VaticanNews portal (June 20, 2026) publishes a commentary by Maurizio Martina, FAO Deputy Director-General, on the encyclical *Magnifica Humanitas* by the antipope Leo XIV. The article presents the document as a universal moral appeal transcending “confessional boundaries,” addressing artificial intelligence, climate change, multilateralism, and the “grammar of we.” What emerges is not Catholic teaching but a naturalistic humanitarianism indistinguishable from secular globalism — the very spirit condemned by every Pope from Pius IX to Pius XII.
The “Encyclical” as Instrument of the New World Order
The article opens by framing the crisis of multilateral institutions as a “moral impoverishment” and a “growing inability to recognize ourselves as participants in a shared human destiny.” This is the foundational heresy of Modernism: the reduction of the supernatural order to a horizontal, anthropocentric plane. Where is the recognition that the true crisis is apostasy from Christ the King? Where is the acknowledgment that the international order constructed after 1945 was itself built on the ruins of Christendom, deliberately excluding God from public life — the very “secularism” that Pius XI identified as the plague of the age in Quas Primas?
Pius XI taught with unmistakable clarity: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The entire multilateral system — the United Nations, the international legal framework, the humanitarian architecture — is precisely the product of this removal. It is the institutional embodiment of the error condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, Proposition 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.” The UN Charter does not acknowledge Christ the King. It does not recognize the Church as the one true society instituted by God. It is, in its very constitution, a structure of naturalism — and the antipope Leo XIV now claims to reform it from within.
The Rehabilitation of War and the Silence on the True Cause of War
Martina, echoing the antipope, speaks of the “progressive rehabilitation of war as an instrument of international politics” and warns of a “permanent belligerence” more insidious than the Cold War. The diagnosis is presented as though war were merely a failure of diplomacy, a breakdown of trust, a deficit of “shared political and moral will.” This is the language of naturalism — the same naturalism condemned in the Syllabus, Proposition 58: “No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.”
Where is the supernatural analysis? Where is the recognition that war is a punishment for sin, that peace is only possible through the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Social Reign of Christ the King? Pius XI declared: “The peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ.” There is no other peace. The “rehabilitation of war” is not a diplomatic failure — it is the inevitable consequence of the rejection of God’s law. As the Syllabus teaches in Proposition 63: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them” — and the entire modern international order is built upon this principle of rebellion against divine authority.
The article’s treatment of the war in Ukraine is particularly revealing. It is cited as an example of how conflict undermines food security in Africa and Asia. But where is the moral analysis? Where is the recognition that this war, like all modern wars, is the fruit of Masonic geopolitics — the same forces that the Syllabus identifies as the “synagogue of Satan”? The article reduces a spiritual catastrophe to a logistical problem of supply chains and humanitarian access. This is the abomination of desolation speaking through the structures occupying the Vatican.
“Disarming Artificial Intelligence” — The Technocratic Paradigm Unmasked
The article devotes considerable attention to the antipope’s call to “disarm AI” and develop “common ethical frameworks” for artificial intelligence governance. Martina presents this as a forward-looking, even prophetic contribution: “The rise of artificial intelligence represents precisely such a moment” where “the Church cannot remain silent.”
Let us be precise. The Church — the true Church, the Mystical Body of Christ — has never been silent on the question of technological development divorced from moral law. But the conciar sect is not the Church. The antipope Leo XIV is not the Roman Pontiff. His “encyclical” carries no more authority than any other document produced by the paramasonic structure that has occupied the Vatican since 1958.
Moreover, the call for “global governance” of AI is itself a manifestation of the technocratic paradigm — the very paradigm that the article claims to critique. The solution proposed is more of the same: more international institutions, more multilateral frameworks, more “shared responsibility” — all without any reference to the supernatural order, the sacramental life, or the authority of the true Church. This is the spirit of Proposition 80 of the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” The antipope does not condemn the technocratic paradigm — he baptizes it.
The “Grammar of We” Without Christ
The article’s central metaphor — “rebuilding the grammar of we” — is perhaps the most revealing expression of its theological bankruptcy. What is this “we”? A “we” that includes believers and “non-believers alike.” A “we” that “transcends ideological divisions and confessional boundaries.” A “we” grounded not in the unity of the Catholic faith but in “what is universal in the human conscience.”
This is the very definition of indifferentism — condemned in the Syllabus, Proposition 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” And Proposition 17: “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.” The “grammar of we” is the grammar of apostasy — the language of a church that has abandoned the extra Ecclesiam nulla salus in favor of a universal humanitarian fraternity.
St. Pius X, in Lamentabili, condemned Proposition 20: “Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God.” And Proposition 21: “The revelation which is the object of Catholic faith did not cease with the Apostles.” The “grammar of we” is precisely this: a continuing, evolving revelation that finds its content not in the deposit of faith but in the collective consciousness of humanity — the very “evolution of dogmas” that the Holy Office condemned in 1907.
The Universal Destination of Goods Without the Supernatural
The article invokes “the principle of the universal destination of goods as a foundational criterion of social justice.” This principle, drawn from authentic Catholic social teaching, is here stripped of its supernatural context and reduced to a program of global redistribution. The true teaching, as articulated by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and developed by subsequent pontiffs, is inseparable from the recognition of private property as a natural right, the duty of charity, and the subordination of economic life to the moral law.
But in the hands of the conciliar sect, the “universal destination of goods” becomes a slogan for global governance — a justification for international institutions to manage the world’s resources without reference to God’s law. This is the spirit of Proposition 4 of the Syllabus: “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil; it is law to itself.”
The Silence That Condemns
What is absent from this article is more damning than what is present. There is no mention of:
- The Social Reign of Christ the King over all nations and institutions
- The necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation
- The sacramental life as the true source of peace and justice
- The state of grace as the indispensable foundation of the moral life
- The final judgment and the eternal destiny of souls
- The authority of the true Magisterium — the pre-conciliar popes, the ecumenical councils, the Church Fathers
- The condemnation of Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies”
This silence is not accidental. It is the abomination of desolation — the systematic removal of supernatural truth from the public discourse of the structures occupying the Vatican. The antipope Leo XIV does not teach — he negotiates. He does not proclaim — he dialogues. He does not condemn — he accompanies. He is not the Vicar of Christ — he is the spokesperson of the world.
Conclusion: The Language of the Anti-Church
The article by Maurizio Martina is a faithful reflection of the spirit that animates the conciliar sect: a naturalistic humanitarianism that speaks the language of the world while claiming to speak for Christ. It addresses every “challenge of our age” — AI, climate change, multilateralism, migration — while remaining utterly silent on the only challenge that matters: the salvation of souls through the Catholic Church.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught: “The Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men… His reign 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.”
The “grammar of we” proposed by the antipope and his apologists is the grammar of a world that has expelled Christ from His own Kingdom. It is the language of the synagogue of Satan — and it is spoken with increasing fluency from the throne of Peter, now occupied not by the Vicar of Christ but by the antipope Leo XIV, the latest in a line of usurpers beginning with John XXIII.
The faithful must reject this counterfeit with the same firmness with which the Church has always rejected heresy. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. There is no “grammar of we” outside the Catholic Church. There is no peace outside the Kingdom of Christ. There is no hope outside the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Source:
Rebuilding the grammar of 'We' (vaticannews.va)
Date: 20.06.2026