The Holy Father’s Journey to Spain:
Avoiding All Polarisation

The Holy Father’s Journey to Spain: Avoiding All Polarisation

LEO XIV’s journey to Spain, from June 6 to 12, was distinguished by the intensity and variety of his visits. The Holy Father delivered twelve addresses and six homilies, together with several other interventions and two prayer vigils. His itinerary brought him into contact with a remarkably broad range of people: religious and political leaders, representatives of civil society and members of the diplomatic corps, but also the poor, prisoners and migrants. On the third day of his visit, he delivered a major address before the two chambers of the Cortes Generales, which was greeted with sustained applause.

The visit gave rise to considerable comment in Catholic circles. It was widely interpreted as a call to conversion and a return to Christianity’s roots in response to the challenges posed by secularisation. Writing in Le Figaro, Jean-Marie Guénois summed up this reaction as follows:

“This fourth apostolic journey has been a success (...). Leo XIV, a head of the Catholic Church, far more spiritual and moral than political or geopolitical, proceeds thus even though these categories are not mutually exclusive in the case of a Pope. Meanwhile, this renewed call to Christian ‘conversion’, issued once again from the Canary Islands, seems intended to touch Europe at its very heart. It is as though Leo XIV wished, from Spain, to awaken the Old Continent’s interior and religious dimension together with its forgotten Christian memory. Indeed, this pastoral ambition is characteristic of Leo XIV, a disciple of Saint Augustine, that great ‘convert’ for all time and a towering apostle.”

This assessment finds a ready echo in our own hearts! Let us therefore examine the matter more closely, without attempting an exhaustive survey.

ABANDONING DIVISIONS

The Holy Father’s first address was delivered before King Felipe VI and the civil authorities at the Royal Palace in Madrid on Saturday, June 6. It is profoundly disarming.

The opening is promising enough. Spain possesses an extraordinarily rich history, shaped by two millennia of Christian tradition inaugurated by the preaching of the Apostle Saint James. That long history has profoundly moulded “its culture”.

Yet the address passes over the great episodes of Spanish history altogether, whether the Reconquista, the country’s colonial and missionary expansion or the Spanish Nationalist victory of 1939. Instead, it focuses on another theme, one of the central ideas of the address, which became one of the principal themes of the journey and appears ever more clearly to be one of the defining features of his pontificate.

“I have come among you to confirm, encourage and inspire a renewed fidelity to the Gospel on the part of believers, together with a deeper reconciliation and cooperation among the different forces of this nation. Indeed, your own history suggests that a culture of encounter, not confrontation, is what fosters stability and prosperity.”

Such an assertion is astonishing. Fidelity to the Gospel cannot be reconciled with compromise with the enemies of the Faith and the history of Spain itself flatly contradicts such a claim. Later in the address, the Pope returns to the same idea, elevating it into a recommendation for all the nations of the old Christian world – or rather, of the “Old Continent”:

“Out of love for the truth, I invite everyone to abandon those narratives that divide and polarise your society and your history, in order to move beyond sterile simplifications towards a fruitful appreciation of complexity. (Out of love for the truth, divisive narratives must be abandoned!) I see in this a particular vocation of Europe, of which Spain is one of the founding and indispensable protagonists. It is the gift that the Old Continent can offer the world if it wishes to remain young, for truly young is the one who knows that he still has a future and a mission to fulfil. To appreciate complexity and study it, to learn neither to deny it nor to fear it but to live it as a blessing, to reject those identity-based approaches which appear to explain everything while populating the world with ghosts and enemies: such is the task of those who have a great history behind them.” One is left almost speechless. Are the enemies of the Faith nothing more than ghosts?!

Then, by an astonishingly anachronistic sleight of hand, the Pope betrays the facts and turns history on its head:

“The security that we so often hope to find in weapons and walls is instead attained by learning to walk alongside others and to grow together, side by side. Your own history bears witness to this. The presence of Islam in the Iberian Peninsula, for example, constituted a long-standing political, cultural and religious reality. During that period there were not only conflicts; there were also attempts to create spaces of encounter, conversation and dialogue concerning the meaning of truth among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Within the circle of translators gathered by Alfonso X, scholars collaborated in translating the rich Arabic, Greek, and Hebrew heritage, thereby contributing to the dissemination of texts, including those of the philosophers Averroes (1126–1198) and Maimonides (1138–1204).”

The Pope concludes his address by giving fresh expression to his Christian Democratic chimera, for which Córdoba and Toledo stand, in his view, as exemplary models:

“Cities such as Córdoba and Toledo became places of mediation between languages, religions and bodies of knowledge. Such is the truth manifested by Europe’s cities: their historical stratification and the fabric of solidarity which, over the centuries, has shaped their diversity, transforming inevitable conflicts into points of departure.”

AN ENCOUNTER WITH THE MODERN WORLD

The following day, Sunday, Pope Leo XIV met with figures from the worlds of culture, art, business and sport at the Movistar Arena in Madrid, an iconic venue with a capacity of 17,000. The meeting was preceded by several testimonials, notably that of the actor and singer Antonio Banderas, who described the Church as “the greatest producer of art in the entire history of humanity” – a rather worldly compliment that one could have done without.

In a relaxed atmosphere, the Pope sought to connect with his audience by drawing on what was familiar to them: culture, creativity and the development of society. He praised “this magnificent country”, where “it is impossible not to admire the mark of creativity that runs through its history and shapes its identity”, adding that it “reveals to us at every moment the intelligence and will that reside in the human soul”.

From there, he reflected on the kind of society we are building and argued that we must “learn to preserve the essence of what [society] creates”.

For a Catholic, society neither creates nor preserves its essence. This essence does not stem from culture, nor from history, nor even from man: it must come from God, the beginning and end of all things. “Seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness,” said Jesus, “and all these other things will be given to you as well.” First and foremost among these “other things” is eternal life, but it is also, even here on earth, a society ordered by grace, where virtues and peace flourish, enabling a Christian civilisation to blossom and giving rise to beautiful works of art and monuments. To encourage the preservation of the essence of this magnificent Spanish civilisation without putting God first is to fail to recognise what constitutes its true foundation.

The rest of the address confirms this shift. Keen to “remain in dialogue with the contemporary world”, the Pope does not take Revelation – which is meant to enlighten man – as his starting point, rather he begins with man himself, seeking to lead him to God through the immanentist method. He thus states: “The desire for goodness, beauty and truth is embedded in humanity’s DNA; and it is on the basis of this profoundly human aspiration and our age-old experience that the Church proposes paths towards a dignified life and the common good.”

Certainly, God created man with an intellect and a will ordered towards truth and goodness. But original sin has wounded these faculties. Man cannot attain his ultimate end through his natural aspirations alone. He needs grace, which he obtains only through submission to God.

The Pope adds: “The Church shares, with humility but also with firmness, what she has discovered through the experience of faith: that Jesus Christ provides the answers to the great questions concerning human life and its fulfilment, already in this world and until its fulfilment in eternity.”

This statement contains a theological error. The Church has not “discovered” the truths she teaches through religious experience. She has received them from God Himself, with a mission to teach them. The language of the “experience of faith” is characteristic of a theology influenced by Blondel and Karl Rahner, in which human experience tends to become the principle of faith, to the detriment of revealed truth.

The second part of this sentence reverses the words of Our Lord. It is no longer a question of seeking first the Kingdom of God, with the rest to be given in addition. It is a question of showing that God responds first to human aspirations in this life before fulfilling them fully in eternity.

The rest of the passage confirms this direction: “ ‘For this reason, the human person always remains ‘the way for the Church’ and the heart of every authentic path of integral human development” (Magnifica Humanitas, No. 50). She cannot, therefore, neglect the issue of culture, since it is through culture that man, as man, becomes more man, ‘is’ more, has more access to ‘being’ (cf. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, No. 554).”

If it is through himself and through culture that man ‘is’ more, then he is lost! But the Pope does not see it that way. According to him, there remains in every human being an imprint of the divine –human dignity – which he must rediscover. He will then understand how much God loves him.

“Our contribution to dialogue, based on a Christian vision of life, stems from the realisation that the Creator has woven the human being with threads of love; for he was created in the image and likeness of God, God Who is love (1 Jn 4:8). This is the foundation of inalienable human dignity, and absolute respect for this dignity is the basis of dialogue.”

According to the Pope, this conviction has always inspired the Church, and the recognition of her commitment to human dignity should disarm her enemies and lead them to greater sincerity and cooperation.

“An objective view reveals that men and women, moved by faith, have built hospitals and schools, begun initiatives of solidarity and spoken with a language that adorns people with dignity. For this reason we would do well to ask ourselves honestly if the world – and Europe in particular – would have forged its identity without that spiritual influence that has permeated its history. This is not meant to be provocative, but rather an invitation to consider whether eternity – which burst into time and space through the incarnation of Jesus Christ – can still be reconciled with everyday life.

“Is it really possible to believe that Europe – which we love so much – would be what it is without the imprint of faith? Why fear that eternity might permeate everyday life? The cry of my predecessors still rings out: ‘Do not be afraid! Open wide the doors to Christ!’ Jesus Christ takes nothing away from us and gives us everything.”

Beneath a measured and liberal façade, what a profound betrayal!

WHEN SPAIN WAS CHRISTIAN

After so many restrained remarks and so much cowardice, let us follow the historian Benoît Pellistrandi and admire the firmness of the Church in Spain in the major conflict that set Catholics and Communists against one another.

The Catholic Church was one of the pillars of Francoism. In return, the regime allowed the clergy to impose its moral order, until this alliance began to crumble in the 1960s.

On August 13, 1936, Cardinal Gomá, Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain, had written to Pope Pius XI that the military uprising was “providential”. A month and a half later, Bishop Plá y Deniel, then Bishop of Salamanca, published his pastoral letter The Two Cities, in which he explained that the struggle was “a crusade for religion, for the homeland and for civilisation”.

On July 1, 1937, forty-eight bishops published a Collective Letter in which they reviewed the country’s political and social life since the establishment of the Second Republic in 1931 and showed that the Church was “the principal victim” of the conflict. The anti-clerical violence which, between July and September 1936, had killed more than 6,000 religious, including 12 bishops, clearly revealed “that one of the belligerent parties sought the elimination of the Catholic religion in Spain” and that the Spanish Church had to support a political Catholicism hostile to any accommodation with liberalism and Marxism.

During the Civil War, invested with supernatural legitimacy, Franco did not hesitate to use religious symbols. In December 1937, at the Santa María de las Huelgas Monastery in Burgos, a ceremony founded the new National Catholic State and consecrated Franco as supreme leader, the Caudillo. A Te Deum was celebrated there, during which the Caudillo swore fidelity to Spain upon the Gospels. In 1939, after his victory, he offered his victor’s sword to the church of Santa Bárbara in Madrid, entering the building beneath the pallium normally reserved for kings and ecclesiastical authorities.

At the end of the war, a Catholic reconstruction followed the “victorious crusade”.

In the 1940s and 1950s, political and religious institutions established a strict moral order. The law of July 17, 1945 on primary education granted the Church not only the right to create her own schools, but above all “to supervise and inspect in public and private establishments all teaching relating to faith and morals”. It placed the rights of the Church after those of the family, but before those of the State, while ignoring the dignity of man. The catechism – both the one taught in schools and the one preached from the pulpit – insisted on submission to Franco’s legitimate authority, denounced the wickedness and immorality of secularism and advocated the strengthening of the family. Thus, the laws on civil marriage and divorce were abolished in 1941.

The clergy sought the restoration of Sunday rest, respect for religious feasts and attendance at Mass. They were assisted in these tasks by the civil authorities, essentially through a tax system exempting the Church from taxation. Cooperation between Church and State was perfect: baptismal and marriage registers served as civil records. The baptismal certificate became indispensable for certain activities (such as enrolling in school) and, in order to obtain it, one had to pay a fee to the Church.

Together with the Women’s Section of the Spanish Phalange, the Church also contributed to returning women to the sphere of the family home. Spanish women were encouraged to be faithful wives and good mothers. The country moreover maintained, for a long time, until the very end of the 1960s, a fertility rate of more than three children per woman. Naturally, legislation placed women under the guardianship of their husbands, admittedly in keeping with what was happening elsewhere in Europe, but this submission continued until after 1975.

This re-educational role of the Church reached its highest point in the prison system. By attending catechism classes in prison, inmates could obtain sentence reductions, subject to the chaplain’s approval of their moral conduct.

In 1940, Franco decided to build the Basilica of the Valle de los Caídos, the Valley of the Fallen. The Democratic Memory Law of October 2022 renamed this site Valle de Cuelgamuros, after the valley in which the building was constructed. The basilica was also intended to serve as an ossuary to “reconcile” the combatants. Inaugurated in 1959, it was granted the status of minor basilica by Pope John XXIII in 1960. The text, signed by Cardinal Tardini, praised the merits of the site and saw, in the immense cross rising one hundred and fifty metres, into the Guadarrama sky, “the sign of the purpose of earthly life” and “the pious arms which, like protective wings, watch over the dead who enjoy eternal rest”.

The construction site of the basilica was also a forced labour camp, intended to allow prisoners to redeem their sentences, at the rate of one day’s reduction in punishment for three days of labour. This building alone expressed the National Catholic ideology of Francoism. Of all the monuments of totalitarian regimes, it is the only edifice to borrow from another system – in this case Catholicism – its symbols and iconography.

In 1953, the signing of the Concordat between the Holy See and the Spanish State was a success for the regime both in domestic and foreign policy.

The Catholic religion was recognised there “as the only religion of the Spanish Nation”. The Church gained significant tax privileges, and her religious law had the force of civil law. The regime, for its part, consolidated its control over the institution through the right of presentation of bishops, a provision obtained by the Minister of Foreign Affairs Ramón Serrano Suñer as early as 1941. The government presented the Pope with three names for every episcopal appointment. Only the appointments of auxiliary bishops escaped this control. Paul VI would remember this when promoting the worst of them.

The signing of the Concordat coincided with that of bilateral agreements between Madrid and Washington. Spain emerged from the purgatory into which it had been cast by the nations that, in 1945, had refused it admission to the UN – admission which finally took place in 1955. The Concordat granted the Church considerable privileges while associating it with political power, which helped erase the memory of the Republic’s secularising policy.

Although, from the 1950s onwards, rebellious Catholic figures emerged, such as Vicente Enrique y Tarancón, appointed Bishop of Solsona (Lérida) in 1945 at the age of thirty-eight, the 1960s would mark the beginning of the Spanish Church’s majority dissent from Franco’s Catholic regime. The Second Vatican Council and the election of Paul VI in 1963 worsened relations between the Church and the Head of State. Thus, Bishop Tarancón, kept at the margins by Franco, was finally appointed Archbishop of Oviedo in 1964, then Archbishop of Toledo and Primate of Spain in 1969, at the same time as Pope Paul VI created him a cardinal. Taking advantage of the freedom the Vatican had to appoint apostolic administrators without the government’s consent, Paul VI made Bishop Tarancón the apostolic administrator of the Diocese of Madrid, then Archbishop of the Spanish capital in 1971. This was how Paul VI ignominiously destroyed this extraordinary Christendom. Since then, Rome has always persevered along this path, which the present Pope continues to follow.

THE SPEECH BEFORE THE SPANISH PARLIAMENT

Thus, on Monday, June 8, Leo XIV addressed the Cortes Generales assembled in plenary session, that is to say, the members of the Congress of Deputies and the Senate. In a thirty-minute speech, he essentially (once again) developed his reflection on the conception of the human person that should inspire laws and on the type of society that these laws help to build, before being applauded for seven minutes by the parliamentarians. It was a speech fully in line with the logic of post-conciliar doctrine and of the encyclical Magnifica Humanitas, which was very frequently quoted during this journey.

The opening sentences of the speech immediately raise serious reservations. The Pope presents himself “as Bishop of Rome and Pastor of the Catholic Church, aware that the mission entrusted to the Successor of the Apostle Peter, as the principle and foundation of the unity of bishops and the faithful (cf. Lumen Gentium 23), places the Holy See, in a particular way, in dialogue with peoples and States.”

In accordance with the teachings of the Second Vatican Council, the Pope considers himself above all as the guarantor of the unity of the Church, which is held to be an absolute value. He refrains from presenting himself as the Vicar of Jesus Christ and therefore as the supreme teacher of the Church. He defines his mission as that of a privileged interlocutor of peoples and States. His office no longer appears as a duty rendered to revealed truth, but as a function of mediation within the international community. Thus, the Pope reduces his role to that of an expert in dialogue and humanity.

Further on in the speech, his insistence on “the autonomy of earthly realities” and on the distinction between the Church and the political community is also deeply troubling. Although the distinction between powers is traditional, it has never meant that human laws could free themselves from the law of the Gospel. By refusing to recall this requirement, the Pope endorses religious neutrality and the secularism of the modern State.

Saint Pius X recalled: “That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognise any religious cult, it is in the first place gravely insulting to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and maintains them in existence as He maintains us. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honour Him.” (Vehementer Nos, 1906)

THE “FUNDAMENTAL POSTULATE”.

To the question “what conception of the human person inspires laws and what type of society do these laws build?”, the Pope answers by setting out the following “fundamental postulate”:

“Every truly just society is built upon the recognition of the inviolable dignity of the human person. Such dignity precedes any concession by the State and cannot be subordinated to shifting social consensus or the whims of the majority at any given moment. (cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the German Federal Parliament, September 22, 2011). It belongs to every human being by the very fact of their existence, and for this reason, it must guide every positive legal system. The Christian faith proclaims it on the basis of Revelation; human reason can recognise it as a requirement inscribed in the truth of man (cf. ibid.). When this conviction remains alive, the law becomes a protection for all and a safeguard against the imposition of particular interests and agendas.” It is difficult to express so many errors in so few words! And the very worst ones.

The humanist ideology, introduced into the Church by Paul VI, spread throughout the acts of the Council and preached incessantly by John Paul II, now constitutes a (reinforced concrete) foundation for Pope Leon’s thought. It will not disappear without tragedy. It constitutes a pact within the Church, which every cardinal elected by the conclave must promise to observe, and a marriage with the world, a bond of servitude that it will never allow to be broken. Leo XIV, Paul VI’s successor, is convinced of this as well and continues along this personalist and revolutionary path.

“Since the Council, the Church has opted for Man,” wrote Father Georges de Nantes in reference to a speech by John Paul II. “She is convinced, and seeks to convince the world, that in this fight for man is to be found the solution to every problem, wellbeing and development, justice in equality, liberty, above all religious freedom.”●

By exalting the dignity, the value and the rights of man as a human being, of natural man, Leo XIV, following Paul VI and John Paul II, dangerously supernaturalises the natural and naturalises the supernatural. In reality, men, whether Catholic or not, do not exist in the natural state of which the Pope speaks. They are either below it, in a state of sin, or above it, in a state of grace, and thereby respectively worthy of God’s love or His hatred . This is the whole question, the whole tragedy of existence! If the Pope does not tell them this, if he pretends to believe that they are all on the path to salvation, then, concretely, definitively, who will preach the Truth to them?

We know that God is love and that He desires to save all men. Nevertheless it is false to declare the natural dignity of the human being to be “inviolable”, because the dignity bestowed upon him by grace is infinitely superior, and it alone is useful for his salvation! Now this one truly incomparable dignity, that of divine grace, is acquired through the true Faith, faith in Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith, and unfolds in the charity that proceeds from it. And yet this dignity can be lost. How, then, could one argue that, if it did exist, man’s natural dignity – which is infinitely inferior to supernatural dignity – would, for its part, be impossible to lose?

“This dignity precedes every concession by the State and cannot be subordinated to changing social consensus or to the vagaries of temporary majorities,” declares the Pope.

This may appear courageous, since Leo XIV, as we shall see, seeks to defend “life” against the decisions that a majority of corrupted elected representatives might take (one never knows). Formulated in this way, however, human dignity becomes a first principle, not only prior and superior to the State itself, but also to the common good. It leads to the thought expressed by John Paul II before the UN in 1979: “The human person can never be sacrificed to any national or international political interest whatsoever.” No, only Almighty God and the Church can never be sacrificed to a national interest.

THE POPE FACING THE GREAT CONTEMPORARY CHALLENGES.

Having established this “fundamental postulate”, the Holy Father then proclaimed before the Cortes an unequivocal defence of human life, at a time when Spain is engaged in a debate aimed at further expanding access to euthanasia. “Every human life must be recognised and protected from conception until its natural decline, in every circumstance of its existence.”

Euthanasia has been legal in Spain since 2021, but the debate was revived in 2025 and 2026 by the case of Noelia Castillo, a young paraplegic woman whose father opposed her request for euthanasia. After several appeals, the Spanish courts considered that the conditions laid down by law had been met, and euthanasia was carried out in March.

In this context, the Pope’s solemn reminder is not without courage, but it is built upon sand, since he asserts that earthly life constitutes in itself a “fundamental value”. We dispute this assertion. For us, the supreme good lies in the union of the soul with God, in obedience and submission, with a view to eternal salvation. Jesus Christ Himself teaches this: “Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear Him Who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.” (Mt 10:28)

Then, developing his argument, the Holy Father explains that all social realities must be considered in the light of human dignity: life, but also the common good, which he defines as the “social form of human dignity”, the family, educational institutions and the question of migration. Starting from the assumption that each of the parliamentarians before him recognises this value, the Pope believes that he can establish upon it a broad consensus.

PEACE AGAINST ALL POLARISATION.

Before the Cortes, Leo XIV deplores that the world is undergoing “a profound spiritual and cultural crisis, manifested in multiple forms of violence, polarisation and mutual distrust.”

Polarisation: here again lies the problem. Every form of polarisation? Apparently so. It is time to work for the construction of peace, the Pope explains, at the national level through the return to “a public discourse respectful of those who think differently”, to “a historical memory seeking truth and reconciliation”; and, at the international level, through the demand for genuine “diplomatic courage”.

There is nothing here that rises above the human level: the spiritual is dissolved into the cultural and the political, and everything becomes nothing more than disputes of opinion.

The appeal for reconciliation around historical memory is a striking illustration of this. The debate, very intense in Spain, concerns the way in which the country should deal with the memory of the Civil War (1936-1939) and the regime of General Franco (1939-1975). After the death of the Caudillo, a democratic transition was carried out, through the betrayal of the king and of the conciliar Church, by breaking with Francoism, in the name of a supposed reconciliation intended to prevent the return of divisions. This “pact of forgetting” fully achieved its objective of uprooting younger generations from their history and making them lose sight of the immense spiritual benefits of that period.

From the 2000s onwards, left-wing associations demanded the opening of mass graves, the identification of the missing and the official condemnation of the alleged crimes of Francoism. In response, several memory laws were adopted in order to enshrine this partisan interpretation of the past in public policy.

These measures, still considered insufficient by their promoters, are part of an ideological rewriting of the past, deliberately concealing crimes committed by the Republican side and replacing history with an official memory. Such an approach no longer seeks to understand the past, but to place it at the service of the political struggles of the anti-clerical and anti-nationalist left. This is precisely what makes the Pope’s plea particularly scandalous.

“Likewise, within societies themselves, it is urgent to build a culture of reciprocity. Political plurality should not degenerate into permanent disqualification of the adversary.” It is certain that this appeal will have no effect on left-wing elected officials, but will contribute to disarming the defenders of truth.

FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM.

“From this respect for others also arises the duty to safeguard the space where their convictions, their conscience, and their relationship with God mature. Attention to this inner realm allows for a better understanding of a decisive issue for every truly democratic society: freedom of thought, conscience and religion, a fundamental right that protects the most intimate sphere of the person. The freedom upon which the contemporary state is built, if it is authentic, recognises the religious dimension of the human person, respects it and protects it legally; and it ensures that faith is not a reason for which a person has to forfeit his or her contribution to society.”

A slight nuance is given to this act of faith in liberalism: “Faith does not claim to impose itself through privileges or constraints; however, neither can it be relegated to silence as though it were irrelevant to public life.”

The Pope then asks that “within the broader framework of religious freedom”, and “as also recognised by international norms”, the sacramental seal of confession be guaranteed by the State to “faith communities”.

Thus, the false principle of religious freedom must govern the entire social conduct of Christians. In every conflict, in every confrontation of ideas, the defence of the faith, of morality, of the Church and even of the secrecy of confession must be placed within the framework of this sacrosanct social freedom in religious matters. In order to reconcile all religions and all parties, God must pass through this mill. One must sacrifice one’s religion, one’s homeland, one’s family, the innocent soul of one’s children and even one’s own soul; one must alienate oneself, sell oneself, deny oneself so that the other One may give us his peace. We reconcile ourselves with Man, at any price, by loving him above all else, and this is done in contempt of God. As a reversal of values, this is complete apostasy under the pretext of respect for the other in freedom.

CONCLUSION

As in Magnifica Humanitas, the Pope, faithful to an immanentist approach, concludes with a discreet appeal to the supernatural through the symbols that adorn the Assembly. “In this Chamber, natural light streams in through the skylight that crowns the room. That light coming from above may remind us that politics, too, must acknowledge a force that precedes and transcends it. Likewise, the paintings on the upper part of the main wall, depicting the reception of the Gospel and the Decalogue, remind us of something essential. Without confusing the political order with the religious one, these symbols invite us to recognise that modern freedom has also been shaped by a long education of conscience, deeply marked by the Christian tradition.”

Then he recalls the essential point of his speech: “A law does not attain its true greatness simply because it has been formally approved” (the Pope once again reiterates his courageous position); “it attains it when, in addition to being valid in its form” (democratic), “it can stand before the dignity of the person and emerge from this examination without shame.” Here we are once again brought under the yoke of the Revolution, when one would expect the Pope to preach with faith that a law attains its true greatness when it corresponds fully to the will of God and to the law of the Gospel.

MEETING WITH THE BISHOPS OF SPAIN

The Pope then went to the headquarters of the Episcopal Conference, still in the capital, a gesture he wished to make in a synodal spirit: “The synodal path undertaken by the Church is a process of profound listening.”

Reflecting on evangelisation, the Pope focused essentially on the importance of dialogue and communication. It is essential to develop “the ability to communicate, to speak to every reality present in our territory, to humble oneself so as not only to understand, but to share. Only by gathering all the good that exists in our own heritage, with each of us doing our part, can we build a new reality in which faith can take deep root.”

An extremely poor and sterile method in the light of the sixty years of decline from which we can now draw lessons. Why does the Pope not encourage bishops to do what the Church has always done, and which has borne so much fruit in Spain as well as in the Spanish missions?

The Holy Father devoted considerable attention to the problem of priestly vocations, and more particularly to their formation. In Spain, the question is less alarming than in France, but all indicators are red. With determination, the Pope insists on implementing the conclusions of the Synod, even though they are at the origin of numerous disagreements among bishops. The aim is to suppress certain diocesan seminaries, a treasure that still exists in Spain and which several bishops are determined to preserve, in order to create mergers. “It is indispensable, in addition to joining our forces, to learn how to work together in order to meet these challenges.” It is also necessary to learn how to work with the laity and to integrate them into the missions of the Church. This difficulty can be transformed “into an opportunity for encounter”. It is also important that they feel they are active participants in the Lord’s mission.

The Holy Father nevertheless had several encouraging remarks.

He spoke with great admiration of Spain’s “immense Christian heritage”, and of “the immense capacity for gathering that this richness provides us: through its beauty, which touches even the non-believer, or through the bonds of belonging that it has woven into the spiritual identity of every corner of this beloved people, and which remain present even in moments when its faith falters.”

He also had some beautiful words about Sacred Scripture and the Eucharist. “The Bread of the Word and of the Eucharist is even more necessary to us than material nourishment, because it opens for us the path of salvation. It is not a matter of knowing how to make the celebration more or less attractive, but of feeling that, if we are part of Him, His absence causes us a discomfort comparable to physical hunger. Sacramental life gives rhythm to our existence like that of a child receiving nourishment from his mother, like that of an athlete measuring his strength in order to reach the finish line.”

He concluded by giving the bishops the Blessed Virgin as their “first companion on the journey” and “principal treasure”, as well as Saint John of Ávila, patron saint of the Spanish clergy.

A FEW SUPERNATURAL TIDBITS

Let us conclude this analysis by gathering, here and there among the homilies and interventions of the Holy Father, what we have found most edifying.

After delivering a particularly naturalistic speech before volunteers and beneficiaries in the Parish of the Crucifixion in Madrid, the Holy Father spoke freely:

“I rejoice in this first visit to the Archdiocese of Madrid; and also in beginning in a parish called ‘Crucifixion’, which is not a sign of death but of hope, of new life, of resurrection and of the salvation that Jesus offers to each one of us.

“I thank with all my heart all the associations represented here. Thank you for this beautiful service that you provide, because it is a sign of hope in today’s world. It is the living Gospel that we all wish to see, that we all wish to feel, experience and live, but which is often lost or forgotten because of the great indifference affecting our society.

“You have in your hands this great possibility of offering hope: to us and to the whole world, and I thank you for this. Thank you for your sacrifices, thank you for having said ‘yes’ to the crucified Jesus, thank you for having embraced the Cross so that you, we and everyone, walking together, may reach the hope and joy of the Resurrection. Thank you very much.

“Here, in the church – there is no better place for prayer – although we can also pray at home, of course – but united in this way, as one great community of life and faith, let us pray together as Jesus taught us.” And they recited the Our Father.

The homily for the Feast of Corpus Christi, on Sunday, June 7, was a very mixed one; nevertheless, it undoubtedly manifested the Holy Father’s faith in this Sacrament:

“We are gathered around the Eucharist, the gift of Christ’s living presence among us. It is He who wished to offer us His life in order to bring us into communion with the Father and to make us His children. He is here, as the living Bread come down from Heaven, which nourishes us with the very life of God, with a love stronger than death.

“This memorial of the Lord present in the Eucharistic Bread lies at the heart of your faith and of the history of your people. Here in Madrid, but also in so many other places throughout Spain, Corpus Christi is not merely another feast on the liturgical calendar, but a return to the roots of faith in order to renew love and fidelity to God (...). It is not a matter of an external display, a folkloric survival or a simple aesthetic ornament: here we are speaking of faith in the presence of the risen Lord, who is alive and continues to pass among us, who becomes bread for our hunger for life and visits the innermost places of our hearts and of our history, even the darkest ones.”

And he concluded by referring to “Saint Manuel González, the bishop of abandoned tabernacles. His life reminds us that the Eucharist must not be honoured only during great celebrations or occasionally, but also through the silent fidelity of the one who accompanies the Lord with a humble and discreet friendship, nourished day after day.”

NO TO A PACT WITH THE ENEMY

Let us conclude by taking up once again a vehement reproach made by Father de Nantes against John Paul II. Leo the Wise has crossed Spain as Moses crossed the Red Sea. He has performed the miracle. He has shown us that it is possible, “in the name of truth, to abandon divisions”, to “flee all polarisation” in order to obtain peace. The Holy Father has shown us the sure path that will enable us to avoid ideological wars and civil conflicts. Without damage, without struggle. At least, this is what he believes.

We believe, on the contrary, because history has shown it – and Spanish history in particular – that the present Pope, like his immediate predecessors, advances in zigzags, blindly, ineffectively and without being obeyed. He presents us with his Magisterium, which is impossible to apply, maintaining a fine balance in the midst of contradictions, alone untouched by any weakness, in perfect continuity with the Council, in a perfect seamless and faultless movement towards the future.

We would gladly believe him. Provided that we see him act, here and now. Let the Pope rise and command the winds and the sea; let him calm the storm, and we shall believe his word, we shall reconcile ourselves with the enemy.

Blessed are those who do not ask themselves so many questions, who admire the Pope and remain free, in the shadow of their monasteries or in the solitude of their parishes. For us, who for sixty years, behind our Father and Brother Bruno, have been engaged in the great battle of the Immaculate against subversion, it is impossible, without appearing to change sides, to renounce our convictions and our holy struggles. We are therefore compelled to ask for proof of the effectiveness of this policy, which the authorities would have us embrace blindly.

For if everything has been going badly since the Council, because of the Council, in the name of the Council, it must be acknowledged that the evil persists. And we have grounds to believe that this apostasy of the Church will continue as long as the Popes present themselves as the continuators of Paul VI and of the Council!

Brother Michael of the Triumphant Immaculata and of the Divine Heart.