Is Leo XIV's Conception of a "Catholic state" a Cheap Imitation, or the Real Deal? — Pt. 1
In the first of a two-part series, we analyze a recent remark from Leo XIV and show why Cardinal Parolin's claim that "Monaco is the last Catholic state in Europe" is merely a comforting mirage
“But lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.” - Pope Leo XIII
A Move in the Right Direction?
Today, in a speech to the Catholic community living in Monaco, a small European state, Leo XIV made a passing allusion to a Catholic state, uncharacteristically framed in a positive light. The exact wording of the relevant section is reproduced below, sourced from the Vatican website:
You [Monaco] are among the few countries in the world to have the Catholic faith as a state religion. This faith places us before the sovereignty of Jesus, who calls Christians to become in the world a kingdom of brothers and sisters — a presence that does not cast down but raises up, that does not separate but connects, always ready to protect every human life with love, at any time and in any condition, so that no one is ever excluded from the table of fraternity. This is the perspective of integral ecology, which I know is very close to your hearts. By virtue of the profound bond that unites you to the Church of Rome, I entrust the Principality of Monaco with the very special task of deepening its commitment to the Social Doctrine of the Church and to develop local and international best practices that manifest its transformative power (emphasis added).1
Predictably, this lead to a veritable explosion of excitement from Conservatives who were overjoyed the usual denigration of the Catholic state ever since the Second Vatican Council was not taken up. Rather, Leo XIV had said something positive about a State religion, and the Catholic one at that. Drawing the argument out from the general reaction, Leo XIV had implicitly endorsed the Catholic conception of the State, though his commentators seemed to ignore that the first justification for the “state religion” of Monaco was actually “the perspective of integral ecology.”
At face value,2 if this were true and the implications for the Conciliar3 magisterium aside, we would be equally pleased and could not fault their enthusiasm — the latter which is often hard to parse from desperation. However, we would alternatively like to analyze the statement in its proper context, and soberly. In the concrete, we will examine the brief remark in reference to the justification given by Leo XIV: namely, the State of Monaco “deepening its commitment to the Social Doctrine of the Church” and the earlier remarks of his trusted cardinal Secretary of State, Pietro Parolin. After which, we will offer reasonable speculation, briefly contrasting the Conciliar conception of the religion of the State with the Catholic one.
A Quick Note
As we alluded to above, the subsequent analysis will abstract from the doctrinal problems of Dignitatis Humanae “The Declaration on Religious Freedom” promulgated in 1965 by Paul VI, although it will be invariably colored by it owing to Leo XIV’s all important mention of the “Social Doctrine of the Church.” The latter, as will become clear, is inextricably linked to Dignitatis Humanae.
By asking what, exactly, is the conciliar conception of the “Social Doctrine of the Church” and comparing it to Catholic doctrine on the same, we will then be able to judge whether this remark is orthodox, in other words the “real deal”, or a cheap imitation of the same. Put differently, whether good Catholics are being deceived by lip-service to the Catholic state, the State whose conception in the Conciliar paradigm has been emptied of all of its meaning — along with its prerogatives.
Finally, since we are entering Holy Week, the second installment of this series will not come out until April 7 at the earliest, keeping with the spirit of the most important part of the Christian liturgical year. Please keep us in your prayers, and you in ours, as we all reflect on Our Lord’s passion and death, awaiting His glorious resurrection.
*NEW* The Official Journal Mug
The Journal of American Reform — White Glossy Mug
— Embrace the radically progressive vision of American Reform with this heat-resistant, dishwasher-safe ceramic mug.
— Featuring our striking emblem which incorporates American patriotism, Roman order and imperial authority all under the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ.
Show your support for our work and journal today!
Convergence in the Conciliar Paradigm of Church-State Relations: Benedict XVI, Leo XIV and Cardinal Parolin
In 2021, Cardinal Pietro Parolin identified Monaco as the last remaining Catholic state in Europe which, perhaps to the uninitiated, may lead one to believe they are a true Catholic state. A State that is confessionally Catholic with all its implications, positive and negative, simultaneously avoiding anything in their official constitution or laws at variance with Catholic doctrine. We will allow the reader to be the judge of this, after laying out the relevant facts.
For those readers unfamiliar, the below essay from Msgr. Shea is a standard treatment of this oft neglected subject, drawing on the papal magisterium, Church-approved theologians and canonists.
Back to Cardinal Parolin: continuing his role as Secretary of State this year under Leo XIV, he gave an interview to Vatican News yesterday,4 in anticipation of Leo’s visit to Monaco, remarking:
Monaco shows us that the Catholic faith, even when it is the state religion, does not suffocate but enlightens civic coexistence. The Principality thus demonstrates that a “healthy secularism” is possible, where cooperation between Church and State is not only a legacy of the past but a living force capable of engaging with modernity without losing its Catholic roots (emphasis added).
Now, the operative concepts here are “healthy secularism” and, consequently, what would “suffocate” it. We only have to turn to Benedict XVI in his address to Italian jurists in 2006 for its meaning,5 that is the idea of a State open to all religions, importantly not hostile to any one religion; but endorsing religious freedom for everyone, irrespective of their beliefs and ensuring they can publicly manifest those beliefs and worship in public.6 Notice this is substantially the same system as the American conception of government, codified in the Constitution and First Amendment, in which the State remains indifferent to its duties towards religion,7 let alone revealed religion, instead ensuring all religions have equal rights, protection and sanction from the State. In other words, the separation of Church and State, viewed positively and as a universal ideal, in which Benedict XIV underscores “there is a need to move beyond tolerance to religious freedom.”8
For his part, Leo XIV recently echoed these themes in his address to the “Working Group on Intercultural and Interreligious Dialogue”, explaining:
Promoting dialogue between cultures and religions is a key objective for a Christian politician, and thanks be to God there is no shortage of people who have given good witness in this regard.
Being men and women of dialogue means remaining deeply rooted in the Gospel and in the values that flow from it and, at the same time, cultivating openness, listening and dialogue with those who come from other backgrounds, always placing the human person, human dignity, and our relational and communal nature at the center.
Participation in interreligious dialogue, by its nature, recognizes that religion is of value both on a personal level and in the social sphere. The word religion itself refers to the notion of connection as an original element of humanity.
[…]
European institutions need people who know how to live a healthy secularism, that is, a style of thinking and acting that affirms the value of religion while preserving the distinction — not separation or confusion — from the political sphere. In particular, it is worth noting the examples of Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer and Alcide De Gasperi (emphasis added).
As is clear from the foregoing, this Conciliar system of Church-State relations is characterized by three main pillars, all applying even if the vast majority of a country be Catholic:
Government does not interfere in any religious matters, positively or negatively, leaving all persons and religious communities free to publicly worship, preach and witness according to their beliefs. The only limit is public order, determined by the State and independent of religious considerations.
Religious affiliation cannot and should not cast doubt on a person’s fitness for office, nor can there be any social or legal discrimination against people for their religion.
No one religion can expect or demand special treatment from the government.
Then, contrasted with this arrangement — in which all religions and governments cooperate to promote common social goods and human-centered peace — an “unhealthy secularism” would be an openly anti-religious or irreligious regime, like that of the French Revolutionaries or various Communist states. This is why, unsurprisingly, John Paul II was a fierce opponent of communist ideology and those states based on it but never liberal ideology and liberal states, ignoring that the latter inexorably leads to the former.9
Anticipating the Pacelli Objection
Whenever there is mention and criticism of “healthy secularity,” many defenders of the Conciliar paradigm rush to volunteer the statement of Pope Pius XII in 1958 to the same effect, anxious to find a basis for this apparent novelty.
A notable recent example occurred during Francis I’s 2024 visit to Corsica, when he invoked the term and warned against pitting Christian and secular cultures against each other. He did not draw from Pope Pius XII for its basis, rather he mentioned Benedict XVI10 who rejected both a Christian confessional state (the State formally professing Catholicism with all its implications) and aggressive secularism, the kind that denies the importance of religion or makes it purely a private affair. While these defenders are, generally, of good will and only wanting to be good Catholics, they miss a crucial difference between the “healthy secularism” employed by Pope Pius XII and after the Second Vatican Council. What we are dealing with, to put it succinctly, is equivocation — where a single word or term is used to signify two, very different concepts.
Under consideration is the aforementioned 1958 address of Pope Pius XII to the people of the Marche Residence in Rome, delivered on Sunday, March 23. In the relevant portion, the Holy Father instructed:
May your cities be a living part of the Church. There are those in Italy who are agitated, fearing that Christianity is taking from Caesar what is Caesar’s. As if giving to Caesar what belongs to him were not a command of Jesus; as if the legitimate, healthy secularity (la legittima sana laicità dello Stato) of the State were not a principle of Catholic doctrine; as if the Church’s constant effort to keep the two Powers distinct, yet always in accordance with sound principles, united were not a tradition; as if, instead, the intermingling of the sacred and the profane had not occurred most strongly in history, when a portion of the faithful separated from the Church (emphasis added).11
From the address we see the same term is being used, albeit with an additional qualification, that is “legitimate, healthy secularity” since it is so prone to being misunderstood. According to Pope Pius XII, this “healthy secularity” is one of the principles of Catholic doctrine, nothing other than the distinction of the two powers (civil and spiritual, Pope Gelasius I’s “two swords” doctrine, originally articulated in 494 AD) but also — always in line with sound principles — united. As we saw above, on this point of the unity of the powers, their working harmoniously together in their respective, overlapping spheres, the Conciliar doctrine diverges, seeing their separation (the State refusing to formally profess Catholicism with all its implications), as such, a good in itself and the ideal.
The Current Constitution of Monaco Does Not Deserve Praise, Rather Criticism
This notion of “healthy secularism” understood as presented by leading Conciliar authorities and contrasted from that of Pope Pius XII, we can now turn to what Cardinal Parolin meant by “suffocation” in his remarks. In light of the official constitution of Monaco, things begin to fall into place, despite being cryptic at first glance. Keep in mind that as of 2023, Roman Catholics make up ~82% of the population of Monaco, compared to a figure of ~2% for Protestants.12 Yet, after Article 9 of the constitution makes clear that “The Catholic, Apostolic and Roman religion is the religion of the State,” lest one think this would be to the exclusion of the public expressions of false religions or even religious tolerance (which is the most a Catholic state can ever grant to a false religion and its adherents, only for the sake of the common good), the following guarantees are made in Article 23:
Freedom of religion and of public worship, and freedom to express one’s opinions in all matters, is guaranteed, subject to the right to prosecute any offenses committed in the exercise of the said freedoms. No one may be compelled to participate in the rites or ceremonies of any religion or to observe its days of rest (emphasis added).13
In Cardinal Parolin’s words, we see the “civic coexistence” of false religions and their adherents being encouraged by the “Catholic faith,” rather than being “suffocated.” Affronts to this constitution would, among other things, entail the restriction of public expressions of false religions; that is punishing and enacting legal penalties against those who publicly attack Catholic dogma or sow moral errors, or those who publicly blaspheme Our Lord, Our Lady, the Church or the Saints. Even mandating the closure of businesses or unnecessary governmental agencies on Holy Days, as is demanded by the Third Commandment, would be a “violation” of the rights of non-Catholics under this constitution.
On the other hand, Catholic doctrine, as taught most frequently by Pope Leo XIII, maintains the exact opposite. We see the right (and often duty) of the State, qua State, to repress doctrinal errors. For example, in the luminous 1888 encyclical Libertas “On the Nature of Human Liberty”, the August Pontiff explained:
Men have a right freely and prudently to propagate throughout the State what things soever are true and honorable, so that as many as possible may possess them; but lying opinions, than which no mental plague is greater, and vices which corrupt the heart and moral life should be diligently repressed by public authority, lest they insidiously work the ruin of the State.14
Naturally, error in the doctrinal order, particularly heresy, would constitute a “lying opinion” in a Catholic state and would need to be “diligently repressed by public authority.” The promotion of moral errors and vice would be no different. The only exception for this salutary State repression would be where the common good dictates, narrowly defined by Pope Leo XIII and St. Thomas (ST, Ia, q. xix, a. 9, ad 3) as the only case where human law can tolerate evil:
But if, in such circumstances, for the sake of the common good (and this is the only legitimate reason), human law may or even should tolerate evil, it may not and should not approve or desire evil for its own sake; for evil of itself, being a privation of good, is opposed to the common welfare which every legislator is bound to desire and defend to the best of his ability.15
As Pope Leo XIII says, toleration is merely choosing not to punish evil on behalf of public authorities, while recognizing it for what it is. After this he explains the dangers associated with toleration and how, far from leading to the perfection of the State, the opposite is true:
But, to judge aright, we must acknowledge that, the more a State is driven to tolerate evil, the further is it from perfection; and that the tolerance of evil which is dictated by political prudence should be strictly confined to the limits which its justifying cause, the public welfare, requires. Wherefore, if such tolerance would be injurious to the public welfare, and entail greater evils on the State, it would not be lawful; for in such case the motive of good is wanting.16
Considering the true Leonine doctrine above, it is clear that the current constitution of Monaco, rather than harmonizing with the Catholic conception of the state, cuts against it. On the other hand, in keeping with the principles of the Conciliar conception of a “Catholic state,” there is striking convergence and this was noted, approvingly, by Cardinal Parolin in keeping with his priors.
Post Script
In a little known treatment from Father Anton Straub, the Jesuit theologian made clear why the Church can only approve of political tolerance for false religions and their adherents per accidens, by way of circumstance but never in principle:
The Church per se cannot approve political tolerance, in which false religions are not prevented from spreading by civil power, or are even to some extent encouraged by civil law, or are considered to have the same number of civil rights as the true Church of Jesus Christ, but for its sacred function the Church by itself must absolutely want, corrupters of the only legitimate cult, such as men who are rebellious or certainly enemies both of the ultimate end of humanity and of the temporal peace it is seeking to obtain, to be avoided or justly coerced, but that cult, both accepted by individuals and by entire cities, as far as it is in them, to be retained, defended, and promoted.
We are happy to have been the first — by all available evidence — to translate a portion of his De Ecclesia “On the Church” into English, and would encourage our readers to engage with the text, along with another on the same subject from our friends at The WM Review.
The valuable treatments from Father Straub and Father Dorsch are listed above, respectively.
To Be Continued…
CONSIDER SUPPORTING THE JOURNAL OF AMERICAN REFORM!
As I intend to devote more and more time to this political project, I want to continue to provide free, educational material, whether visual (graphics) or written (essays, translations and a forthcoming book) content. If you have benefited from my work in any way, kindly consider supporting The Journal financially. On a personal note, I am married and duty-bound to provide for my family, so any help, big or small, is appreciated. Subscribe or make a one-time donation.
Regardless, the production of free material will continue, hopefully with ever-increasing quality, and I will keep all my subscribers notified of my plans.
In addition to Substack, the home of The Journal, my work, graphics and commentary can be found on the following platforms:
X: @AmericanReform_
Telegram: @American_Reform
Vatican Press Office. “Apostolic Journey of His Holiness Leo XIV in the Principality of Monaco – Welcome Ceremony and Courtesy Visit to His Serene Highness the Prince of Monaco”. March 28, 2026.
We note that the speech given by Leo XIV does not appear to be authoritative. What this means is that — if he enjoyed pontifical Authority — it would be an act in his private capacity as a man, outside of his Papal office. The two general conditions necessary for a papal allocution to be magisterial, outlined by Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, are lacking: namely, 1) a doctrinal decision and 2) entry into the Acta apostolicae sedis. That said, we suppose the second condition could be satisfied in the future but do not see the first satisfied in the text, regardless.
“Conciliar” referring to that more or less stable body of religious doctrine, law and liturgy ushered in by the Second Vatican Council and subsequent reforms, beginning with Paul VI and continuing under Leo XIV.
We would like to thank Riaan van Zyl of Radical Fidelity in his latest essay “Vatican Asks the Last Remaining European Catholic Confessional State Not to Be Too Catholic” for drawing this to our attention.
Cf. CathNews New Zealand. “Pope Leo Praises ‘Healthy Secularism’.” October 3, 2025.
Vatican commentator John L. Allen said the reference to “healthy secularism” echoed the key theme of a sana laicità, first laid out by Benedict XVI in an address to Italian jurists in December 2006, and further developed thereafter.
“The core of the idea is that a ‘healthy’ secularism is one in which Church and state are separate, but in which religious institutions and believers are encouraged to play important roles in public life, bringing their values to bear on political choices.
“That’s as opposed to an ‘unhealthy’ secularism, in which religion is regarded as a threat to peaceful coexistence and religious institutions and leaders are pressured to limit their activities to strictly spiritual and liturgical matters,” Mr Allen wrote.
“To put the point into a soundbite, healthy secularism, as Benedict XVI understood it, meant freedom for, not freedom from, religion.”
Cf. Benedict XVI, Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, no. 26
Religious freedom is the pinnacle of all other freedoms. It is a sacred and inalienable right. It includes on the individual and collective levels the freedom to follow one’s conscience in religious matters and, at the same time, freedom of worship. It includes the freedom to choose the religion which one judges to be true and to manifest one’s beliefs in public [citation for Dignitatis Humanæ nos. 6-8, along with other conciliar documents]. It must be possible to profess and freely manifest one’s religion and its symbols without endangering one’s life and personal freedom. Religious freedom is rooted in the dignity of the person; it safeguards moral freedom and fosters mutual respect.
Cf. Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, (1885), no. 6.
As a consequence, the State, constituted as it is, is clearly bound to act up to the manifold and weighty duties linking it to God, by the public profession of religion. Nature and reason, which command every individual devoutly to worship God in holiness, because we belong to Him and must return to Him, since from Him we came, bind also the civil community by a like law. For, men living together in society are under the power of God no less than individuals are, and society, no less than individuals, owes gratitude to God who gave it being and maintains it and whose ever bounteous goodness enriches it with countless blessings. Since, then, no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God, and since the chief duty of all men is to cling to religion in both its teaching and practice — not such religion as they may have a preference for, but the religion which God enjoins, and which certain and most clear marks show to be the only one true religion — it is a public crime to act as though there were no God. So, too, is it a sin for the State not to have care for religion as a something beyond its scope, or as of no practical benefit; or out of many forms of religion to adopt that one which chimes in with the fancy; for we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will. All who rule, therefore, would hold in honor the holy name of God, and one of their chief duties must be to favor religion, to protect it, to shield it under the credit and sanction of the laws, and neither to organize nor enact any measure that may compromise its safety. This is the bounden duty of rulers to the people over whom they rule.
Ecclesia in Medio Oriente. no. 27.
Cf. Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, (1931), no. 122.
But they seem to ignore or underestimate the grave dangers that it carries with it who think it of no importance courageously and zealously to resist them according to the gravity of the situation. It belongs to Our Pastoral Office to warn these persons of the grave and imminent evil: let all remember that Liberalism is the father of this Socialism that is pervading morality and culture and that Bolshevism will be its heir.
Cf. Francis I. “Apostolic Journey to Ajaccio: Closing Session of the ‘La Religiosité Populaire en Méditerranée’ Congress.” Speech delivered December 15, 2024. Palais des Congrès et d’Exposition d’Ajaccio, Ajaccio, Corsica.
As Benedict XVI stated, a healthy secularity “frees religion from the encumbrance of politics, and allows politics to be enriched by the contribution of religion, while maintaining the necessary distance, clear distinction and indispensable collaboration between the two spheres... This kind of healthy secularity ensures that political activity does not manipulate religion, while the practice of religion remains free from a politics of self-interest, which at times is barely compatible with, if not downright contrary to, religious belief. For this reason, a healthy secularity, embodying unity in distinction, is necessary and even vital for both spheres” (Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, 29). Benedict XVI pointed out a healthy secularism, but alongside a religiosity. Both fields are respected.
In this way, more effective forms of collaboration can develop, without prejudice or opposition, in a dialogue that is open, frank and fruitful.
Pope Pius XII, Address to the People of the Marche Residence in Rome, (1958).
U.S. Department of State. “2023 Report on International Religious Freedom: Monaco.” Washington, DC: Office of International Religious Freedom, 2023.
European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission). “Constitution of the Principality of Monaco.” Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 26 April 2013.
Ibid. no. 33.
Ibid. 34.