Ad Dilectos 1961: Programmatic Manifesto of the Latin American Revolution
The document “Ad Dilectos” (8 December 1961) of John XXIII is presented as a paternal letter to the cardinals, “bishops,” and peoples of Latin America: it praises their Catholic past, exhorts to catechesis and sacramental life, calls for more vocations, commends “Catholic Action,” and urges civil authorities to resolve social, economic, and political questions according to “divine law” and the “social doctrine” reiterated by the speaker. Beneath this apparently pious and conservative surface, the text subtly redirects the life of nations from the supernatural primacy of the Reign of Christ the King to an earthly, sociological project that will soon explode in conciliar “renewal,” liberationist subversion, and the dismantling of the true Church on that continent.
Ad Dilectos as Foundational Text of the Conciliar Captivity of Latin America
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, “Ad Dilectos” must be read not as an isolated exhortation, but as a prelude to, and instrument of, the conciliar upheaval that followed: Medellín (1968), Puebla (1979), the rise of “base communities,” Marxist “theologies of liberation,” and the almost total pastoral and doctrinal disarmament of Latin America before Communism, Freemasonry, and secularist regimes. The letter already contains the decisive shifts: dilution of the supernatural, social-democratic vocabulary, displacement of the Kingship of Christ from the political order to generic moralism, and uncritical promotion of organizations and methods that became vectors of apostasy.
Factual Inversions and Historical Blindness
The letter opens in a tone of sugary optimism, celebrating Latin America as:
“all the nations of your continent, rightly adorned with the Catholic name”,
under the singular patronage of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
This is historically and theologically gravely deceptive in 1961.
– By 1961, multiple Latin American states were already infiltrated or overtly ruled by Masonic and socialist elites; constitutions and public life were progressively laicized.
– Secret societies, anti-clerical movements, and revolutionary cells were entrenched (e.g. in Cuba the open victory of Communism 1959; analogous subversive movements elsewhere).
– According to the constant pre-1958 Magisterium (cf. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, propositions 55, 77–80; Leo XIII, Immortale Dei; Pius XI, Quas Primas), regimes that deny the social rights of Christ the King and the liberty and authority of the Church cannot be benignly described as simple bearers of “future progress,” yet the letter’s praise is vague, worldly, and blind to these objective apostasies.
The text acknowledges “pericula… quae fidei et christianae vitae actioni impendent” but immediately neutralizes them with sentimental reassurance, failing to name clearly:
– atheistic Communism;
– doctrinal Modernism already diffused in seminaries and clergy;
– Masonic and liberal constitutions at war with the rights of the Church;
– systematic attack on the indissolubility of marriage, on Catholic education, on religious orders—precisely what Pius IX and St. Pius X denounced.
Where earlier pontiffs unmasked the *synagoga Satanae* (Pius IX) and Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies” (St. Pius X, Lamentabili, Pascendi), John XXIII speaks in a pastel tone of “difficulties,” “tribulations,” and “social questions,” refusing to identify the doctrinal and conspiratorial root: organized apostasy, especially Masonic and Marxist, conspiring against the Church. This silence is not accidental; it is programmatic.
Silence where dogmatic clarity is required is itself a betrayal.
The Linguistic Mask: Paternalism without Supernatural Edge
The rhetoric is smooth, diplomatic, deliberately non-combative. It employs:
– generalities: “public administrations,” “progress,” “grave questions,” “social doctrine,” “tranquillity and development”;
– sentimental expressions of “joy,” “consolation,” and “benevolence” in place of apostolic severity;
– “encouragement” instead of commands.
The language avoids:
– precise doctrinal condemnations;
– explicit naming of Freemasonry or Communism as primary organized enemies, contrary to the clear teaching of pre-1958 popes;
– the concrete assertion that states are bound in conscience to recognize the Catholic religion as the only true religion and to reject false cults (condemned to deny this: Syllabus 21, 77–80).
The most revealing pattern: every time the supernatural order should define and judge temporal realities, the text softens into sociological moralism. It speaks of:
“iustitiae fraternaeque caritatis praeceptum … quod socialis Ecclesiae doctrinae caput ac fundamentum est”
as if the “social doctrine” were primarily an ethical-egalitarian project, rather than the necessary juridical and political submission of nations to Christ the King and His true Church. This reduction of Catholic social teaching to a sort of baptized humanitarianism is the seed of the later conciliar cult of “human dignity” severed from the supernatural order.
This is classic Modernist tactic: orthodox vocabulary, evacuated content.
Theological Subversion under Pious Forms
Let us dissect the key theological moves against the standard of the perennial Magisterium (pre-1958).
1. Weakening the Kingship of Christ over States
The text momentarily recalls that the Kingdom of Christ “is not of this world” (John 18:36), and then adds that nonetheless it benefits temporal peace, justice, and love. On the surface, that is unobjectionable.
But notice the maneuver:
– It never restates, with Pius XI in Quas Primas, that civil rulers are strictly bound to recognize the reign of Christ publicly, legislate according to His law, and proscribe what is contrary to the true religion.
– It does not repeat the condemnation of “separation of Church and State” (Syllabus, prop. 55) and of liberal neutrality.
– Instead, it exhorts rulers generically to respect “divine law” and “moral norms” as presented by the “Church,” without naming the obligation to confess the unicity of the Catholic faith in the public order.
This omission is devastating. Pre-conciliar doctrine is precise: peace is possible only as “the peace of Christ in the kingdom of Christ” (Pius XI, Quas Primas). The letter slides to: peace and progress will come if authorities heed broad “social doctrine,” a category already primed to be naturalized and de-dogmatized.
When the text says that no solid edifice can stand unless founded on “cultus divinae legis ac morum normas” and that the Church “enounces and proclaims” those norms, it still refuses to assert that temporal authority sins gravely if it does not officially recognize the only true Church and proscribe contrary cults. This shift from dogmatic claim to ethical advice is theologically lethal.
2. Ambiguous Exaltation of “Catholic Action” as Engine of Horizontal Activism
The author strongly promotes “Action Catholica” as the instrument through which the laity, under hierarchy, engage in apostolate and the “social” sphere. But the historical record (verifiable) shows that:
– precisely these milieus became in many countries the breeding ground of progressivism, democratization of authority, and politicization of the apostolate;
– they often displaced the primacy of the Most Holy Sacrifice, the interior life, and doctrinal formation with activism, congresses, slogans—preparing the terrain for “base communities” and liberationist praxis.
The letter never warns against infiltration, never insists that Catholic Action is worthless if not strictly ordered to the integral doctrine, the condemnation of errors, and subordination to clergy truly faithful to tradition. Instead, it exalts participation and organization (“in opportuna agmina distributi”) in terms that anticipate the conciliar cult of structures, commissions, and “people of God” rhetoric soon weaponized against hierarchical order.
This is not accidental; it is strategy: replace clear teaching and sacrificial worship with organizational dynamism and social projects, then subvert doctrine from within those structures.
3. Programmatic Silence on Modernism and Doctrinal Deviations
By 1961, St. Pius X’s condemnations in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi remained fully in force. Modernism had not evaporated; it had burrowed into seminaries, universities, and chanceries. An authentic successor of St. Pius X, seeing “grave dangers” in Latin America, would first:
– reaffirm, with names and clarity, the obligation to reject condemned propositions (on Scripture, dogma, Church, sacraments);
– warn against false “social gospels,” historicism, the dissolution of dogma into praxis;
– demand rigorous Thomistic formation and obedience to anti-Modernist discipline.
Instead, the letter speaks as if doctrinal Modernism were not the central issue. It exhorts to catechesis and doctrine in general terms, but does not anchor this in the concrete anti-Modernist, anti-liberal syllabus of the pre-1958 Magisterium. It never reminds bishops of their duty to exclude from seminaries, universities, pulpits any who question the inerrancy of Scripture, the historicity of the Resurrection, the uniqueness of the Catholic Church, etc.
This studied silence, in a document that claims to guide the shepherds amid “dangers,” functions as tacit abrogation in practice of the very anti-Modernist bulwark. It leaves pastors disarmed while wolves devour the flock. That is not pastoral care; it is strategic negligence.
4. Instrumentalization of the Blessed Virgin and Piety
The letter heavily invokes the Marian character of Latin America. In itself, true Marian devotion is a bulwark of orthodoxy. However:
– The text instrumentalizes Marian language to paint a harmonious picture, instead of calling the peoples to public reparation for national sins, for legal apostasy, for toleration of anti-Christian ideologies.
– There is no call to restore explicitly Catholic constitutions, to eradicate Masonic influence, to submit national life to the Heart of Christ the King.
– Marian patronage is used sentimentally, not militantly.
Here again the pattern: pious surface, absence of command to repentance and social kingship.
5. Social Doctrine Reduced to Humanitarian Pacification
The section on civil, social, and economic questions appears at first glance solid: it affirms the need to base society on divine law; calls rulers to act with diligence and wisdom; urges bishops to form the faithful in Catholic social doctrine.
But key defects emerge:
– “Social doctrine” is presented mainly as an answer to “populorum prosperitas libertasque” and their “aequa optata” (just aspirations). True Catholic doctrine of society is ordered primarily to the common good under God, to make possible virtuous life and salvation, not to the liberal idol of abstract “freedom” and indefinite “aspirations.”
– There is no explicit rejection of socialism, class struggle, or liberal capitalism; no direct warning against Marxist infiltration—although at that time Latin America was already a primary theatre of it.
– The text worries that enemies might calumniate the Church “quasi huius etiam vitae necessitates ipsi cordi non sint” (as if temporal needs were not dear to her), and bishops are exhorted to prove by deeds that justice and charity are truly practiced.
This argumentation shifts the axis: priority becomes to disprove accusations of social indifference, to demonstrate horizontal commitment, rather than to proclaim without compromise that the Church’s first duty is to lead souls to eternal life, under the law of Christ the King, whether or not the world applauds.
This is precisely the naturalistic slant condemned by Pius XI when he insists that attempts to build peace apart from Christ’s reign are vain. Here, the foundational step is made: the Church bends its discourse to modern categories of legitimacy—“progress,” “justice,” “peace,” “freedom”—instead of judging them rigorously by revealed truth.
6. Inflating Vocations for a Deformed Priesthood
The letter urges the multiplication of vocations—priests, religious, nuns—and praises assistance from foreign congregations. On its face this seems excellent. But in context:
– These vocations would soon be formed in seminaries steeped in the very Modernism that the letter refuses to condemn and that would be officially enthroned in the conciliar and post-conciliar years.
– The call to increase numbers, detached from insistence on doctrinal purity and traditional asceticism, effectively serves to expand the cadre of future agents of change: catechists of ecumenism, relativism, and political agitation.
Quantity without orthodoxy becomes a weapon against the flock.
Symptomatic Role of Ad Dilectos in the Conciliar Revolution
Seen in the continuum of events, “Ad Dilectos” is emblematic:
– It sacralizes Latin American Catholic identity at the very moment when that identity is hollowed out by liberal constitutions, secular schooling, and Masonic-democratic elites.
– It proposes Catholic Action and “social doctrine” as privileged paths, precisely those paths that, under conciliar influence, would become vehicles for horizontalism, class struggle rhetoric, and doctrinal relativization.
– It deliberately avoids the hard, specific condemnations that defined the pre-1958 Magisterium (Masonry, socialism, indifferentism, separation of Church and State, modern liberties), substituting vague calls for respect of “divine law” and social justice.
This is how a paramasonic structure speaks when it has begun to occupy Catholic institutions: it still uses the words “faith,” “Eucharist,” “Mary,” “social doctrine,” but systematically:
– strips them of their binding, dogmatic, anti-liberal, anti-modernist edge;
– avoids any assertion that would clash with the emerging world religion of human rights, democracy, and international technocracy;
– frames the mission of the “Church” as chaplaincy to the temporal order rather than militant proclamation of Christ’s sovereign, exclusive rights.
Ad Dilectos is, therefore, an early specimen of the conciliar style: harmonious, irenic, sentimental; doctrinally ambiguous; pastorally enfeebling; objectively ordered to neutralize resistance in one of the most Catholic regions of the world, preparing it for the avalanche of doctrinal dissolution and sacramental profanation unleashed after the council.
Contrast with the Pre-1958 Magisterium
To expose the bankruptcy of this text, one must contrast it point by point with genuine Catholic teaching:
– Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors and associated allocutions do not content themselves with generalities; they explicitly condemn religious indifferentism, equality of cults, freedom of public error, separation of Church and State, and the idea that the Roman Pontiff can reconcile with “progress, liberalism, and modern civilization” understood as emancipation from God’s law.
– St. Pius X in Lamentabili and Pascendi does not speak of abstract “dangers,” but brandmarks Modernists within the clergy as traitors, demands oaths, and imposes disciplinary measures.
– Pius XI in Quas Primas solemnly affirms the necessity of the public, juridical reign of Christ over societies and governments, and teaches that the calamities of nations flow from having excluded Christ and His law from public life.
By these luminous standards, “Ad Dilectos” is gravely deficient:
– It never calls for the integral restoration of the social Kingship of Christ in Latin American constitutions.
– It never warns explicitly against the precise ideological enemies that the pre-1958 popes unmasked by name.
– It prefers to reassure, to “appreciate,” to “encourage,” rather than to command in the name of divine truth.
This is not merely a difference of style; it is a difference of religion.
Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: The Coming Destruction Hidden in the Lines
Although the letter still speaks, in 1961, of the Sacraments, Eucharistic life, and catechesis, it does so in a context where:
– the architects of the liturgical and doctrinal revolution are already at work,
– the religious orders and seminaries being invoked as auxiliaries will soon be the laboratories of dissent,
– the same authority that pens this text will convene the council through which the Most Holy Sacrifice is replaced in most places by a man-centered rite, and the Latin American masses will be drawn into practices that are, if not “just” sacrilege, then idolatry.
The letter’s failure to reaffirm explicitly the immutability of doctrine, the binding force of anti-Modernist condemnations, and the exclusive rights of the true Church over nations is not a neutral omission. It is the quiet preparation of the ground on which the conciliar sect will later claim legitimacy.
Conclusion: A Soft Voice Ushering in Hard Apostasy
“Ad Dilectos” presents itself as an act of paternal concern and encouragement. When measured against the clear, stringent, supernatural doctrine of the pre-1958 Magisterium, it reveals itself as:
– theologically emaciated—avoiding the non-negotiable affirmations on the social Kingship of Christ, the unique truth of the Catholic Church, and the condemnation of modern liberties;
– pastorally misleading—soothing when it should awaken, speaking in euphemisms where wolves are ravaging the flock;
– strategically functional to the conciliar takeover—promoting structures and mentalities (Catholic Action activism, social-humanitarian language, optimistic reading of history) that would facilitate the dissolution of authentic Catholic life in Latin America.
The true remedy for the tragedies that have since afflicted that continent is precisely what this document withholds: an unflinching return to the integral Catholic faith, to the anathemas against liberalism, socialism, Modernism, and laicism, and to the full, public, juridical reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, King of all nations, as taught by the perennial Magisterium.
Source:
Ad dilectos – Ad Patres Cardinales atque Archiepiscopos et Episcopos Americae Latinae, quorum anxiam participat curam Beatissimus Pater ob pericula, quae fidei et christianae vitae actioni in iis regi… (vatican.va)
Date: 08.11.2025