The cited article from the National Catholic Register (March 23, 2026) engages in a speculative and secular legalistic debate concerning the civil obligations of “Pope Leo XIV,” an individual recognized as the head of the post-conciliar Vatican structure. It treats his dual U.S.-Peruvian citizenship and potential tax or voting duties as a matter of international law, framing the issue as an unresolved technicality. This analysis, from the perspective of integral Catholic faith, exposes not a legal puzzle but a profound theological and ecclesiological catastrophe: the entire premise rests on the false acceptance of a modernist antipope and the abandonment of the absolute, supernatural kingship of Jesus Christ over all nations and all laws.
The Foundational Error: Acceptance of a Usurper
The article’s fatal flaw is its uncritical acceptance of “Pope Leo XIV” (Robert Prevost) as a legitimate pontiff. From the unchanging doctrine of the Church, a manifest heretic cannot be pope. The moment an individual publicly and notoriously holds or teaches doctrines contrary to the Catholic faith, he ceases to be a member of the Church and, consequently, cannot be its head. As St. Robert Bellarmine definitively taught: “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 line of antipopes begins with John XXIII, who embraced the errors of Modernism solemnly condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi Dominici gregis. Therefore, “Leo XIV” is not a sovereign head of state in any legitimate sense; he is the head of a schismatic, modernist sect occupying the Vatican. All subsequent discussion of his “citizenship” and “obligations” is a distraction from this primary, damning reality.
Reduction of the Papacy to a Secular Legal Entity
The article’s entire framework reduces the papacy to a question of civil status and international law. This is a naturalistic, Modernist corruption of the Petrine office. The pope’s authority is not derived from citizenship or state sovereignty but from the institution of Christ Himself. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, defined the nature of Christ’s kingship—and by extension, the authority of His Vicar—as fundamentally supernatural and spiritual: “His kingdom… is such that men who wish to belong to it prepare themselves through repentance, but cannot enter except through faith and baptism… This kingdom is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan and the powers of darkness.” The article’s focus on voting and taxes is a symptom of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place: the replacement of the supernatural reign of Christ with the mundane concerns of a civil administrator. The true Pope, as Vicar of Christ the King, has no “citizenship” obligations to any earthly nation, for his primary citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20), and his jurisdiction is over souls, not tax codes.
The Omission of the Supernatural and the Primacy of God’s Law
The article is silent on the most critical matters: the state of souls, the necessity of grace, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Holy Mass, and the final judgment. This silence is the gravest accusation. It treats the “pope” as a mere political figure, ignoring that his alleged actions (or inactions) have eternal consequences. The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, in condemning the separation of Church and State (Error 55) and the subordination of divine law to human law (Error 56), directly refutes the article’s underlying assumptions. “The State… is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits” (Syllabus, Error 39) is precisely the naturalistic principle the article unwittingly promotes by debating whether a “head of state” must obey civil laws. For integral Catholic faith, God’s laws are supreme. A legitimate pope would have the duty to publicly condemn any civil law that violates the divine law or the rights of the Church, not to debate his personal compliance with it. The article’s tone of bureaucratic neutrality is itself a sign of apostasy, reflecting the Modernist error that the Church should be silent on “political” matters, when in fact all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Christ (Matt. 28:18), and His law must govern all human societies.
The Antipope’s Multiple “Citizenships” as a Symbol of Apostasy
The fact that “Leo XIV” holds three citizenships—U.S., Peruvian, and Vatican—is not a curiosity but a profound symbol of the post-conciliar church’s radical rupture with tradition. The true Pope, as the universal pastor, renounces all earthly attachments. Canon law (1917) did not require a pope to renounce prior citizenship, but this was a discipline, not a theological norm. More importantly, the very idea of a pope actively retaining and utilizing citizenships of nations he is supposed to oversee as a spiritual father is an absurdity. It represents the conciliar sect’s embrace of liberal, globalist principles where the “pope” becomes a figurehead for a one-world civil religion, not the Vicar of the King of Kings. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, warned that when “God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The article’s discussion of “functional citizenship” and “head-of-state immunity” constructs a legal fiction to mask the fact that the occupant of the Vatican is a modernist apostate, not a successor of Peter.
Exposure of the “Legal Expert” as a Modernist Enabler
Professor Antonio G. Chizzoniti is presented as a neutral canon lawyer. His analysis, however, is a masterpiece of Modernist ambiguity. He acknowledges the “complex layering of norms” and “ongoing discussion” rather than applying clear, pre-1958 doctrinal principles. This is the hallmark of the Modernist method condemned by St. Pius X: treating doctrine as evolving and law as subject to “discussion.” Chizzoniti’s conclusion—that obligations are “likely exempt” due to “head-of-state immunity”—is a pragmatic, naturalistic judgment, not a theological one. It assumes the legitimacy of the “Holy See” as a sovereign entity, which is precisely what a sedevacantist, grounded in the pre-1958 magisterium, must deny. The Holy See, as the central government of the Catholic Church, has no legitimate existence when its supposed head is a manifest heretic. Therefore, any “Vatican law” granting citizenship is null, as are all laws emanating from the conciliar structures.
The True Catholic Perspective: Christ the King Alone
From the integral Catholic faith, the only sovereign is Jesus Christ. The feast instituted by Pius XI in Quas Primas was a direct response to the secularism condemned in the Syllabus. “The State is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men” (Quas Primas, 30). The state’s happiness depends on its recognition of Christ’s kingship. The article’s entire premise—that the “pope” must submit to or be exempt from state laws—inverts this order. A true pope, as the representative of Christ the King, would have the authority to judge nations and their laws, not to seek exemptions from them. The modernist “pope,” however, is a creature of the nations, a product of the very secularism Pius XI lamented. His multiple citizenships are a testament to his absorption into the worldly order he should be condemning.
Conclusion: A Distraction from the Central Crisis
The debate over whether “Pope Leo XIV” must vote in Peru or pay U.S. taxes is a meticulously crafted diversion. It shifts focus from the central, damning truth: the See of Peter is vacant, occupied by a series of apostate antipopes who have led the conciliar sect into total rebellion against God. The article’s language of “unsettled legal questions” and “complex layering of norms” is the precise rhetoric of Modernism, which replaces clear, immutable doctrine with ambiguous, evolving “discussions.” The faithful are called not to speculate on the civil liabilities of antipopes, but to recognize the abomination of desolation, cling to the unchanging faith of their fathers, and await the restoration of a true pope who will reign according to the laws of Christ, not the statutes of Peru or the IRS.
Source:
Does the Pope Vote in Peru Or Pay U.S. Taxes? Key Questions Remain Unsettled (ncregister.com)
Date: 23.03.2026