How does Leo compare to John Paul II? Could Pius XI's "problematic" Social Justice terminology "lead to a Rousseau-like "Forced to be Free" State? ? Did John Paul II correct Leo XIII's encyclical with ambiguous Lockean rights language while adopting non-Thomistic Kantian-like ideas?

Pope Leo praises Francis’ Amoris Laetitia, asks for ‘courage to persevere on this path’

---

'Amoris Laetitia offers valuable teachings that we must continue to examine today,' Pope Leo wrote in a message celebrating the tenth anniversary of the document.

Pope Leo XIVFranco Origlia/Getty Images

[https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-leo-praises-francis-amoris-laetitia-asks-for-courage-to-persevere-on-this-path/]

Google AI: 

Feature	Pope John Paul II	Pope Leo XIV
Primary Document	Familiaris Consortio (1981), Paragraph 84	Amoris Laetitia (2016) via 2026 Endorsement
Core Stance	Strictly barred from Holy Communion unless living in complete continence.	Permitted in certain cases following pastoral accompaniment and discernment.

Fr. Le Floch, superior of the French Seminary in Rome, announced in 1926:

The heresy which is now being born will become the most dangerous of all; the exaggeration of the respect due to the pope and the illegitimate extension of his infallibility."

One of his students was none other than the future, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. [https://sspx.org/en/clear-ideas-popes-infallible-magisterium-30434]

Douglas Kries, a professor of philosophy at Gonzaga University, gave an important overview of how the prominent political philosopher Fr. Ernest Fortin examined Pope John Paul II's 1991 encyclical which apparently corrected Pope Leo XIII's ambiguous Lockean rights language. But he says that John Paul unfortunately seemingly fall into confused ambiguities and adopted "nonteleological personalism... [which was] something like Kantian human rights": 

The confused scholars... are Taparelli d'Azegolio and Matteo Liberatore, who, lacking familiarity with medieval theories of property, unwittingly adopted the position of John Locke... Because the authors of the encyclical had relied, according to Fortin, upon Locke, he mentions Locke in his thesis statement in the essay itself. However, he turns back to Hobbes...

... Fortin again quotes chapter 14 of Rerum Novarum and argues, quote, "What distinguishes the new notions from the old is not the understanding of rights as powers, but the concentration on rights rather than duties, or law as absolute moral phenomenon." He continues, "I do not wish to imply that Hobbes' view of morality is the one that Rerum Novarum is trying to pass off as authentic Catholic doctrine", but it certainly seems that is exactly what Fortin is doing... 

... Fortin comments that with communism collapsing, John Paul gently resolved the excesses of Rerum Novarum, at least in respect to sacred and inviolable rights of property... But the basic problem with Fortin's interpretation is that the 1991 encyclical abandons Thomism and any other form of theological thought in favor of nonteleogical personalism. John Paul winds up with something like Kantian human rights and suggests the gist as Leo's letter seemed unwittingly to follow the times rather than address from a higher standpoint, so does John Paul. Why is one led by Fortin to wonder, cannot the Church herself get clear on where her allegiances lie? (Leo Strauss and his Catholic Readers, Pages 131-132)

Prayer and social justice are inseparable, Pope tells ...

23 hours ago

Prayer, social justice are inseparable, pope tells the Society of St. Vincent de Paul - Detroit Catholic

Detroit Catholic

6 hours ago — St. Vincent de Paul (1581-1660) “demonstrated that prayer and social justice are not merely complementary but are in fact inseparable.”

Moreover, Fr. Fortin shows that the first pope to use the "problematic" ambiguous term "social justice" was Pope Pius XI. He was also sadly the pope of the Cristero "Mexican Massacre" and "fell under the influence of the progressives" according Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre. 

Fortin suggests that this term came in some sense from Jean-Jacques Rousseau who said we will be "forced to be free" by the state:

The notion of social justice is itself problematic for a variety of reasons, not the least troublesome of which is that no one has yet to be able to find it with any degree of precision. The first author to use the term is thought to be the Roman Catholic theologian Taparelli d' Azeglio, who devoted a chapter in his theological essay on natural rights, based on facts.... The oddity of this in this instance is that Taparelli himself showed no awareness of the novelty of the expression and seemed to have assumed that its meaning was self-evident, something which could hardly have happened if the complex ideas associated had not already been part of the intellectual landscape of that period... 

... The question was taken up by numerous theologians and social theorists, including the members of the Freiburg Union, whose discussion over a ten years period in 1980 supplied the background for Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum, to which the three hitherto known forms of justice, legal, distributive, and commutative, did social justice correspond, or if it did not correspond to any of them, in what way was it different? The opinions were different, so scholars opted for legal justice and other distributive justice, but not without some hesitations, since the use of the adjective social to qualify a virtue that is preeminent social, to begin with, evoke a different set of connotations. The hesitation were fully justified. As nearly as I can make out, social justice, encountered distinction to either legal or distributive justice, does not refer to any special disposition of the soul, and hence cannot properly be regarded as a virtue. Its subject is not the individual being, but a mysterious society named "X", which is said to be unintentionally responsible for the conditions of its members, and in particular for the lot of the poor among them. It makes complete sense only in the context of the new political theories of the seventeenth century, and the thrust of which was to shift the focus of attention from virtue or social character to the reordering of our social structures in such a way as to ensure the security and freedom of the atomic individuals who chose to enter society and accept and remain in it for that reason and that reason alone. As such, it is at peace with the modern rights theory, which is concerned only with the perfection of the social order, as distinguished from that of the individual. Yet it goes beyond the early modern view in that it seeks to equalize social conditions as much as possible, with an eye for guaranteeing the freedom of individuals to promote equity required for its exercise...

... Rousseau's egalitarian scheme and politics of compassion go hand in hand with it. It is thus best understood as part of an all-out endeavor to ground politics in something more fundamental than the desire for self-preservation, namely freedom, or in more recent parlance, the sacredness of the individual qua individual. Rousseau himself never used this expression, "social justice", but it is not unreasonable to think that he prepared the ground for it in his radical critique of civil society and his rearticulation of virtually all the fundamental problems in terms of the distinction between nature and history, as opposed to the classic distinction between body and soul...

... If society's and its action structures are the primary cause of corruption of human beings and the evil attendant upon it, they must be changed. Social reform takes precedence over personal reform. It constitutes the first and perhaps the most moral imperative: better institutions will give us better individuals, not vice versa. Under such circumstances, the premodern emphasis on education and moral character as true cause of happiness of both the individual and community would itself be laid in sight. The only true evil is social evil. As such sin is social sin. (Classical Christianity and the Political Order: Reflections on the Theologico-Political Problem by Ernest L. Fortin, Pages 233-235)

Notes: 

1. Google AI:

The political philosopher and theologian Father Ernest Fortin offered a profound critique of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political thought, specifically targeting the idea that an individual can be "forced to be free" by the state. Fortin approached Rousseau from a classical and Christian perspective, analyzing how Rousseau attempts to solve the problem of human suffering and "sinful" societal structures. [1, 2]

The Paradox of "Forced to be Free"

In The Social Contract, Rousseau famously argues that if a citizen refuses to obey the "General Will" (the collective moral and political will of the community), they must be compelled to do so by the body politic. Rousseau claims this coercion is not tyranny, but rather "forcing them to be free," because true freedom in civil society means overcoming one's selfish impulses to obey a moral law that you helped create. [1, 2, 3]

Fortin’s Critique: The State as a Substitute for Grace

Fortin’s critique dismantles this formulation by exposing Rousseau's underlying theology of society:

The Rejection of Original Sin: Rousseau famously argued that human beings are naturally good, but are corrupted by civilization, property, and unequal social systems—what you've termed "sinful structures". Fortin points out that by locating the source of evil entirely within external social institutions rather than internal human nature (the traditional Christian view of original sin), Rousseau shifts the burden of salvation. [1, 2]
The State as the Savior: Because Rousseau believes that bad social structures corrupt us, he concludes that perfectly engineered social structures can redeem us. Fortin argues that Rousseau effectively replaces divine grace with political engineering. The state takes on a pseudo-religious role: it becomes the mechanism that strips away individual egoism (amour-propre) to make humans virtuous. [1, 2]
The Totalitarian Danger: Fortin warns that when the state is tasked with "forcing men to be free" and curing them of their structural corruption, it claims absolute moral authority. Since there is no higher transcendent standard (like God or an immutable natural law) to appeal to outside of the General Will, the state's use of force becomes total. [1, 2]

Ultimately, Fortin’s critique highlights that Rousseau's attempt to liberate humanity from "sinful structures" via the state requires an oppressive level of civic conformity, turning political life into a substitute religion where the government assumes the power to force compliance in the name of your own spiritual and moral freedom. [1, 2]

Ernest Fortin's critique highlights a fundamental structural tension within Catholic social doctrine. While Pope Pius XI explicitly formulated the principle of subsidiarity in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno to guard against the encroaching power of the modern, centralized state, Fortin argued that the simultaneous introduction and prioritization of "social justice" inevitably subverts that very defense. [1, 2, 3]

Ernest Fortin's critique highlights a fundamental structural tension within Catholic social doctrine. While Pope Pius XI explicitly formulated the principle of subsidiarity in his 1931 encyclical Quadragesimo Anno to guard against the encroaching power of the modern, centralized state, Fortin argued that the simultaneous introduction and prioritization of "social justice" inevitably subverts that very defense. [1, 2, 3]

Fortin's argument centers on two competing structural dynamics:

1. The Defensive Goal of Subsidiarity

Pius XI introduced subsidiarity to ensure that higher order associations (specifically the state) do not absorb, destroy, or substitute the functions of smaller, local communities—such as families, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations. Subsidiarity assumes a healthy, organic hierarchy where the grassroots level retains its agency and responsibility. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. The Centralizing Logic of "Social Justice"

Fortin pointed out that "social justice"—unlike classical Aristotelian or Thomistic definitions of justice—is framed around systemic rectifications of economic and material imbalances across an entire society. Because systemic imbalances like wealth inequality, labor exploitation, and macroeconomic instability are macro-level problems, they inherently require a macro-level authority to diagnose and fix them. [1, 2, 3]

Why Social Justice Overpowers Subsidiarity

According to Fortin, when the Church demands the realization of "social justice," it creates an actionable mandate that local and intermediary communities are structurally incapable of fulfilling on their own.

The Necessity of Central Power: To redistribute resources, mandate just wages, or regulate complex industrial markets, the state must expand its regulatory, administrative, and bureaucratic apparatus.
The Subversion of Local Control: Even if the state wants to respect subsidiarity, the operational logic of enforcing standardized, society-wide equity forces the central government to intervene deeply into the life of local entities. [1]

Consequently, Fortin concluded that the two concepts pull in opposite directions. The sweeping, modern moral demands of social justice require a massive state machinery that ultimately swallows up or heavily regulates the very local communities subsidiarity was designed to protect.

Fortin's argument centers on two competing structural dynamics:

1. The Defensive Goal of Subsidiarity

Pius XI introduced subsidiarity to ensure that higher order associations (specifically the state) do not absorb, destroy, or substitute the functions of smaller, local communities—such as families, neighborhoods, and voluntary associations. Subsidiarity assumes a healthy, organic hierarchy where the grassroots level retains its agency and responsibility. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. The Centralizing Logic of "Social Justice"

Fortin pointed out that "social justice"—unlike classical Aristotelian or Thomistic definitions of justice—is framed around systemic rectifications of economic and material imbalances across an entire society. Because systemic imbalances like wealth inequality, labor exploitation, and macroeconomic instability are macro-level problems, they inherently require a macro-level authority to diagnose and fix them. [1, 2, 3]

Why Social Justice Overpowers Subsidiarity

According to Fortin, when the Church demands the realization of "social justice," it creates an actionable mandate that local and intermediary communities are structurally incapable of fulfilling on their own.

The Necessity of Central Power: To redistribute resources, mandate just wages, or regulate complex industrial markets, the state must expand its regulatory, administrative, and bureaucratic apparatus.
The Subversion of Local Control: Even if the state wants to respect subsidiarity, the operational logic of enforcing standardized, society-wide equity forces the central government to intervene deeply into the life of local entities. [1]

Consequently, Fortin concluded that the two concepts pull in opposite directions. The sweeping, modern moral demands of social justice require a massive state machinery that ultimately swallows up or heavily regulates the very local communities subsidiarity was designed to protect.

Father Ernest Fortin extended his core philosophical critique—that modern political thought attempts to substitute the state for divine grace—into the realm of Catholic Social Teaching (CST), specifically targeting the evolution of "social justice" from Pope Pius XI's 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno. [1]

While Fortin respected the Popes' intentions, he argued that by trying to solve modern economic problems, CST inadvertently absorbed the flawed, structuralist premises of Enlightenment liberalism. [1]

1. The Shift from Personal Virtue to Structural Reform

In classical Thomism (the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas), justice is a personal virtue—a habit of the human soul aimed at giving others their due. Fortin pointed out that when Pius XI formalized "social justice," the subject of justice shifted from the individual person to social institutions. [1, 2]

Fortin argued this change mimics Rousseau’s error: it implies that human suffering and moral failures are primarily problems of bad institutional design rather than the result of fallen human nature (Original Sin).

2. The Illusion of Structural Salvation

By making "sinful structures" the primary target of social justice, Fortin believed that the Church risked endorsing a subtle form of political utopianism:

• The Classical View: Real change requires an internal transformation of the heart via divine grace and the practice of personal virtue.
• The Modern/Structural View: Real change requires restructuring society, redistributing wealth, and reorganizing institutions. [1, 2]

Fortin warned that if you tell people that justice is achieved by fixing external structures, they will inevitably look to the entity that controls those structures: the State.

3. The State as a Pseudo-Savior

Pius XI introduced the principle of subsidiarity to prevent the state from swallowing up local communities. However, Fortin argued that the practical logic of "social justice" overpowers subsidiarity. [1, 2]

Because large-scale economic and social structures can only be reformed by a power with massive regulatory reach, the state becomes the necessary instrument to enforce social justice. Consequently, the state acts as a substitute for grace. Instead of grace transforming the human heart to willingly care for the poor out of charity, the state uses its legal and bureaucratic mechanisms to legislate a just outcome. [1, 2]

The Ultimate Danger: Secularization of the Gospel

Fortin’s critique concludes that when the Church frames its mission around structural "social justice," it risks lowering its horizon from the transcendent (salvation, heaven, grace) to the immanent (politics, economics, social welfare). The danger is that Christianity becomes just another ideology of political management, and the state becomes the ultimate arbiter of moral life. [1, 2]

Father Ernest L. Fortin offered a profound political and theological critique of how contemporary thought—particularly modern Catholic social teaching and American bishops—conflates charity towards the poor with "social justice." As an Augustinian and Thomistic scholar, Fortin argued that this conflation represents a radical departure from the classical Christian heritage, shifting the focus from personal soul-transformation to impersonal structural engineering. [1, 2]

His critique centers on several key arguments:

1. Social Justice is Not a Personal Virtue

Fortin famously and dryly observed that, unlike classical concepts of justice (legal, commutative, or distributive), social justice does not refer to a specific disposition of the soul and thus cannot properly be regarded as an individual virtue. He noted that its target is not the individual moral agent, but an abstract entity—a "mysterious society named 'X'"—making it a structural or ideological marker rather than a path to personal holiness. [1, 2, 3]

2. The Erosion of Free and Meritorious Charity

In the classical Thomistic tradition, justice gives what is legally or naturally owed, while charity is a free gift motivated by the love of God. By rebranding what should be voluntary acts of mercy, hospitality, and almsgiving as strict claims of "social justice," modern thinkers convert acts of love into systemic entitlements. Fortin argued that when charity is reduced to justice, the spiritual merit of the giver and the relational bond between the donor and recipient are stripped away, replacing a human relationship with bureaucratic distribution. [1, 2, 3]

3. Substituting Systemic Activism for Spiritual Conversion

Fortin was deeply critical of the tendency to view social problems as structural defects that can be solved entirely through progressive policy, welfare states, or economic re-engineering. He maintained that the core of Christian education and living requires a "root and branch change" of the human heart. Conflating charity with social justice tempts individuals to believe they can fulfill their moral obligations to the poor through political activism or state-mandated social security, rather than enduring the personal, demanding conversion of their own souls. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Summary Comparison of Traditional Virtue vs. Modern "Social Justice"

Metric	Classical Christian Charity / Virtue	Modern Conflated "Social Justice"
Primary Actor	The individual moral agent / soul	The state, structures, or society "X"
Nature of Action	Free, unowed gift rooted in love for God	Mandated entitlement or structural restructuring
Core Requirement	Inner conversion and personal virtue	Institutional reform and policy adjustment

Father Ernest Fortin’s critique of the American Catholic Bishops’ famous 1986 pastoral letter, Economic Justice for All (available on Walmart), stands as one of the most intellectually rigorous conservative assessments of modern Catholic social activism. Writing as a political philosopher and theologian, Fortin argued that the bishops had unwittingly traded the deep, demanding truths of the Christian tradition for the superficial language of modern secular liberalism and bureaucratic statism. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]

His specific critiques of the pastoral letter can be broken down into four core arguments:

1. Conflating Moral Teaching with Technical Policy Expertise

Fortin argued that the bishops overstepped their ecclesiastical competence by attempting to act as economic technicians rather than spiritual shepherds. [1, 2]

• The Issue: The pastoral letter spent over half its length advancing highly specific policy recommendations—such as precise changes to the tax code, adjustments to welfare systems, minimum wage hikes, and government job programs. [1, 2]
• Fortin's Critique: Fortin pointed out that while the bishops claimed to separate binding moral principles from "prudential policy judgments" about which Catholics could disagree, the structure of the document obscured this distinction. By embedding partisan, New Deal-style liberal economic policies directly into a document asserting pastoral authority, they risk tricking the faithful into believing that supporting a specific welfare state model is a strict requirement of Christian orthodoxy. [1, 2, 3, 4]

2. Treating Cultural Transformation as an Engineering Problem

Fortin was deeply struck by how the bishops envisioned fixing a broken culture. [1]

• The Issue: The bishops wrote that both "cultural values and our tax structures need to be revised to discourage excessively high levels of consumption." [1]
• Fortin's Critique: Fortin dryly countered that a nation does not reform its cultural values or customs the way it revises its tax codes. He argued that the bishops treated deep-seated moral pathologies (such as greed, materialism, or family breakdown) as structural engineering problems that could be managed away by the state, rather than spiritual failures requiring authentic conversion of the soul. [1, 2]

3. Subordinating Personal Virtue to Government Action

While the bishops paid lip service to traditional works of mercy, they ultimately sidelined them. [1]

• The Issue: The pastoral letter noted that while voluntary acts like almsgiving, sharing possessions, and hospitality offer relief, they do not "uproot the causes of injustice". According to the bishops, those causes can only be truly dismantled "through government and the political process."
• Fortin's Critique: Fortin saw this as a radical and dangerous reversal of Christian moral theology. By implying that only public policy and state action can truly attack the root of society's problems, the bishops subtly stripped the Christian life of its personal moral agency. For Fortin, reducing systemic poverty to a structural defect of the state absolves individuals from the hard, localized, relational duties of charity, replacing the virtue of love with the mechanics of state compliance. [1]

4. The Naive Adoption of Modern "Rights" Language

Fortin, a scholar of classical political philosophy, was highly skeptical of the modern human rights framework, which he believed was fundamentally incompatible with classical Christian theology.

• The Issue: The bishops heavily leaned on the concept of "economic rights" (e.g., a right to a job, housing, and income) as moral imperatives.
• Fortin's Critique: Fortin argued that modern "rights" language is inherently individualistic, self-assertive, and adversarial—born out of Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, not the Gospel. By framing the needs of the poor as absolute "rights" to be claimed against society, the bishops shifted the focus from a Christian’s duty to love and serve, to an individual's claim to demand and consume. This, Fortin believed, fueled the exact type of litigious, entitlement-driven culture that erodes true community. [1, 2]

2. "Pius XI used to recommend the study of Taparelli’s works in conversations with his friends and colleague." [https://isi.org/the-origins-of-social-justice/]

3. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton was the editor of the American Ecclesiastical Review, served as a peritus for Cardinal Ottaviani at the Second Vatican Council and secretary of the Catholic Theological Society of America. Monsignor Fenton is quoted from his diaries by author David A. Wemhoff in his book, "John Courtney Murray, Time/Life and the American Proposition: How the CIA's Doctrinal Warfare Program Changed the Catholic Church" saying that Pope Pius XII and Pope Pius XI apparently held some questionable "opinions as a personal theologian[s]":

"As far as I can make out at the moment, the contentions of Lieber are true, even if his statements, as I explained in note, are scandalous as a betrayal of trust. Apparently, the Pope, as a private theologian, does approve of Murray, or at least is not unsympathetic with him. But this is not a doctrine which he attempts to teach or support, even in his capacity as a private theologian. On the other hand, the one authoritative statement which has come from him has upheld the Ottaviani thesis. There is a parallel in the case of Pius XI. According to Yele, an old rector, the old man held some weird opinions as a personal theologian. The Pius XII case seems to be a case in which the divine protection of Catholic doctrine has become, for all intents and purposes, visible." (Pages 461-462 from Fenton Disries, "Entry June 12, 1954, "Ninth Trip to Rome." 112-116)

4. Google AI: The debate over "structures of sin" highlights a major shift in how the modern papacy connects individual morality to global systems. Pope John Paul II used structural language but strictly tethered it to individual accountability to avoid the pitfalls of collective guilt. In contrast, Pope Francis expanded structural sin into a broader, prophetic critique that moves away from tight, bounded definitions of personal culpability. [1, 2, 3]

The theological differences in their approaches break down into a few key areas:

1. The Theological Source: Personal vs. Prophetic

• John Paul II (Strictly Subordinate): In his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (On Social Concern), John Paul II introduced the phrase "structures of sin." However, he explicitly stated that these structures are "the expression and effect of personal sins." He insisted that a structure cannot sin, feel guilt, or seek forgiveness on its own. For him, systems are merely mirrors of the human heart. [1, 2, 3]
• Pope Francis (Prophetic and Multivalent): Influenced by Argentine Theology of the People, Francis treats structural sin not just as a byproduct of individual choices, but as an independent, toxic environment. In encyclicals like Fratelli Tutti and Laudato Si’, structures—like the global financial system or consumer culture—act as forces that actively shape, trap, and corrupt human behavior. [1, 2, 3]

2. Defining Culpability: Bounded vs. Global Solidarity

To prevent the very thing Ernest Fortin critiqued—blaming an abstract "Society X" instead of oneself—John Paul II and Pope Francis drew very different lines regarding who is actually to blame:

Attribute	Pope John Paul II	Pope Francis
Root Cause of Structural Sin	Specific personal sins, mainly the "all-consuming desire for profit" and the "thirst for power."	Pervasive, global ideologies like the "throwaway culture" and technocratic capitalism.
Who is Responsible?	Bounded Culpability: Only those who introduce, strongly support, or fail to modify the structures when they have the direct power to do so.	Universal Complicity: Anyone who benefits from, participates in, or silently tolerates an unjust global economy.
The Nature of Guilt	Legal and moral precision; firmly rooted in individual human actions.	Diffuse and collective; an ongoing state of social and ecological blindness.

3. The Path to Restoration: Sacramental vs. Social Conversion

• John Paul II (The Confessional): Because John Paul II believed structures are rooted in specific personal choices, the primary remedy is traditional: individual moral conversion and the Sacrament of Reconciliation. If you want to fix an unjust system, you must first convert the individual hearts of the people running it.
• Pope Francis (Structural Disruption): Francis places a heavy emphasis on social and political action. While personal conversion matters to him, he argues that waiting for every individual heart to change takes too long while the poor suffer. He calls for immediate structural disruption—changing laws, changing economic policies, and dismantling exploitative institutions alongside spiritual renewal. [1]

Critics who echo Fortin's original concerns often argue that Francis's broad application of structural sin risks watering down personal accountability. If everyone is guilty of a global structural sin (like climate change or systemic poverty), then no single person feels the distinct, urgent weight of their own faults. [1, 2]

5.

The Catholic Monitor

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com › 2026/08 › abp-lef...

Abp Lefebvre on Mexican Massacre because of the Cristeros' "Rash Obedience" to "Pope Pius XI...influence[d]...[by] Progressives": "[S]alvation of souls—over ...Read more

Abp Lefebvre on Mexican Massacre because of the Cristeros' "Rash Obedience" to "Pope Pius XI...influence[d]...[by] Progressives": "[S]alvation of souls—over blind submission"

Mexico, 1931: The Vatican and the “just war”

Is it right for a Christian to take up arms against a government that persecutes the Church? Two years before the end of the Cristera War in Mexico, Cardinals Pacelli, Gasparri, and Boggiani discussed the subject at the Secretary of State

[...]

Thus we can count the laying down of arms against their will, in the spirit of obedience toward the bishops and the Holy See, as one of the numerous heroic acts committed in nearly three years of war. It was a sacrifice that was followed by hundreds of Cristeros (mostly leaders) being assassinated in many episodes of score-settling after the arreglos, in the face of indifference on the part of the government, which in June 1929 was required to guarantee safe conduct to all militants who had laid down their arms.

It is not surprising, therefore, that large sections of the Mexican Catholic Church felt somehow betrayed by the hierarchy, guilty of what appeared to be in effect a surrender to a state which Pius XI, in February of 1932, did not hesitate to define as “totally enslaved to Freemasonry.” [https://www.lastampa.it/vatican-insider/en/2011/12/19/news/mexico-1931-the-vatican-and-the-just-war-1.36914543/]

"Aquinas, and the whole theological tradition insist that laws which harm the common good should not be obeyed." - Rash Obedience: a Virtue in a time of Crisis, Joseph Shaw, PhD [https://onepeterfive.com/obedience-disobedience-rash/]

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in a 1982 conference gave a summation of the Catholic Mexican disaster that happened apparently because of the Cristeros' "Rash Obedience" to "Pope Pius XI himself fell under the influence of the progressives":

"Pope Pius XI [who] himself fell under the influence of the progressives who were already present in Rome. For we see a distinct difference from the Popes before and after. But nevertheless Pope Pius XI at the same time wrote some magnificent encyclicals. He was not a liberal. “Divini Redemptoris,” his encyclical against Communism was magnificent. So also was his encyclical on Christ the King, which established the feast of Christ The King and proclaimed the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. His encyclical on Christian Education is absolutely admirable and remains today a fundamental document for those who defend Catholic schools."

"If on the level of doctrine Pope Pius XI was an admirable man, he was weak in the order of practical action. He was easily influenced. It is thus that he was very strongly influenced at the time of the Mexican Civil War and gave the Cristeros, who were in the process of defending the Catholic religion and fighting for Christ the King, the order to have confidence in the government and to put down their arms. As soon as they had put down their arms they were all massacred. This horrifying massacre is still remembered today in Mexico. Pope Pius XI placed confidence in the government who deceived him. Afterwards, he was visibly very upset. He could not imagine how a government, which had promised to treat with honor those who defended their Faith, could have then gone on to massacre them. Thus thousands of Mexicans were killed on account of their Faith." (Christian Order June-July 2023, page 42)

Pray an Our Father now for reparation for the sins committed because of Francis’s Amoris Laetitia and for the restoration of the Church.

Stop for a moment of silence, ask Jesus Christ what He wants you to do now and next. In this silence remember God, Father, Son and Holy Ghost – Three Divine Persons yet One God, has an ordered universe where you can know truth and falsehood as well as never forget that He wants you to have eternal happiness with Him as his son or daughter by grace. Make this a practice. By doing this you are doing more good than reading anything here or anywhere else on the Internet.

The Catholic Monitor

The Catholic Monitor

https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com

I ask all The Catholic Monitor readers to also pray for the end of this war. Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTube: ...Read more Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To Get Iran War Offramp! w/ Scott Ritter" on YouTubeFranklin & Graham calls on Christians to pray for 'end to the bloodshed' ahead of Trump-Putin summit...7mo

Please Pray for Trump to end the Iran War: Watch "Trump Calls Putin To ... Daily news from a Catholic perspective on issues relating to current events in the Catholic Church, world politi...

Conclave Notes:

Has the Trad Media fallen into a COVID-like mass formation with Leo XVI? While it's humorous to see the former anti-Francis Trad pundits suddenly acting like teen age girls infatuated with Leo, it could lead to a Trojan Horse effect

It appears that a group of Bishops or Cardinals needs to give Leo XIV Dubia questions on if he still supports "Invalid and Sacrilegious" Confession

"Prevost’s reported support...allowing divorced & civilly 'remarried'...to receive Holy Communion": “Whoever…helps...promulgation of heresy…is suspected of heresy.” - The Catholic Monitor

-- Open letter urges Pope Leo XIV to correct ‘scandalous incoherence’ in Amoris Laetitia...[Wow! Even notorious Popesplainer Fr.] Harrison warns that Pope Francis taught a ‘dangerous self-contradiction’ on Communion for the divorced and ‘remarried,’ petitioning Pope Leo to correct the record. [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/08/open-letter-urges-pope-leo-xiv-to.html]

--  Dr. Seifert, regarded as one of the greatest living Catholic philosophers, founding Rector of the International Academy of Philosopher & friend of John Paul II, to Cardinals: INVESTIGATE FRANCIS' HERESIES, VALIDITY BEFORE THE CONCLAVE.."If Francis is found guilty of heresy or apostasy, then: - His cardinal appointments would be invalid" [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/dr-seifert-philosopher-personal-friend.html] 

-- Are the Cardinals who will participate in the upcoming conclave authentically appointed & morally justified in voting, or will the shadow of Francis's possible illegitimacy cast itself over the next papacy?  [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2025/04/are-cardinals-who-will-participate-in.html]

-- 5 Dubia Questions for 1P5's Steve Skojec & All faithful Catholics especially Francis is definitely Pope Cardinals, Bishops & pundits [https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/06/5-dubia-questions-for-steve-skojec.html]

Francis Notes:

l– Doctor of the Church St. Francis de Sales totally confirmed beyond any doubt the possibility of a heretical pope and what must be done by the Church in such a situation:

“[T]he Pope… WHEN he is EXPLICITLY a heretic, he falls ipso facto from his dignity and out of the Church, and the Church MUST either deprive him, or, as some say, declare him deprived, of his Apostolic See.”
(The Catholic Controversy, by St. Francis de Sales, Pages 305-306)

Saint Robert Bellarmine, also, said “the Pope heretic is not deposed ipso facto, but must be declared deposed by the Church.”
[https://archive.org/stream/SilveiraImplicationsOfNewMissaeAndHereticPopes/Silveira%20Implications%20of%20New%20Missae%20and%20Heretic%20Popes_djvu.txt]

– “If Francis is a Heretic, What should Canonically happen to him?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2020/12/if-francis-is-heretic-what-should.html

– “Could Francis be a Antipope even though the Majority of Cardinals claim he is Pope?”: http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2019/03/could-francis-be-antipope-even-though.html

– If Francis betrays Benedict XVI & the”Roman Rite Communities” like he betrayed the Chinese Catholics we must respond like St. Athanasius, the Saintly English Bishop Robert Grosseteste & “Eminent Canonists and Theologians” by “Resist[ing]” him: https://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/12/if-francis-betrays-benedict-xvi.html 

 –  LifeSiteNews, “Confusion explodes as Pope Francis throws magisterial weight behind communion for adulterers,” December 4, 2017:

The AAS guidelines explicitly allows “sexually active adulterous couples facing ‘complex circumstances’ to ‘access the sacraments of Reconciliation and the Eucharist.'”

–  On February 2018, in Rorate Caeli, Catholic theologian Dr. John Lamont:

“The AAS statement… establishes that Pope Francis in Amoris Laetitia has affirmed propositions that are heretical in the strict sense.”

– On December 2, 2017, Bishop Rene Gracida:

“Francis’ heterodoxy is now official. He has published his letter to the Argentina bishops in Acta Apostlica Series making those letters magisterial documents.”

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church by the bishops by the grace of God.

Election Notes: 

– Intel Cryptanalyst-Mathematician on Biden Steal: “212Million Registered Voters & 66.2% Voting,140.344 M Voted…Trump got 74 M, that leaves only 66.344 M for Biden” [http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/intel-cryptanalyst-mathematician-on.html?m=1]

– Will US be Venezuela?: Ex-CIA Official told Epoch Times “Chávez started to Focus on [Smartmatic] Voting Machines to Ensure Victory as early as 2003”: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2020/12/will-us-be-venezuela-ex-cia-official.html

– Tucker Carlson’s Conservatism Inc. Biden Steal Betrayal is explained by “One of the Greatest Columns ever Written” according to Rush: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/tucker-carlsons-conservatism-inc-biden.html?m=1

– A Hour which will Live in Infamy: 10:01pm November 3, 2020:
http://www.thecatholicmonitor.com/2021/01/a-hour-which-will-live-in-infamy-1001pm.html?m=1

What is needed right now to save America from those who would destroy our God given rights is to pray at home or in church and if called to even go to outdoor prayer rallies in every town and city across the United States for God to pour out His grace on our country to save us from those who would use a Reichstag Fire-like incident to destroy our civil liberties. [Is the [J6] DC Capitol Incident Comparable to the Nazi Reichstag Fire Incident where the German People Lost their Civil Liberties?: http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/is-dc-capital-incident-comparable-to.html?m=1 and Epoch Times Show Crossroads on Capitol Incident: “Anitfa ‘Agent Provocateurs‘”:
http://catholicmonitor.blogspot.com/2021/01/epoch-times-show-crossroads-on-capital.html?m=1] 

Pray an Our Father now for the grace to know God’s Will and to do it.

Pray an Our Father now for America.

Pray an Our Father now for the restoration of the Church as well as the Triumph of the Kingdom of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.