EWTN News portal reports that U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, in a May 13 Fox News interview, reflected on his May 7 meeting with antipope Leo XIV, emphasizing what he called the “different vantage points and distinct roles” of the Catholic Church and a nation-state. Rubio acknowledged the Church’s advocacy for peace but drew a sharp distinction, stating that for a nation-state, security threats “have to be addressed, ideally through diplomatic means,” yet “there are conflicts and issues in the world that cannot be solved diplomatically,” citing Iran and Adolf Hitler as examples. He affirmed his Catholic faith as a “compass” but prioritized his “obligation to the national security of our country” as his “primary job.” Rubio described the meeting with the American pontiff as positive and straightforward, noting discussions on global issues like the plight of Christians and Lebanon. His remarks come amid ongoing U.S. actions in Iran and public differences between the Trump administration and the Holy See on the conflict. This article exemplifies the fundamental modernist error of subordinating the universal Kingship of Christ to the autonomous, secular logic of the nation-state, rendering the Church’s moral authority merely one voice among many in a pluralistic order.
Rubio’s “Different Realms” Obscures Christ’s Sovereign Kingship Over Nations
The statement by Marco Rubio, a self-professed Catholic serving as U.S. Secretary of State, that “the realm of the geopolitical is different” from the religious office of the papacy, is not a benign observation on Church-state relations. It is a direct repudiation of the defined dogma of the universal social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, a doctrine solemnly proclaimed by Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas. Rubio’s framing creates a false dichotomy, placing the Church’s teaching on peace and justice in a separate, spiritual sphere, while the “geopolitical” realm operates by its own amoral logic of threats, security, and unsolvable conflicts. This is precisely the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism” that Pius XI identified as a “plague that poisons human society,” which began “with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.”
Pius XI unequivocally taught that Christ’s reign “extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” He further stated that it matters not “whether individuals, families, or states, for men united in societies are no less subject to the authority of Christ than individuals.” To claim a separate “geopolitical realm” exempt from this sovereignty is to deny Christ’s kingship. The Pope explicitly called on rulers: “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.” Rubio’s assertion that his “primary job” is national security, while his faith is a mere “compass,” inverts this divine order, making the state’s temporal security the supreme end and reducing faith to a private guide.
The Syllable of Errors Condemned: The State as Source of Unbounded Right
Rubio’s logic aligns with errors condemned in the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX. Proposition 39 states: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.” This is the very foundation of Rubio’s argument: the nation-state, facing threats, has the circumscribed right to act, even through war, based on its own judgment of security. Pius IX condemned this. Furthermore, Proposition 44 asserts: “The civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government: hence, it can pass judgment on the instructions issued for the guidance of consciences, conformably with their mission, by the pastors of the Church.” By framing the Iran conflict as a “geopolitical” issue where the Church’s perspective is one input among many, Rubio implicitly grants the state the right to judge and override the moral instructions of the Church’s pastors on the justice of a war. The Church’s role, in this view, is reduced to providing humanitarian intelligence on “the plight of Christians,” not defining the moral parameters of state action.
Silence on the Moral Theology of War and the Church’s Judicial Authority
The article and Rubio’s remarks are characterized by a profound silence on the Church’s authoritative teaching on the conditions for a just war and its judicial authority over nations. He speaks of “failed diplomacy” and unsolvable conflicts but omits any reference to the Church’s role as the sole arbiter of justice in international relations. Pius XI taught that Christ possesses judicial authority, “as an inseparable part of judgment, is also included the right of the judge to reward and punish men even during their lifetime.” The Church, as the Kingdom of Christ on earth, exercises this authority through its Magisterium. Rubio’s dismissal of diplomacy with Iran and Hitler bypasses the Church’s teaching that peace is not merely the absence of conflict but “the tranquillity of order” (Pax est tranquillitas ordinis), an order established by God. To declare a conflict unsolvable by diplomacy is to despair of establishing a just order, a failure of reason and will that the Church’s grace and teaching are meant to remedy. Instead, Rubio defaults to the pagan logic of material force.
The Conciliar Context: A “Pope” and a Sect at Odds Over Temporal Power
This public disagreement between the Trump administration and the Holy See must be viewed in the light of the conciliar sect’s own contradictions. Antipope Leo XIV’s generic statement that “The Church has spoken for years against all nuclear weapons” is a hallmark of modernist diplomacy, avoiding a direct condemnation of specific state actions to maintain diplomatic relations. This conciliarity contrasts with the pre-conciliar Church’s directness, as seen when Pope Pius IX vindicated the Church’s freedom “with the sacred authority of law” against the laws of Prussia. The conciliar sect, having embraced the “spirit of Vatican II” and its opening to the world, now finds itself in predictable conflicts with secular powers it sought to appease. Rubio’s meeting with Leo XIV, discussing “areas of the world where they have a presence,” reveals the post-conciliar Church’s reduced role to that of a global NGO, a provider of on-the-ground reports, not the supreme moral judge of nations. This is the fruit of the modernist error condemned in Lamentabili, which rejected the Church’s authority to pass judgment on opinions concerning human abilities (Proposition 5), effectively making it a spectator to the “geopolitical realm.”
Conclusion: The Duty of Catholics to Reject the Modernist Partition
A Catholic, especially one in a position of such influence as Marco Rubio, cannot partition reality into separate realms of faith and geopolitics. The teaching of Pius XI is clear: “There is no power in us that is exempt from this reign [of Christ]. It is therefore necessary that Christ reign in the mind of man… let Him reign in the will, which should obey God’s laws and commandments.” The “primary job” of a Catholic statesman is not merely to “keep Americans safe” by any means deemed necessary, but to keep them safe within the bounds of God’s law, seeking a just peace as defined by the Church, not merely a cessation of hostilities achieved through superior force. Rubio’s framework is a capitulation to the very secularism the Church condemns. The path forward is not a balance between faith and state, but the submission of the state’s actions to the law of Christ the King, as taught by the immutable Magisterium before the modernist revolution. To do otherwise is to build on the sand of human reasoning, which Pius IX condemned as a “right not circumscribed by any limits,” rather than on the rock of divine revelation and the Church’s infallible judgment.
Source:
Reflecting on meeting with Leo, Rubio emphasizes distinction between role of Church and nation state (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 14.05.2026