Ad Dilectos 1961: Programmatic Manifesto of the Latin American Revolution
The Latin text published under the name of John XXIII as “Ad Dilectos” (8 December 1961) is presented as a paternal letter to the hierarchy of Latin America: it praises the Catholic past of the continent, commends Marian devotion, calls for catechesis, sacramental life, promotion of so‑called “Catholic Action,” and urges collaboration with civil authorities on social, economic, and political questions, insisting that no stable order can exist without moral foundations supposedly articulated by “the Church.” It closes with assurances of prayer and a blessing upon peoples and rulers of Latin America, in the spirit of concord, social justice, and peace.
In reality, this text is an early charter of the conciliar sect’s project in Latin America: a carefully camouflaged displacement of the supernatural order by socio-political activism, preparing liberationist subversion under a thin varnish of piety, and confirming John XXIII as a public architect of apostasy, not a guardian of the deposit of faith.
I. Historical and Doctrinal Context: The Usurper as Architect, Not Shepherd
This letter must be read as an act of the conciliar revolution, emanating from a man who inaugurated the line of usurpers occupying Rome since 1958. From the standpoint of the unchanging doctrine crystallized before that date, several objective facts emerge:
– John XXIII convoked the so‑called Second Vatican Council, openly proposing an aggiornamento of the Church, thereby exalting precisely those errors anathematized by Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII: religious liberty in the liberal sense, false ecumenism, “opening to the world,” and doctrinal evolution.
– The same milieu systematically dismantled the anti-liberal, anti-masonic teaching summarized in the Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX and in the anti-modernist measures of St. Pius X (*Lamentabili sane exitu*, *Pascendi*), attempting to consign them to “historical context.”
– This 1961 letter is situated immediately before the explosion of the pseudo-theology that would soon be labelled “liberation theology”: a Marxist reinterpretation of the Gospel under the auspices and toleration of the conciliar establishment.
Therefore, every phrase must be weighed according to the perennial norm: *lex credendi* is fixed; any language that dilutes, displaces, or contradicts it is not pastoral prudence but a sign of a counterfeit magisterium.
II. Factual Level: Selective Truth and Strategic Silences
The document opens with effusive flattery of Latin America:
“These regions… are illustrious in deeds, distinguished by industry and enterprise, and promise great future progress; above all they glory in the shining seal of the Cross… all the nations of your continent are rightly adorned with the Catholic name.”
The praise is not simply generous; it is the first sleight of hand.
1. The letter speaks as if “all nations” of Latin America remain stably Catholic in doctrine, morals, and cult. This idealized nostalgia suppresses:
– the already massive penetration of Freemasonry, socialism, and liberalism among political elites, documented and condemned repeatedly by pre-1958 popes, especially Pius IX and Leo XIII;
– the rising influence of Protestant sects and secularism;
– the moral corruption, anticlerical legislation, and masonic lodges warring against the Church throughout the region.
2. This omission is not innocent. Pre-conciliar pontiffs constantly unmasked such forces. Pius IX explicitly identified masonic and liberal sects as the engine of persecution and de-Christianization, calling them the “synagogue of Satan” and declaring their works null and void against the divine constitution of the Church (cf. Syllabus of Errors; allocutions cited therein). Here, by contrast, the letter envelops Latin America in sentimental rhetoric, with no sober warning proportionate to the true extent of the enemy’s infiltration.
3. Where it does note dangers, it does so in a strangely muted way:
“You know that in some regions of Latin America, once flourishing in Christian life, God and His Church are attacked with audacious rashness, and attempts are made to spread this evil more widely.”
This is factual but bloodless. There is no naming of the ideological and organized roots: socialism, communism, liberalism, Freemasonry, Protestant proselytism, internal modernism. Compared to the clarity of St. Pius X, who denounced modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and excommunicated its propagators, such vague language functions as anesthetic, not alarm.
4. The letter calls for catechesis, schools, sacramental life. On the surface, these are Catholic demands. But it systematically avoids:
– Any explicit assertion of the unique necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation against all false religions, as solemnly taught by the Magisterium and reaffirmed by Pius IX against indifferentism (cf. Syllabus, propositions 15–18).
– Any demand that states recognise the social Kingship of Christ and the rights of the Church as the one true Church, as powerfully expounded by Pius XI in *Quas Primas*.
– Any anathema or juridical severity toward those actively subverting the faith.
Where pre-1958 teaching insists that society must publicly acknowledge Christ the King, this letter limits itself to moralistic requests and psychological encouragement, without the thunder of dogmatic obligation.
Factual conclusion: the document interweaves partial truths with crucial omissions, producing a distorted picture that soothes the Catholic conscience while preparing it for disarmament.
III. Linguistic Level: Sentimentalism, Ambiguity, and Political Code
The rhetoric is a clinical symptom of the new religion forming under the surface.
1. Sentimental paternalism.
Expressions of “sweetest joy,” “deep consolation,” “singular benevolence,” and “loving Apostolic Blessing” abound. Charity is necessary; sentimentality as a substitute for clarity is not. Here, soft affective language systematically replaces the virile, judicial tone characteristic of true papal documents confronting grave threats.
2. Pious generalities instead of doctrinal precision.
The letter speaks of:
“the shining seal of the Cross”,
“Mary’s protection”,
“the kingdom of justice, love and peace”,
but rarely articulates sharp dogmatic content:
– No precise teaching on the necessity of the integral Catholic faith (*integritas fidei*).
– No reference to the condemnations of liberalism, socialism, and naturalism which directly touch Latin America’s 19th–20th century history.
– No mention of the anti-modernist oath or the binding character of *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*, which were still ostensibly in force.
This is a typical modernist deftness: one keeps religious vocabulary while draining it of the determined dogmatic senses fixed by prior magisterium. *Verba retinentur, sensus mutantur* (the words are retained, the meanings are changed).
3. Key expression: the “kingdom of justice, love and peace.”
The letter states:
“This kingdom is not of this world… but it greatly contributes to the tranquillity and progress of this world, since it is not only a kingdom of truth, holiness and grace, but also a kingdom of justice, love and peace.”
This phrasing lifts the triad “justice-love-peace” out of its proper subordination to the supernatural reign of Christ and positions it as a bridge toward temporal progress. Detached from the clear social Kingship doctrine of *Quas Primas*, it becomes the linguistic seed of the conciliar cult of “peace and justice,” easily co-opted by Marxist and masonic humanitarianism.
The language is deliberately elastic, suitable to be read by:
– sincere Catholics as an exhortation to virtue;
– revolutionaries as a papal-sanctioned mandate for “social transformation” and structural agitation.
Ambiguity is not an accident. It is the tool.
IV. Theological Level: Measured Against the Pre-1958 Magisterium
Measured by the immutable doctrine, the deficiencies become doctrinally grave.
1. Silence on the Exclusive Truth of the Catholic Church
The Syllabus of Errors explicitly condemns the propositions that:
– “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (prop. 15);
– “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (16);
– “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion” (18).
In a letter to a continent where syncretism, Protestant sects, and liberalism already rage, a true Roman Pontiff would:
– reaffirm that salvation is found only in the Catholic Church;
– call civil rulers to favour the true religion (cf. Syllabus, 77–80; *Quas Primas*);
– denounce false sects and secret societies as mortal threats.
Instead, “Ad Dilectos” never once clearly asserts the exclusive salvific claim of the Catholic Church against the surrounding errors. This studied omission functionally dilutes the dogma *extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* in the minds of pastors and faithful. This is not a minor pastoral nuance; it is a betrayal of a defined truth by silence where speech is morally obligatory.
2. Horizontalization of the Church’s Mission
The truly Catholic doctrine, as Pius XI teaches in *Quas Primas*, is unequivocal: peace and order flow only from the public recognition of Christ’s Kingship and the submission of individuals and nations to His law. Pius IX stresses that the state is not the source of rights (Syllabus, 39), and that the separation of Church and State (55) is an error.
“Ad Dilectos”:
– speaks at length on “civil, social, and economic questions”;
– exhorts rulers to act with wisdom;
– recalls that “no solid building can be erected unless it has as foundation the worship of the divine law and moral norms,”
– and notes that the Church “enunciates and proclaims” those norms also regarding civil and social matters.
On the surface, this seems adequate. But crucial elements are absent:
– No assertion of the duty of states to recognize the Catholic Church as the one true Church;
– No condemnation of religious liberty understood as equal public rights for error;
– No warning that legislation contrary to divine and natural law is null and wicked;
– No recalling that liberalism, socialism, and Freemasonry are condemned and incompatible with Catholic political life.
Thus, the Church’s role is linguistically reduced to providing ethical guidelines within pluralistic frameworks, not demanding juridically binding submission to Christ the King. This is the essence of the conciliar counterfeit: preserving a moral voice while surrendering sovereign rights.
3. Catholic Action as Engine of Democratized Ecclesiology
The letter strongly urges the faithful to collaborate in apostolic works, “especially in promoting Catholic Action,” so that they may feel themselves living members of the Church, organized into groups for religious and civil good.
Pre-1958 Catholic Action, rightly understood, is a participation of the laity under hierarchical control in subordinated apostolate. But here, in the context of John XXIII’s agenda and imminent council, these phrases prefigure:
– the democratization of Church life;
– transformation of laity into pressure groups within ecclesial and political structures;
– the subsequent ideological drift of such movements into liberationist and revolutionary praxis.
By tying Catholic Action to “religious and civil” utility, without the sharp boundaries and safeguards insisted upon by Pius XI and Pius XII, this letter weaponizes laity for socio-political activism under a diluted spiritual banner. The theological center of gravity quietly moves from the altar and dogma to assemblies and “engagement.”
4. De-supernaturalizing the Sacramental Life
The document calls for:
“Eucharistic life,”
“use of the Sacraments,”
catechesis, prayer, and missions to various social strata.
These appeals, in themselves, are Catholic. But within the systemic context, several distortions emerge:
– The emphasis on sacramental life is not accompanied by warnings against grave sacrilege, doctrinal error, or corrupted liturgy. Shortly thereafter, the same regime would introduce a new rite, doctrinally ambiguous and protestantized, and would saturate catechesis with modernism. Nowhere does the letter bind Latin American clergy to the anti-modernist oath or warn them against false exegesis and doctrinal evolution condemned in *Lamentabili* and *Pascendi*.
– There is no mention of the state of grace, mortal sin, hell, or the necessity of penance and reparative sacrifice as central to Christian life. The sacramental references are functionalized as supports for activism and social peace.
Silence on last things, judgement, and the absolute necessity of repentance is, as required, the gravest accusation. A pastoral text that speaks to a continent in mortal danger but omits the realities of hell and divine judgement discloses its nature: horizontal encouragement, not supernatural guardianship.
V. Symptomatic Level: Seedbed of Liberation Theology and Conciliar Humanism
Seen with theological diagnosis, the letter is not an isolated exhortation but a node in a larger pattern.
1. From Social Doctrine to Ideological Instrument
The authentic pre-1958 social encyclicals (Leo XIII, Pius XI, Pius XII) derive every social principle from:
– the sovereign rights of God and Christ the King;
– the authority and unique truth of the Catholic Church;
– the objective moral law binding rulers and peoples;
– explicit condemnation of socialism, communism, liberalism, and masonic organizations.
“Ad Dilectos”:
– invokes “social doctrine”;
– encourages rulers to heed the “magisterium”;
– exhorts bishops to spread Christian social doctrine and to confirm “justice and fraternal charity” by example.
Yet the enemies remain unnamed; systems are not condemned; the language is open-ended. This deliberate vagueness made it easy for later agents within the conciliar sect to hijack “social doctrine” into the slogans of class struggle, dependency theory, and structural revolution. The text supplies the rhetoric of “justice” and “peace” severed from metaphysical and dogmatic moorings: precisely what liberation theology required.
2. Pseudo-Marian and Pseudo-Eucharistic Shielding
The letter decorates itself with references to Marian patronage and Eucharistic life. This is typical of the revolutionary technique:
– retain traditional devotions as emotional capital;
– use them to anesthetize suspicion while introducing a new theology.
But Marian devotion severed from the militant defence of doctrine becomes an ornament; Eucharistic language that later coexists with sacrilegious liturgical innovations is an alibi. True Marian and Eucharistic piety is intrinsically anti-modernist; here, they are reduced to poetic motifs in a proto-conciliar manifesto.
3. Refusal to Name Freemasonry and Modernism
Pius IX uncompromisingly exposed masonic sects as the hidden power assaulting the Church, insisting that pastors warn the faithful and forbid all involvement. St. Pius X condemned modernism as a clandestine network corrupting seminaries, clergy, and doctrine.
“Ad Dilectos,” in 1961 Latin America—with masonic lodges, socialist parties, and modernist theology already at work—refuses to name them. It speaks instead of generic “dangers” and “false doctrines,” in a tone compatible with coexistence.
This conspiracy of silence is not pastoral discretion; it is complicity. *Qui tacet consentire videtur* (he who keeps silence is seen to consent) when the office obliges explicit denunciation.
4. The Blessing over Inverted Structures
The closing bestows the “Apostolic Blessing” not only on bishops, clergy, and faithful, but explicitly on those who direct the public affairs of the continent.
Given the context:
– Many such rulers were steeped in liberalism or masonry;
– Several regimes upheld legislation contrary to the rights of the Church and divine law.
A true pope may pray for all and call sinners to conversion; he cannot, without grave qualification, ratify regimes founded on condemned principles. Pius IX expressly taught that laws contrary to the divine constitution of the Church are null; he did not bless them as partners.
Here, the undiscriminating benediction signals the new line: reconciliation with liberal, masonic, and pluralist orders that pre-1958 popes had condemned as incompatible with the Kingship of Christ.
VI. Exposure of Internal Contradictions and Doctrinal Bankruptcy
When measured strictly by the integral Catholic standard, the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of this letter becomes manifest.
1. Contradiction with the Social Kingship of Christ
– Pius XI in *Quas Primas* teaches that true peace and order require that both individuals and states submit publicly to Christ the King and His Church.
– The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns the separation of Church and State and the idea that the state is the source of all rights.
“Ad Dilectos”:
– does not call Latin American states to recognize the Catholic Church as the only true religion;
– speaks instead of moral norms and “collaboration,” compatible with secular, pluralist regimes.
This practical renunciation of the Church’s claim over public life reveals the hermeneutic: a slow abandonment masked by pious verbiage.
2. Betrayal of the Anti-Modernist Mandate
St. Pius X’s anti-modernist programme required:
– vigilance against false exegesis, dogmatic evolution, and historical relativism;
– censorship and condemnation of destructive works;
– the anti-modernist oath for clergy and teachers.
“Ad Dilectos”:
– never recalls these obligations to the Latin American hierarchy, at the very moment when modernism is preparing to flood seminaries, universities, and catechesis;
– instead, it calls for broad promotion of apostolic initiatives and Catholic Action, without doctrinal fortification.
Thus, structurally, it disables defences and mobilizes unarmed troops.
3. Naturalistic Humanitarianism Under a Catholic Veneer
The text’s obsession with:
– progress,
– social questions,
– tranquillity and development,
– collaboration with public authorities,
– “justice, love, peace”
coupled with:
– absence of explicit warnings about eternal damnation;
– no strong emphasis on penance, mortification, and the Cross as necessary path;
– no juridical condemnations;
reveals a naturalistic shift. Supernatural ends are assumed but not enforced; temporal well-being becomes the effective horizon. This is proto-Conciliar humanism, which later blossoms into the cult of “human rights,” “dialogue,” and “dignity” detached from the reign of Christ.
4. Saccharine Tone as Cloak for Revolution
The polished, syrupy Latin conceals the operation: replacing the intransigent Church Militant with a benevolent NGO chaplaincy to emerging political orders.
Pre-1958 papal language, even when gentle, retained juridical precision, doctrinal clarity, and willingness to condemn. Here we find:
– obscuring euphemisms;
– displaced emphases;
– harmless exhortations with no teeth.
This tone is not theological style; it is a tactic. Without anathema, wolves roam freely.
VII. Conclusion: Ad Dilectos as a Manifest Symptom of the Conciliar Sect
From uncompromising Catholic criteria, the 1961 “Ad Dilectos” stands condemned on several counts:
– It refuses to reaffirm with clarity the exclusive salvific claim of the Catholic Church and the obligation of states to recognise the Kingship of Christ.
– It glosses over and anonymizes Freemasonry, socialism, Protestantism, and modernism, in explicit contrast to the lucidity of Pius IX and St. Pius X.
– It instrumentalizes Marian and Eucharistic language as sentimental cover for a pastoral programme ordered towards social activism and political symbiosis.
– It promotes structures (“Catholic Action” reinterpreted, laity mobilisations) that, under the direction of a modernist hierarchy, become engines of democratization and revolt against true hierarchical, sacrificial Catholic life.
– It inaugurates the idiom—“justice, love, peace,” “progress,” “collaboration”—which will be seized by liberation theologians and conciliar propagandists to dissolve the Church’s supernatural mission into revolutionary humanitarianism.
– It bestows religious legitimation upon regimes and civil orders rooted in errors solemnly condemned prior to 1958, thereby acting against the divine constitution of the Church as taught by those same pre-1958 popes.
A true Vicar of Christ, formed by the mind of Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Pius XI, and Pius XII, addressing Latin America in 1961, would have:
– named and anathematized the enemies within and without;
– summoned rulers to submit to Christ the King and favour the one true Church;
– commanded bishops to enforce anti-modernist discipline inexorably;
– warned the faithful against pseudo-apostolic movements, naturalistic ideologies, and sacrilegious deviations;
– placed eternal salvation, not temporal “progress,” at the center.
Instead, this letter caresses where it should chastise, suggests where it should command, and coexists where it should excommunicate. It is therefore not a document of the spotless Bride of Christ, but a polished piece of rhetoric from the paramasonic structure occupying her visible institutions—an early, revealing fracture through which the entire conciliar edifice of apostasy would soon emerge.
Source:
Ad dilectos – Epistula ad Patres Cardinales atque Archiepiscopos et Episcopos Americae Latinae, quorum anxiam participat curam Beatissimus Pater ob pericula, quae fidei et christianae vitae actioni in… (vatican.va)
Date: 11.11.2025