EWTN News reports that on May 21, 2026, the usurper Leo XIV addressed newly accredited ambassadors to the so-called “Holy See,” urging nations to prioritize the “common good” over particular interests and to measure success by how they treat “those on the margins.” He called for “a deeper conversion of heart,” diplomacy animated by “self-giving solidarity,” and international order oriented toward “the unity of the human family.” The statement is a masterclass in naturalistic humanitarianism stripped of all supernatural content — a perfect distillation of the conciliar revolution’s reduction of the Faith to secular ethics, omitting entirely the Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the true Church for salvation, and the primacy of eternal beatitude over temporal welfare.
A “Conversion of Heart” Without Conversion to Christ
The most immediately striking feature of this address is the phrase “a deeper conversion of heart.” In Catholic theology before the conciliar rupture, conversion meant precisely one thing: conversio ad Deum — a turning of the soul toward God, involving repentance from sin, reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist, and submission to the authority of the true Church of Christ. St. Pius X, in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), condemned the modernist proposition that revelation is “merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (proposition 20), and the entire encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis exposed the modernist corruption that reduces interior religion to subjective sentiment.
What does Leo XIV mean by “conversion of heart”? He does not once mention God, Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Church, the sacraments, sin, grace, or the last things. His “conversion” is purely horizontal — a psychological disposition toward altruism and diplomatic courtesy. This is not Catholic teaching; it is the naturalistic humanitarianism that Pope Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors as the error that “the entire government of public schools… should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority” (proposition 47) and that “it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State” (proposition 77).
The usurper speaks of “Christ’s love for the least and the forgotten” as a moral motivation stripped of all dogmatic content. Christ is reduced to a sentimental exemplar of humanitarian concern — not the Eternal Son of God, consubstantial with the Father, Who founded one Church outside of which there is no salvation. This is precisely the “dogmaless Christianity” that the Holy Office under St. Pius X identified as the inevitable terminus of modernism: “Contemporary Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true knowledge without transforming it into a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism” (Lamentabili, proposition 65).
The “Common Good” Without the Kingship of Christ
The entire address orbits around the phrase “common good” — a term that, in the mouth of the conciarist usurpers, has been emptied of its Catholic theological content and refilled with the content of secular liberalism. In Catholic social teaching, the common good is defined by Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas as inseparable from the recognition of Christ the King’s authority over all nations and societies.
Pius XI declared in Quas Primas (1925): “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.” He further stated: “The rulers of states therefore should not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but should 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.”
Leo XIV says nothing of Christ the King. He says nothing of the duty of nations to publicly profess the Catholic Faith. He says nothing of the social reign of Christ. Instead, he offers a vague, naturalistic “common good” that could be endorsed by any secular humanist organization, any Masonic lodge, any United Nations agency. This is not an accident — it is the systematic program of the conciliar revolution to sever the connection between the temporal order and the supernatural order, between civil society and the Church of Christ.
Pius XI explicitly identified this severance as the root cause of modern social disintegration: “When God and Jesus Christ — as we lamented — were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed, because the main reason why some have the right to command and others have the duty to obey was removed. For this reason, the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation” (Quas Primas).
“Those on the Margins” — The New Idolatry of the Poor
The usurper declares: “No nation, no society, and no international order can call itself just and humane if it measures its success solely by power or prosperity while neglecting those who live at the margins.” This language — “those on the margins,” “the poor and the vulnerable” — is the characteristic vocabulary of liberation theology and its diluted conciliar offspring, the “preferential option for the poor” that has become the central dogma of the neo-church.
The Catholic Church has always taught the duty of charity toward the poor. But she has never taught that the measure of justice is the treatment of the marginalized apart from the recognition of God’s rights and the Church’s authority. The Church teaches that the first duty of justice is ius divinum — the rendering to God what is God’s. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the proposition that “moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction, and it is not at all necessary that human laws should be made conformable to the laws of nature and receive their power of binding from God” (proposition 56).
By making “those on the margins” the criterion of justice, Leo XIV implicitly enthrones the poor as an idol — replacing the worship of God with the worship of humanity. This is the “cult of man” that St. Pius X identified as the essence of modernism: “The whole substance of modernism lies in this: that man takes the place of God” (paraphrased from Pascendi Dominici gregis). The true Church serves the poor because she serves God first; the neo-church serves the poor in place of God.
Dialogue Without Truth, Peace Without Justice
The usurper calls for “a diplomacy that promotes dialogue and seeks consensus” and urges that “words once again express clear realities without distortion or hostility.” This is the conciliar obsession with “dialogue” elevated to a supreme principle — a dialogue that never demands conversion, never pronounces judgment, never defines error.
In Catholic teaching, dialogue is ordered toward the proclamation of truth and the conversion of souls to the true Faith. The Church dialogues not because all positions are equally valid, but because she possesses the fullness of truth and seeks to bring all men to it. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (proposition 80). The Church does not seek “consensus” with error; she condemns error and calls all men to the truth.
Leo XIV’s “dialogue” is the dialogue of the United Nations — a diplomatic technique for managing conflict without resolving it in truth. It is the dialogue that Pope Pius XI implicitly rejected when he wrote that peace is only possible “in the Kingdom of Christ” and that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior” (Quas Primas). Without Christ the King, there can be no true peace — only temporary arrangements of power dressed in the language of solidarity.
“The Unity of the Human Family” — Ecumenism as Religion
Perhaps most revealing is the usurper’s call for international institutions to be “oriented toward the unity of the human family.” This phrase — “the unity of the human family” — is the conciliar substitute for the Catholic doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ. It is the language of Nostra Aetate and Dignitatis Humanae, the conciliar documents that reduced the Church’s mission from the conversion of all nations to Catholicism to the promotion of “unity” among all religions and all men.
The Catholic Church teaches that there is one true Church — the Roman Catholic Church — and that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Pope Pius XI affirmed in Quas Primas: “He is indeed the source of salvation for individuals and for the whole: And there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.” The “unity of the human family” apart from unity in the Catholic Faith is not a Christian concept — it is a Masonic one. It is the religion of humanity that Auguste Comte invented and that the conciliar sect has adopted as its operative theology.
Pope Pius IX condemned this very error in the Syllabus of Errors: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (proposition 17), and “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church” (proposition 18). The “unity of the human family” is simply indifferentism dressed in diplomatic language.
The Systematic Omission That Condemns
The most damning feature of this address is not what it says but what it omits. In a discourse on the justice of nations, the common good, and the treatment of the vulnerable, there is:
- No mention of God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Ghost
- No mention of Jesus Christ as King and Redeemer
- No mention of the Church as the one ark of salvation
- No mention of the sacraments, grace, or the life of the soul
- No mention of sin, repentance, or the last judgment
- No mention of the rights of God over nations and individuals
- No mention of the duty of nations to profess the Catholic Faith
- No mention of the social kingship of Christ
- No condemnation of heresy, schism, or apostasy
- No distinction between true religion and false religion
This is not merely an oversight. It is the systematic program of the conciliar revolution: to speak of everything except God, to address every human need except the need for salvation, to promote every good except the supreme good of the Faith. It is the “abomination of desolation standing in the holy place” (Matthew 24:15) — a structure that occupies the Vatican and speaks in the name of Christ while systematically denying His rights, His Church, and His Kingship.
St. Robert Bellarmine, whose teaching on the automatic loss of office by a manifest heretic is foundational to the sedevacantist position, wrote: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… A non-Christian in no way can be Pope… The reason for this is that he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member; now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope” (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30). The address analyzed here — with its naturalistic humanitarianism, its omission of Christ the King, its indifferentist “unity of the human family” — is precisely the kind of manifest heresy that, according to Bellarmine and the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, would deprive a pope of his office ipso facto.
Conclusion: The Diplomacy of the Abyss
The address of Leo XIV to the ambassadors is not a Catholic document. It contains not a single element that distinguishes it from a speech by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the President of the European Commission, or the Grand Master of the Grand Orient Lodge. It is naturalistic, humanitarian, indifferentist, and Christless. It promotes “dialogue” without truth, “solidarity” without charity, “unity” without the Church, and “conversion of heart” without conversion to God.
Pope Pius XI, in instituting the Feast of Christ the King, declared: “If men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society, such as due freedom, order, and tranquility, and concord and peace” (Quas Primas). The usurper Leo XIV offers the opposite program: blessings without Christ, peace without justice, order without God, and unity without the Church. This is not the diplomacy of the successor of Peter — it is the diplomacy of the abyss, the diplomacy of the synagogue of Satan that Pope Pius IX denounced when he wrote of “the frauds and machinations of these sects” that “come forth impetuously from their hiding places and triumph as a powerful master” (Syllabus of Errors, preliminary allocution).
The faithful who cling to the integral Catholic Faith — the Faith of all times, the Faith that recognizes Christ as King of nations and the Roman Catholic Church as the one true Church — must reject this address and all it represents. The true diplomacy of the Church is the announcement of the Gospel to all nations, the call to conversion, the demand that kings and rulers serve Christ the King. Everything else is betrayal.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV: Nations must put common good ahead of particular interests (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 21.05.2026