EWTN News reports on the upcoming visit of the usurper Leo XIV to Spain, set against a backdrop of intense political polarization and social fragmentation. The article highlights the unanimous invitation from the Spanish Parliament, the government’s embrace of his encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* (focusing on AI and “human dignity”), and the instrumentalization of the visit by various political factions, including the far-right Vox party and the socialist government. The piece also touches on tensions over historical memory (Valley of the Fallen), immigration, and the Church’s role in public life. The thesis of this analysis is that the entire spectacle of this “papal” visit is a grotesque parody of the Church’s true mission, serving not the supernatural salvation of souls but the temporal agendas of both the conciliar sect and secular political forces, thereby exposing the complete capitulation of the post-1958 structure to the spirit of the world and its inherent Modernist apostasy.
The Neo-Church’s Embrace of Secular Political Agendas
The article presents the visit of Leo XIV as a significant event in Spain’s divisive political climate, with all sides seeking to instrumentalize his words. This immediately reveals the fundamental error of the post-conciliar structure: its insertion into the temporal, political sphere as just another actor, rather than as the supernatural guide for souls and nations. The unanimous invitation from the Spanish Parliament, hailed as a rare consensus, is not a recognition of the Church’s divine authority but a cynical political maneuver. As Pius XI unequivocally stated in *Quas Primas*, “the Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” The neo-church, far from demanding this independence, actively seeks and thrives on such political validation, thereby denying its own divine constitution and reducing itself to a mere NGO or a cultural institution.
The article notes that Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez “emphasized” Leo XIV’s encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas*, particularly its warnings about AI and its defense of “human dignity” and “multilateralism.” This is a clear indication of the conciliar sect’s alignment with secular, globalist agendas. The true Church, before 1958, would never frame its message primarily in terms of “human dignity” as understood by the world, nor would it seek common ground with “multilateralism” – a concept often at odds with the Church’s universal spiritual authority and its condemnation of indifferentism. Instead, the Church’s mission is to proclaim the Kingship of Christ over all nations and individuals, demanding their conversion to the one true Faith, as St. Pius X condemned in *Lamentabili sane exitu* the idea that “the best theory of civil society requires that popular schools… should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority… and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power” (Proposition 47). The neo-church’s focus on “AI” and “digital power” as primary concerns, rather than the eternal salvation of souls or the social reign of Christ the King, is a stark manifestation of its naturalistic and Modernist drift, prioritizing temporal “atrocities” over the eternal damnation of sin.
The Illusion of “Common Language” and the Denial of Truth
Rafael Domingo Oslé, a jurist, is quoted as saying the pope can offer “a common framework and a shared language” in a polarized society, reminding people of their “dignity that precedes their opinions.” This statement, while seemingly benign, is deeply problematic from an integral Catholic perspective. The Church does not offer a “common framework” that merely acknowledges “dignity” while remaining silent on the necessity of the Catholic Faith for salvation. The Church’s language is the language of divine Truth, which is absolute and non-negotiable. As Pope Pius IX declared in the *Syllabus of Errors*, “The Church has the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Proposition 21, condemned). The neo-church’s desire to provide a “shared language” often means diluting or omitting the hard truths of the Faith to avoid offense, thereby betraying its prophetic mission. The “dignity” the Church proclaims is not a secular, inherent quality that “precedes opinions,” but a dignity derived from being created in God’s image and elevated to the supernatural order through grace, which can be lost by sin and regained only through the sacraments of the true Church.
The article also mentions the “risk that political factions will try to use the pope’s words to their advantage.” This is an inherent and unavoidable consequence of the conciliar sect’s engagement with the world on its own terms. By adopting the language of “dialogue,” “human rights,” and “social justice” as defined by secular ideologies, the neo-church makes itself vulnerable to manipulation. The true Church, before 1958, understood that its message would be a “sign of contradiction” (Luke 2:34), not a tool for political consensus. Its authority derived from Christ, not from its ability to offer a “common framework” for disparate political views.
The Valley of the Fallen: Historical Memory vs. Catholic Truth
The tensions surrounding the “re-signification” of the Valley of the Fallen (Cuelgamuros) are presented as a clash between the government’s desire for a “political memorial” and the Church’s advocacy for its “religious dimension.” This framing is a classic example of the conciliar sect’s inability to defend Catholic truth against secular revisionism. The true Church would not merely advocate for a “religious dimension” in a politically charged site; it would unequivocally condemn the desecration of a place dedicated to God and the burial of the faithful, regardless of their political affiliations. The exhumation of Franco’s remains, while a complex historical issue, is presented by the neo-church as a point of “tension” rather than a clear act of disrespect towards a Catholic burial site and a historical figure who, despite his flaws, led a side that defended the Faith against communist and anarchist persecution.
Marco Olivetti, an Italian constitutional scholar, warns that “historical memory has been used as a divisive element that shapes public perception of the Church.” This is a profound understatement. The “historical memory” movement in Spain, often driven by leftist ideologies, seeks to demonize the Nationalist side of the Civil War and, by extension, the Catholic Church that largely supported it. The neo-church’s failure to unequivocally defend the Catholic cause in that conflict, or to clearly condemn the persecution of the Church by the Republic, is a direct consequence of its Modernist desire for “reconciliation” and “dialogue” with the world, even at the expense of truth and justice. As St. Pius X warned in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*, Modernism seeks to “reconcile” the Church with “modern civilization,” which often means capitulating to its errors.
Immigration and the Subversion of Catholic Social Teaching
The article notes that the Spanish bishops’ defense of immigrants, including support for legalizing undocumented immigrants, has drawn criticism from the Vox party, which accuses the bishops of prioritizing “business” over the defense of the homeland. This highlights a critical distortion of Catholic social teaching by the conciliar sect. While the Church advocates for the just treatment of immigrants, it also upholds the right of nations to control their borders and protect their common good. The neo-church’s often one-sided emphasis on “welcome” and “inclusion,” without due regard for the potential negative impacts on the host society or the spiritual welfare of the immigrants themselves (e.g., ensuring they are not led into religious indifferentism or error), reflects a naturalistic humanitarianism rather than a truly Catholic approach.
The Vox party’s criticism, while coming from a self-proclaimed Catholic conservative group, is itself problematic. Their focus on “defense of the homeland” and “contempt for the Spaniards” often veers into a secular nationalism that, while opposing some aspects of globalism, still operates within a purely temporal framework. The true Church’s concern for immigration is always subordinated to the supernatural end of souls and the preservation of the Faith, not merely national identity or economic interests. The neo-church’s alignment with globalist immigration policies, often under the guise of “human dignity,” is a betrayal of its duty to guide nations according to God’s law.
The “Hijacking” of Christianity by Politics: A False Dilemma
The article concludes by mentioning Pope Leo XIV’s concern about the “hijacking of Christianity by politics,” specifically referencing the far-right’s attempt to portray “Christian culture” as a central tenet of their platforms. This is a classic Modernist tactic: to condemn any attempt to apply Catholic principles to the political order as a “hijacking.” The true Church, as articulated by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*, explicitly demands that “rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him,” and that “the entire government of public schools… may and ought to appertain to the civil power” (Proposition 45, condemned). The neo-church’s discomfort with “identity-based discourses” that conflate politics and faith is a direct result of its embrace of religious indifferentism and the separation of Church and State, errors condemned by Pope Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”).
The sociologist Rafael Ruiz Andrés notes that the far-right’s defense of “Christian culture” is “not necessarily a defense based on religion” but linked to “identity-based culture” and “opposition to Islam.” This observation, while possibly accurate in some cases, is used by the neo-church to dismiss any political engagement rooted in Catholic identity as inherently suspect. The true Church, however, would not dismiss the defense of Christian culture outright but would insist that such a defense be grounded in true Catholic doctrine and aimed at the conversion of all, including Muslims, to the one true Faith. The neo-church’s false dilemma – either a purely secular politics or a “hijacked” Christianity – serves to maintain its own position as a neutral, “spiritual” authority, detached from the hard realities of the social reign of Christ the King.
In summary, the entire narrative surrounding Leo XIV’s visit to Spain is a testament to the complete theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the post-conciliar structure. It has become a tool for secular political agendas, a purveyor of naturalistic humanitarianism, and a silent witness to the erosion of Catholic truth in the public square. Its “concerns” are those of the world, its “dialogue” is with the enemies of the Faith, and its “authority” is derived from political consensus rather than divine mandate. This is not the Church of Christ, but the “abomination of desolation” (Matthew 24:15) standing in the holy place, a paramasonic structure that has betrayed its divine Founder and led countless souls astray.
Source:
Pope Leo will visit a polarized Spain in political turmoil but where all sides want to hear him (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 29.05.2026