honors a servant of a modernist episcopal conference for administrative competence within a system that has systematically dismantled the reign of Christ the King and replaced it with the reign of man.
1. The USCCB: A Modernist Structure Contrary to Catholic Ecclesiology
The very entity employing Fuller—the USCCB—is a product of the conciliar revolution and stands condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864) explicitly anathematizes the principles upon which such national bishops’ conferences are built:
“National churches, withdrawn from the authority of the Roman pontiff and altogether separated, can be established.” (Error 37)
“The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free… but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church…” (Error 19)
The USCCB functions as a “national church” body, a political lobby and administrative corporation that operates on the principles of democratic consultation and naturalistic diplomacy, utterly foreign to the divinely constituted, monarchical-pontifical structure of the Catholic Church. Its focus on “coordination,” “administrative matters,” and “meetings” mirrors the bureaucratic model of a secular NGO, not the pastoral governance of the Body of Christ. Fuller’s role as “steward” of this structure is service to an apostate institution.
2. The Title “Monsignor”: A Post-Conciliar Innovation
The honor bestowed—the title “monsignor” as “chaplain to His Holiness”—is itself a symptom of the revolution. The system of papal honors was radically democratized and expanded after Vatican II, transforming a rare, ancient distinction into a bureaucratic reward for loyalty to the conciliar hierarchy. This proliferation is part of the “cult of man” denounced by St. Pius X. The focus on Fuller’s academic credentials (“doctorate in sacred theology”) and administrative skills (“deft guiding hand”) reveals the modernist criteria: value is placed on scholarly achievement within the liberal academy and managerial efficiency, not on heroic sanctity, orthodox defense of the Faith, or suffering for the truth. This is the “striving for novelty” condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu (Pius X, 1907), which rejects the idea that “the interpretation of Holy Scripture given by the Church… is subject to more exact judgments and corrections by exegetes” (Proposition 2)—a principle Fuller’s career, spent within the USCCB’s doctrinal office and modern seminaries, likely embodies.
3. The Silence of the Supernatural: A Mark of Modernism
The article’s language is dripping with naturalism. It celebrates Fuller’s “pastoral heart,” “theologian’s mind,” and “steward’s deft guiding hand.” It details his academic posts, editorial work, and Peace Corps service. **What is absolutely absent is any mention of the supernatural end of the priesthood: the salvation of souls through the unbloody sacrifice of Calvary, the Sacraments as channels of grace, the combat against heresy and sin, the formation of soldiers for Christ.** This omission is not accidental; it is the very essence of the Modernist infection. The pre-conciliar Church, as taught by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas (1925), understood all authority and service solely within the framework of Christ’s Kingship:
“For if we delve deeper into the matter itself, we shall realize that the name and authority of king in the proper sense belong to Christ the Man… Christ is said to reign also in the wills of men… He inclines our free will and conquers it with His inspiration.”
Fuller’s biography, as presented, contains no reference to “conquering wills for Christ,” to defending the Faith against the “plague of secularism” (Pius XI), or to the formation of priests who will offer the Most Holy Sacrifice and hear confessions. His work is described in the language of human resources and academic theology—the very “natural religion” and “natural inner impulse” condemned in the Syllabus (Errors 5, 80). The article’s tone assumes a “church” whose mission is social coordination and theological discourse, not the supernatural mission of salvation.
4. The Usurper’s Recognition: Legitimizing Apostasy
The act of “Leo XIV” conferring the honor is the gravest error. By accepting this “papal” designation, Fuller and the USCCB implicitly recognize the legitimacy of the post-conciliar line of antipopes, beginning with John XXIII. This is a direct repudiation of the Catholic doctrine on the automatic loss of office by a manifest heretic. As St. Robert Bellarmine definitively taught (cited in the Defense file):
“A manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.”
The “conclaves” of 1958 onward elected men who, by their words and deeds, manifestly embraced the errors of Modernism—the “synthesis of all heresies” (Pius X). Therefore, the See is vacant. An honor from a manifest heretic is worthless and damning. It binds the recipient to the apostate structure. Fuller’s acceptance is an act of formal submission to the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15).
5. Theological Work in the Service of Error
Fuller’s published work, particularly *The Virgin Martyrs*, must be viewed through the lens of the condemned propositions in Lamentabili sane exitu. The modern approach to hagiography, which Fuller’s subtitle suggests (“Hagiographical and Mystagogical Interpretation”), often reduces the saints’ witness to a psychological or sociological phenomenon, stripping it of its supernatural core—the martyr’s act of supreme faith and charity, meriting the beatific vision. Proposition 61 of Lamentabili condemns the idea that “no chapter of Holy Scripture… has the same meaning for a critic as for a theologian.” This relativistic approach inevitably infects modern studies of the saints, treating their accounts as “mythical inventions” (Syllabus, Error 7) or subjective experiences rather than objective, grace-filled realities. Fuller’s role as editor of the *Chicago Studies Theological Journal* places him within the ecosystem of the “moderate rationalism” condemned by Pius IX, where “theological must be treated in the same manner as philosophical sciences” (Error 8).
6. The Symptom: The Church of the New Advent
This event is a perfect symptom of the “Church of the New Advent” (the post-conciliar sect). Its values are:
* **Administrative competence over doctrinal purity.**
* **Academic credentials over heroic virtue.**
* **Ecclesiastical prestige (a “monsignor” title) over humble service.**
* **Loyalty to the episcopal conference and the antipope over loyalty to the immutable Faith.**
It is a celebration of the natural, the institutional, and the bureaucratic—the precise opposite of the supernatural, hierarchical, and sacrificial nature of the Catholic Church. Pius XI in Quas Primas warned that when Christ is removed from public life, “the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation.” The USCCB and its honored officials operate entirely within this shaken, naturalistic framework, discussing “pastoral hearts” while the souls under their care are starved of the doctrine and sacraments necessary for salvation.
Conclusion: A Call to Separation
Father Fuller’s honor is an honor from the apostate. His service is to a modernist conference. His theology is formed in the spirit of the condemned errors. The “pontifical” act is a null and void gesture from a manifest heretic. The only response for a Catholic is total repudiation. As the Syllabus thundered against the error that “the civil power may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (Error 44), so too must we reject the interference of the conciliar “magisterium” in the true, traditional practice of the Faith. We must flee the USCCB and its “monsignors,” and cleave to the immutable doctrine and liturgical practice of the Church before the watershed of 1958. The true reign of Christ the King, as defined by Pius XI, demands nothing less.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV Confers Title of 'Monsignor' On U.S. Bishops’ General Secretary (ncregister.com)
Date: 11.03.2026