The National Register portal reports on a commentary by Mr. Kevin C. Rhoades, the occupant of the “episcopal” see of Fort Wayne-South Bend, secretary of the USCCB, and chairman of the USCCB’s Committee on Priorities and Plans, originally published in Franciscan University of Steubenville’s Catechetical Review. Mr. Rhoades proposes the consecration of the United States to the Sacred Heart of Jesus during the June 2026 USCCB assembly, coinciding with the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. He frames this act as entrusting the nation to “the love and care of Jesus, the Redeeming of the World,” while simultaneously reminding Catholics of their task to “perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel,” as taught by the Second Vatican Council. The commentary extensively references “Popes” Francis and Leo XIV, presenting devotion to the Sacred Heart as a remedy for modern ills, emphasizing reparation, personal encounter, and mission, while weaving in personal anecdotes and promoting the cause for “canonization” of Brother Columba O’Neill. The entire discourse, however, is a masterclass in modernist equivocation, where authentic Catholic terminology is hollowed out and refilled with conciliar errors, naturalistic humanism, and a profound silence on the true kingship of Christ and the necessity of the social reign of Christ the King.
The Conciliar Framework: Subverting Consecration into “Perfecting the Temporal Order”
Mr. Rhoades’s proposal for national consecration to the Sacred Heart is immediately framed within a conciliar distortion. He states that the consecration will remind Catholics of their task to “perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel,” explicitly citing the Second Vatican Council. This phrase, while seemingly innocuous, is a hallmark of modernist thought, which seeks to reduce the Church’s mission to a purely naturalistic and horizontal “service to humanity” rather than the supernatural salvation of souls and the explicit recognition of Christ’s social kingship. True Catholic teaching, as articulated by Pius XI in Quas Primas, unequivocally states that Christ’s kingdom “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.” Furthermore, Pius XI explicitly states that “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.” The modernist “spirit of the Gospel” invoked by Mr. Rhoades is a far cry from the Quas Primas understanding, which demands public obedience to Christ the King and the ordering of all society according to His laws. This conciliar reinterpretation transforms a profound act of reparation and recognition of divine sovereignty into a mere catalyst for social activism, stripping it of its supernatural and binding character.
Modernist “Popes” and the Hermeneutic of Continuity
Mr. Rhoades’s commentary is replete with references to “Popes” Francis and Leo XIV, presenting their teachings as authoritative and continuous with tradition. He quotes “Pope Francis’s” encyclical Dilexit Nos and “Pope Leo XIV’s” apostolic exhortation Dilexi Te, alongside “Pope Leo XIII’s” Annum Sacrum. This seamless integration of modernist documents with pre-conciliar papal teaching is a classic example of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” a modernist tactic designed to legitimize novelties by presenting them as organic developments of immutable truth. The “popes” of the conciliar sect, by their manifest heresies and promotion of doctrines condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium (e.g., religious liberty, ecumenism, the evolution of dogmas), have ipso facto lost any claim to the Chair of Peter, as argued by St. Robert Bellarmine and others. To cite their writings as authoritative, especially without any critical discernment, is to lend credibility to the very forces that have wrought such devastation within the Church. The “teaching” of these usurpers is not a development but a corruption, a “synthesis of all errors” as St. Pius X rightly termed Modernism.
Naturalistic Humanism and the “Civilization of Love”
The language employed by Mr. Rhoades consistently veers into naturalistic humanism, a core tenet of Modernism. He speaks of “restoring goodness and beauty to our world,” building a “new civilization of love,” and addressing “sins of violence, racism, greed, and disregard for the dignity of the unborn and immigrants.” While these are indeed moral evils, the modernist approach focuses on temporal solutions and human betterment, often divorced from the supernatural means of grace and the explicit recognition of God’s rights. The “civilization of love” is a conciliar slogan, a horizontal vision that often eclipses the vertical dimension of man’s relationship with God and the ultimate goal of eternal salvation. It reduces the Gospel to a social gospel, neglecting the primary mission of the Church: to teach, govern, and sanctify souls for heaven. Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors, condemned the idea that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). Mr. Rhoades’s entire discourse is a practical application of this condemned proposition, seeking to reconcile the Church with the spirit of the age rather than demanding the submission of the age to Christ the King.
Silence on Social Kingship and the Rights of Christ the King
Perhaps the most glaring omission in Mr. Rhoades’s commentary is any explicit mention of Christ’s social kingship and the duty of nations to publicly recognize His reign. While he acknowledges Pius XI’s reference to the “pious custom” of consecrating nations to the Sacred Heart as a way to recognize the kingship of Christ, this is immediately diluted by the conciliar framework and the naturalistic language that follows. The true teaching of Quas Primas is that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses all men,” and that “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 not merely about personal devotion or internal spiritual renewal, but about the explicit, public, and legal ordering of society according to God’s law. The modernist “consecration” proposed by Mr. Rhoades, devoid of this explicit demand for Christ’s social reign, is a hollow gesture, a religious sentimentality without doctrinal teeth, designed to placate the faithful while avoiding any confrontation with the secular order.
Ecumenical Undertones and the “Orthodox Brothers and Sisters”
Mr. Rhoades’s commentary includes a subtle but significant ecumenical overture. He recounts his Greek Orthodox grandfather and states that “Our Orthodox brothers and sisters, like our Eastern Catholic brothers and sisters, venerate the pierced side of Jesus in icons and also view the blood and water flowing from it as profound symbols of the Sacraments of Baptism and the Eucharist, the outpouring of God’s grace upon the Church.” This statement, while factually describing Orthodox belief, is presented in a way that implies a commonality of faith and practice that obscures the fundamental doctrinal differences, particularly regarding the Papal Primacy and the infallible Magisterium of the Church. The pre-conciliar Church, while acknowledging elements of truth in other religions, always maintained the exclusive claim of the Catholic Church as the one true Church of Christ, outside of which there is no salvation. Pius IX, in Quanto Conficiamur (1863), explicitly condemned the idea that “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). Mr. Rhoades’s language, typical of post-conciliar ecumenism, blurs these essential distinctions, fostering a spirit of indifferentism that is antithetical to the Catholic faith.
The “Miracle Man of Notre Dame” and the Cult of Personality
The promotion of Brother Columba O’Neill’s cause for “canonization” is another example of the modernist tendency to elevate individuals and personal devotions over doctrinal clarity and the true understanding of sanctity. While personal holiness is commendable, the post-conciliar “canonization” process is deeply suspect, often driven by popular devotion and political considerations rather than a rigorous examination of orthodoxy and heroic virtue in light of unchanging Catholic doctrine. The focus on “cures and favors” attributed to Brother Columba, while potentially miraculous, can also foster a superstitious mentality, diverting attention from the true sources of grace: the Sacraments and the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The Church has always taught that miracles are signs of God’s power and confirmation of truth, but they must be interpreted within the framework of sound doctrine. The elevation of such figures, especially within the conciliar structures, often serves to reinforce the legitimacy of the very system that has abandoned true Catholic principles.
The Eucharistic Revival and the New Mass
Mr. Rhoades links the Sacred Heart devotion to the “Eucharistic Revival” in the United States, stating that “devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus is intrinsically Eucharistic.” While this is true in principle, the “Eucharistic Revival” within the conciliar structures is fundamentally flawed because it is built upon the foundation of the Novus Ordo Missae, a rite that, by its very structure and ambiguity, undermines the Catholic doctrine of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice. The “Eucharist” distributed in these structures is often received by those in a state of mortal sin, without proper disposition, and in a manner that fosters sacrilege. To speak of devotion to the Sacred Heart as “intrinsically Eucharistic” without explicitly condemning the sacrilegious “communions” perpetrated in the New Mass is a profound disservice to the faithful and a tacit endorsement of the conciliar liturgical revolution. The true Eucharist, the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, is the source and summit of Catholic life, but it can only be truly honored and received worthily within the context of the true Church and the true Mass.
Conclusion: A Call to True Reparation and Recognition of Christ the King
Mr. Rhoades’s commentary, despite its use of traditional Catholic terminology and its apparent promotion of devotion to the Sacred Heart, is a prime example of how modernist thought co-opts and distorts authentic Catholic practices. By framing the consecration within the conciliar “spirit of the Gospel,” invoking the authority of manifest heretics, employing naturalistic humanist language, omitting the explicit demand for Christ’s social kingship, subtly promoting ecumenical indifferentism, and linking devotion to a suspect “Eucharistic Revival” built on the New Mass, the commentary reveals its true nature: a tool of the conciliar revolution, designed to further the apostasy and lead souls away from the immutable truths of the Catholic faith.
True devotion to the Sacred Heart, as taught by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, is inseparable from the recognition of Christ’s social kingship, the necessity of the True Mass, the sacramental life within the one true Church, and the explicit rejection of all forms of Modernism. It demands not merely personal piety but a complete reordering of individual, family, and national life according to God’s law. The faithful must reject the modernist distortions of Mr. Rhoades and the entire conciliar sect, and instead, cling to the unchanging Tradition of the Church, recognizing that true peace and order can only be found in the explicit and public acknowledgment of Christ the King over all nations and every aspect of human existence. Only then can true reparation be made, and the Sacred Heart of Jesus be truly honored.
Source:
Bishop Rhoades on Reviving Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus (ncregister.com)
Date: 05.06.2026