On April 21, 2026, the Vatican news portal EWTN News reported that Robert Prevost — the individual currently occupying the Vatican under the name “Pope Leo XIV” — traveled to Equatorial Guinea and delivered an address to civil authorities and diplomats at the presidential palace in Malabo. The speech, framed around the so-called “Church’s social doctrine,” addressed inequality, resource exploitation, war, and technological upheaval. He warned against invoking God to justify domination and called for “integral human development” grounded in solidarity and the universal destination of goods. What the article presents as a pastoral visit is, upon examination through the lens of integral Catholic faith, yet another exercise in naturalistic diplomacy that profanes the very name of God by reducing the Church’s mission to secular humanitarianism while remaining silent on the one thing necessary: the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Address: A Compendium of Modernist Commonplaces
The speech delivered by Leo XIV in Malabo is not merely deficient — it is a textbook manifestation of the post-conciliar apostasy that has transformed the Catholic Church into a humanitarian NGO. Every element of the address, when measured against the immutable teaching of the pre-1958 Magisterium, reveals a systematic substitution of the supernatural order with naturalistic concerns.
The central thesis of the address is stated clearly: “his holy name must not be profaned by the will to dominate, by arrogance, or by discrimination; above all, it must never be invoked to justify choices and actions of death.” On the surface, this sounds pious. But what does it mean in context? It means that the individual calling himself pope is using the name of God to legitimize a political discourse centered on inequality, resource exploitation, technological development, and international agreements — all purely naturalistic categories. The name of God is invoked not to proclaim His rights over nations, not to demand the submission of states to the Social Kingship of Christ, but to bless a program of secular social justice. This is precisely what Pope Pius XI condemned in Quas Primas (1925) as the root cause of modern evils: the removal of Christ and His law from public life.
The Omission That Condemns: Silence on the Kingship of Christ
The most damning feature of this address is not what it says, but what it omits. Leo XIV spoke at length about “integral human development,” “solidarity,” the “universal destination of goods,” “the dignity of labor,” “the protection of public health,” “international law,” and “the self-determination of peoples.” He quoted his predecessor Jorge Bergoglio (Francis): “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.”
But at no point — not once — did this individual mention the one doctrine that the Catholic Church, for two millennia, has proclaimed as the foundation of all social order: the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ over all nations, governments, and civil authorities.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught with absolute clarity:
>“His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.”
And further:
>“Let 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.”
This is the doctrine that Leo XIV was bound to proclaim to the President of Equatorial Guinea and to every civil authority on earth. Instead, he offered them the platitudes of secular humanitarianism. He told them about “solidarity” and “the universal destination of goods” — concepts that, while present in Catholic social teaching, are here wrenched from their supernatural context and presented as autonomous principles of social organization, independent of the recognition of Christ’s royal authority.
The Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (1864) condemned precisely this separation of civil society from the authority of Christ:
>Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
And:
>Error 39: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.”
By addressing civil authorities without once demanding their submission to Christ the King, Leo XIV implicitly affirms the liberal principle that the state is autonomous in its own order — a principle anathematized by Pius IX and explicitly rejected by Pius XI.
The “Church’s Social Doctrine” as a Modernist Instrument
Leo XIV presented “the Church’s social doctrine” as a guide for addressing modern challenges. He described it as:
>“This is a fundamental dimension of the Church’s mission: to contribute to the formation of consciences through the proclamation of the Gospel, the provision of moral criteria, and authentic ethical principles — all while respecting individual freedom and the autonomy of nations and their governments.”
This formulation is a masterpiece of modernist ambiguity. Note the phrase: “respecting individual freedom and the autonomy of nations and their governments.” This is the language of Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae — the conciliar document that proclaimed the right to religious liberty, a doctrine condemned by every pope from Gregory XVI through Pius XII.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemned:
>Error 79: “Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, to overtly and publicly manifest any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”
And:
>Error 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
By affirming the “autonomy of nations and their governments,” Leo XIV is not merely being diplomatic — he is reaffirming a condemned error. The Church has never recognized the “autonomy” of civil authority in matters pertaining to religion and morals. Christ is King of nations as well as of individuals. The state has no “autonomy” to legislate against the moral law or to permit false worship. As Pius XI declared:
>“The feast of Christ the King… will remind states that not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him: for it will remind them of the final judgment, in which Christ, whom not only was cast out of the state, but was also forgotten and ignored through contempt, will very severely avenge these insults.”
The Invocation of St. Augustine Without Catholic Content
Leo XIV referenced St. Augustine’s City of God, noting that every person shows by daily decisions to which city he or she belongs. He said Christians are called to live in the earthly city while keeping their hearts fixed on the heavenly city, and urged freedom from “the pursuit of unjust wealth and the illusion of dominion.”
This is a grossly reductionist use of St. Augustine. The City of God is not a treatise on personal spiritual orientation — it is a comprehensive theology of history in which the earthly city, built on self-love contemptuous of God, is set in irreconcilable opposition to the heavenly city, built on the love of God contemptuous of self. St. Augustine’s framework demands that the earthly city be ordered toward the heavenly city, not that individuals merely maintain a private spiritual orientation while participating in a secular political order.
Moreover, Leo XIV’s application of the Augustinian framework to Equatorial Guinea’s planned new capital, Ciudad de la Paz, is revealing. He said its name “seems to echo the biblical city of Jerusalem” and should prompt each person to ask “which city they wish to serve.” But the true Jerusalem — the Church of Christ — demands not merely personal spiritual orientation but the public, social, and political recognition of God’s authority. By reducing the choice to a private, interior matter, Leo XIV strips Augustine’s theology of its social and political implications — precisely the implications that the pre-conciliar Magisterium drew from it.
The Embrace of International Law Over Divine Law
Leo XIV warned that armed conflicts are driven by the exploitation of oil and mineral deposits, occurring “with no regard for international law or the self-determination of peoples.” He called for “respect for institutions and international agreements.”
This is the language of the United Nations, not of the Catholic Church. The Church has never taught that “international law” or “the self-determination of peoples” are the primary frameworks for resolving conflicts. The Church teaches that peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ (Pius XI, Quas Primas). The primary cause of war is not the violation of international law but sin and the rejection of God’s authority. As Pius XI stated:
>“When God and Jesus Christ — as we lamented — were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.”
By placing his faith in “international law” and “institutions and international agreements,” Leo XIV reveals that he operates within the framework of the liberal international order — the very order that the Church has consistently condemned as rooted in the rejection of Christ’s authority.
The Praise of a Dictator
Perhaps most scandalous is Leo XIV’s treatment of President Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, who has ruled Equatorial Guinea since 1979 — nearly five decades of authoritarian rule. Leo XIV recalled that John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła, himself a manifest modernist and false pope) had described Obiang as “the symbolic center to which the living aspirations of a people converge” for liberty, justice, and respect for rights — words Leo said “remain timely.”
This is not merely diplomatic courtesy. It is the legitimation of a dictator by the occupant of the Vatican. The individual calling himself pope had the opportunity — indeed, the duty — to proclaim to this ruler that his authority comes from God, that he will be judged by Christ the King, and that he must submit his governance to the law of the Gospel. Instead, he offered warm words and fraternal embrace.
The Syllabus of Errors condemns:
>Error 63: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them.”
But the Church has also always taught that rulers who abuse their authority, who govern for their own glory rather than the common good, who persecute the Church or suppress the faith, are tyrants in fact and may be resisted. Leo XIV said nothing of the sort. He offered no prophetic witness, no call to conversion, no demand for the recognition of Christ’s rights. He offered only the bland language of “dialogue” and “cooperation.”
The Invocation of Bergoglio’s Condemnation of “An Economy That Kills”
Leo XIV quoted Jorge Bergoglio: “Today we also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.” This phrase, drawn from Bergoglio’s Evangelii Gaudium (2013), has become a mantra of the post-conciliar establishment. But what does it mean in Catholic terms?
The Church has always taught that economic systems built on injustice are sinful. But the Church has also taught that the root cause of economic injustice is sin — the rejection of God’s law and the disordering of human appetites. The solution is not merely economic reform but conversion, repentance, and the establishment of the Social Kingship of Christ. By quoting Bergoglio without this supernatural framework, Leo XIV reduces the Church’s social teaching to a program of economic redistribution — indistinguishable from the proposals of secular leftist movements.
St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), condemned the modernist proposition:
>Error 65: “Contemporary Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true knowledge without transforming it into a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism.”
This is precisely what Leo XIV’s address represents: a dogmaless social discourse that could be delivered by any secular humanitarian organization, stripped of all specifically Catholic content — the Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the true faith for salvation, the authority of the Church over the state, the reality of sin and the need for supernatural grace.
The “City of God” Without God’s Rights
Leo XIV concluded with the exhortation: “Let us walk together, with wisdom and hope, towards the city of God, which is the city of peace.”
This is the language of the post-conciliar ecumenical movement — “walking together” with all people of goodwill toward a vaguely defined “city of peace.” It is the language of Assisi, of interreligious dialogue, of the religion of human fraternity. It is not the language of the Catholic Church.
The true “city of God” is the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus). The true “city of peace” is the Kingdom of Christ, established on the foundation of the true faith, the true sacraments, and the true authority of the Roman Pontiff. Leo XIV’s “city of God” is a secular utopia built on human effort, international cooperation, and “dialogue” — a city in which Christ the King has no throne.
Conclusion: The Profanation of God’s Name Through Silence
Leo XIV warned against profaning God’s name by invoking it to justify domination. But the gravest profanation of God’s name is to invoke it while remaining silent about His rights. God’s name is profaned when His Church is reduced to a humanitarian agency, when His Kingship is ignored, when His law is replaced by international agreements, when His Gospel is stripped of its supernatural demands and offered as a program of social justice.
This is what Leo XIV did in Equatorial Guinea. He used the name of God to bless a secular political agenda. He addressed civil authorities without demanding their submission to Christ the King. He praised a dictator without calling him to conversion. He invoked St. Augustine without Augustine’s theology of the two cities in their irreconcilable opposition. He quoted Bergoglio without the supernatural framework that alone gives Catholic social teaching its meaning.
The address in Malabo is not a papal address. It is a modernist manifesto — a demonstration that the individual occupying the Vatican is not the Vicar of Christ but the spokesman of the liberal international order, the prophet of a godless “city of peace” that is, in reality, the city of man built on the ruins of the Kingdom of Christ.
As Pope Pius IX declared in the Syllabus of Errors:
>Error 80: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.”
This is the error that Leo XIV embodies. And it is the error that the faithful must reject if they wish to serve the true city of God — the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, and beneath whose authority every nation and every ruler must bow.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV in Equatorial Guinea warns against profaning God’s name through domination (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 21.04.2026