Did Leo XIV praise the French Revolution – and do past popes provide a precedent?

(LifeSiteNews) – Last weekend, Leo XIV said the following in an address to Emmanuel Macron, President of the French Republic:

How can we fail to see such a commitment as an expression of the authentic “secularity” (laïcité) of the earthly city? A Christian engaged in public service and is guided by the light of his or her conscience illumined by faith, cannot be considered a proselytizer or a threat to the unity of the nation. Indeed, authentic (laïcité) does not exclude religion but is capable of valuing it as an educational resource.

That is precisely why Catholic schools have a rightful place in the educational landscape of a country like France. This is part of a broader issue essential to any dialogue, in schools and in society as a whole: learning to know and love ourselves, in order to be able to encounter others with respect and openness.

An authentic (laïcité), then, consists not in excluding religion from the public sphere or from education, but in striving to ensure that the State and religious institutions maintain dialogue and join forces in the service of the common good, that the world may have life.

Laïcité broadly, but inadequately, translates as “secularity.” In the French context, as I have explained elsewhere, it is a fundamentally aggressive term, anti-clerical and anti-Catholic in nature, ordered toward “protecting” civil life from the Church.

Given the quasi-sacred character of the term in the life of the French Republic, I and others expressed surprise at the idea of Leo XIV presuming to tell Macron what laïcité “really” means, or what an “authentic” form of it looks like.

However, certain apologists pointed to a 1958 discourse, in Pius XII appeared to set the precedent by using the same terms:

“The legitimate, healthy secularity of the State [is] a principle of Catholic doctrine.”

Pope Pius XII

— 倪神父 (@StMichael71) May 12, 2026

Okay bet

“There are people in Italy who are agitated because they fear that Christianity will take away from Caesar what is Caesar’s. As if giving Caesar what is his was not a command of Jesus; as if the legitimate and healthy secularism of the State were not one of the… https://t.co/U1Gd4gRHyT pic.twitter.com/xG4pATtqFm

— FeelsGuy (@FeelsGuy2003) September 29, 2025

What should we make of this?

What is laïcité?

The first point to be made is that the English, French and Italian words secularity, laïcité, and laicità are not simply interchangeable. The French concept of laïcité stands apart, enjoying an enormous and even quasi-sacral significance. It is bound up with the values of the French Revolution, the “guerre scolaire” (a long conflict over the role of the state and the Church in education), the 1905 “Law of Separation,” and – in a certain sense – French identity itself. Laïcité is so foundational, that it is surprising that it is not included with the engravings of Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité on municipal buildings.

The Church has condemned the idea of French laïcité on many occasions. It is a violation of the First Commandment, which enjoins the worship of the true God, according to the way in which he has revealed he is to be worshipped. Each individual is bound to obey this commandment, and this is so whether he is on his own, or with his family, or organized as civil society. This is why the Popes referred to the growth of laïcité as a principle – both in France and elsewhere – as a “deliramentum,” or as “legal apostasy.” The doctrine of Christ’s “Social Kingship” is diametrically opposed to it too.

The Church’s teaching on these matters is explained here:

• Separation of Church and State is a sin: here’s why
• Nobody has the ‘right’ to be wrong
• Does the state have the right to restrict non-Catholic religions?

In 1925, the French cardinals and archbishops released a dclaration that expressed this openly and clearly:

“The laws of laïcité are unjust, first of all, because they are contrary to the formal rights of God. They proceed from atheism and lead to it in the individual, familial, social, political, national, and international order. They presuppose the total disregard of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of His Gospel. They tend to substitute for the true God mere idols (liberty, solidarity, humanity, science, etc.); to de-Christianise all lives and all institutions.”

It is, in short, a byword for an entire political and philosophical tradition. In this sense, Leo XIV telling the French Republic what laïcité “really means” might be rhetorically legitimate but still somewhat incongruous (to put it mildly).

By contrast, the militant, mythical, and totemic character of French laïcité is not so present in the Italian laicità. It has a different history, and refers more to the reality that the civil authority is distinct to the ecclesiastical authority – and while it exists as a constitutional principle, it lacks the aggression of the French concept.

Further, Pius XII’s context is entirely different to that of Leo XIV. Immediately before his comments, Leo XIV referred to human dignity, the rights of man, and the French Revolution’s motto of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” as “universal ethical imperatives” fulfilled in the Gospels, and said:

“Nowadays there is a temptation to expect science to eliminate or alleviate every form of suffering. This often brings the risk of self-delusion. For when science and technology are not guided by a deeper wisdom, they can offer immediate solutions that apparently address people’s wishes and their pain, but can seriously divert them from the greater good to which they aspire. I am concerned at times by those trends in society that risk turning science and technology into profit-driven ventures promoting genetic manipulation, surrogacy, the trade in human organs or the possibility of arranging one’s own death. Let us not forget that mutual respect and the protection of every human life is a duty incumbent upon each and every one of us. It is a duty that begins with the conversion of our minds and hearts, and requires a sincere and selfless commitment to the good of our brothers and sisters.”

Immediately after his comments, he praised certain groups promoting dialogue between the Vatican and the French government, and various temporal groups carried out in France. His explanation of how he saw the relationship between the Church and state referred to “the healthy complementarity described by the Second Vatican Council” – the same Council that “uncrowned” Christ the King and initiated the secularization of Catholic states in Dignitatis Humanae.

By contrast, Pius XII’s comments were in the context of the Christianization of the nation, region, city, family and individual. He told the people of the Italian Marches to “be a living part of the Church” in all those groupings, and to subordinate everything to the Church and to Christ. Here is the passage in which his comments appear:

“Let your cities be a living part of the Church. There are in Italy those who are agitated because they fear that Christianity takes from Caesar what is Caesar’s. As if to give to Caesar what belongs to him were not a command of Jesus; as if the legitimate and sound secularity (laicita*) of the State were not one of the principles of Catholic doctrine; as if it were not the tradition of the Church to make a continual effort to keep the two Powers distinct, yet also, always according to right principles, united; as if, on the contrary, the confusion between the sacred and the profane had not been most strongly brought about in history when a portion of the faithful separated themselves from the Church.

“The cities will be a living part of the Church if in them the life of individuals, the life of families, the life of great and small communities, is nourished by the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is love of God and, in God, love of neighbour – all of it.

“Christian individuals, Christian families, Christian cities, Christian Marches.

“Let the Marches become entirely like a great Holy House; and let the Marchigian family be one, great Holy Family!”

So to summarize:

• Leo XIV praised the specifically anti-Catholic, anti-religious concept of French laïcité, whereas Pius XII affirmed the distinction (as opposed to separation) between Church and State.
• Leo XIV’s conception of the relationship between the Church and State is that of Vatican II, whereas Pius XII’s is that of the traditional teaching.
• Leo XIV’s description of the Church’s contribution referred to the rights of man1 and temporal goods, whereas Pius XII’s referred to rights of God and supernatural goods as well as temporal ones.

In short, Leo XIV’s comments are indeed worthy of criticism, and – contrary to these “precedent-chasters,” that criticism does not rebound onto Pius XII.

Here’s what Leo XIV said:

“With the great thinkers of the Renaissance, and later of the Grand Siècle, succeeded by those of the Enlightenment, France was responsible for significant advances in our world, including the recognition of human rights grounded in the nature of the human person, particularly religious freedom.

“This constant focus on the dignity inherent in every person is echoed in your national motto. Liberty, equality and fraternity are not simply words emblazoned on the front of your public buildings; they refer to universal ethical imperatives that also find in the Gospel message an inexhaustible source of inspiration and fulfillment.

“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was proclaimed here in Paris – and in the drafting of which the French jurist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate René Cassin played a leading role – sought to foster a broader awareness of the inalienable dignity of the human person.”

Once again, the context is clear: It is that of the French Revolution. For centuries, French Catholics have rejected the triple-motto as well as its “dignity” and “human rights,” as being both naturalistic in their meaning as used (and thus blasphemous) and hypocritical in their application.

Toward the end of his speech, he also appeared to describe the triple motto as the “traditional values” of France:

“May France, faithful to its traditional values, work for a peace that is unarmed and disarming, and responsibly offer its unique contribution to that goal. May your liberty grow in constant concern for the common good. May your fraternity embrace the entire human family. And may the equality to which you aspire always be built upon the foundations of justice and charity – not by erasing the differences between people, but by allowing them to flourish harmoniously for the benefit of society as a whole.”

By contrast, here is how Cardinal Louis Billot described the matter, speaking of the “ideologues” of the French Revolution:

“Those ideologues, of course, did not hesitate to proclaim that the sole cause of public misfortunes and the corruption of governments was the ignorance or contempt of the rights of man, the first of which, they said, was liberty, necessarily accompanied by equality and fraternity.

“O levity! O fatuity! O foolishness! And surely …

• … their liberty has ended in despotism, worse than any barbarism, of the powerful over the weak.
• … their equality, in an ever-growing multitude of proletarians on one side, and an ever more prevailing oligarchy of millionaires on the other.
• … their fraternity finally, in the fermenting of internal divisions scattered everywhere, and an inexpiable hatred of class against class.

“Nor are these things hidden from the discerning minds of our times. Indeed, many minds still remain on the surface, not yet perceiving the essential character of the Revolution, which is satanic.”

However, one might object by saying that Catholics do believe in liberty, equality and fraternity, “properly understood.” But here we face the same problem as with laïcité: the “proper understanding” of these terms would have to mean “in a way completely different to how everyone else understands it, and without regard for the context in which it is normally used.” And if one wishes to make such a rhetorical point, one must spell it out.

Does Leo XIII provide a precedent?

Further, as with Pius XII and laïcité, it was pointed out that Leo XIII had made a similar point himself:

Humanum genus, Leo XIII —

“… it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race”

Similarly, Leo XIV claims them for the Church https://t.co/WoyDJED9dP

— Augustin L. Cauchy (@mathcatho) September 26, 2026

However, the key point here is that Leo XIII did spell it out in Humanum Genus.

The full context was the “second” means of combatting Freemasonry (whose ideology is that of the French Revolution) – namely, that “by assiduous teaching and exhortation, the multitude must be drawn to learn diligently the precepts of religion.” The specific passage was one praising the Third Order of St Francis as a means of inviting men “to an imitation of Jesus Christ, to a love of the Church, and to the observance of all Christian virtues.” It is here that Leo XIII provides a full explanation of what “properly understood” really means:

“(T)he Third Order of St. Francis, whose discipline we a little while ago prudently mitigated, should be studiously promoted and sustained; for the whole object of this Order, as constituted by its founder, is to invite men to an imitation of Jesus Christ, to a love of the Church, and to the observance of all Christian virtues; and therefore it ought to be of great influence in suppressing the contagion of wicked societies.

“Let, therefore, this holy sodality be strengthened by a daily increase. Amongst the many benefits to be expected from it will be the great benefit of drawing the minds of men to liberty, fraternity, and equality of right; not such as the Freemasons absurdly imagine, but such as Jesus Christ obtained for the human race and St. Francis aspired to:

• The liberty, we mean, of sons of God, through which we may be free from slavery to Satan or to our passions, both of them most wicked masters
• The fraternity whose origin is in God, the common Creator and Father of all
• The equality which, founded on justice and charity, does not take away all distinctions among men, but, out of the varieties of life, of duties, and of pursuits, forms that union and that harmony which naturally tend to the benefit and dignity of society.”

As with the previous matter, Leo XIV’s comments are indeed worthy of criticism, and that criticism does not rebound onto Leo XIII.

Conclusion

Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre cites a number of liberals specifically stating that Vatican II was the Church’s “Revolution.” For example:

The parallel I have drawn between the crisis in the Church and the French Revolution is not simply a metaphorical one. The influence of the philosophes of the eighteenth century, and of the upheaval that they produced in the world, has continued down to our times. Those who have injected that poison into the Church admit it to themselves.

It was Cardinal Suenens who exclaimed, “Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church,” and among other unguarded declarations he added “One cannot understand the French or the Russian revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end … It is the same in church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it.”

He also cited Fr. Yves Congar, OP, stating something similar:

“Père Congar, one of the artisans of the reforms, spoke likewise: ‘The Church has had, peacefully, its October Revolution.” Fully aware of what he was saying, he remarked “The Declaration on Religious Liberty states the opposite of the Syllabus.’”

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger himself said the same thing of Vatican II’s Gaudium et Spes — that it represented a reconciliation with the world as established in the Revolution of 1789:

“(T)he one-sidedness of the position adopted by the Church under Pius IX and Pius X in response to the situation created by the new phase of history inaugurated by the French Revolution was, to a large extent, corrected via facti, especially in Central Europe, but there was still no basic statement of the relationship that should exist between the Church and the world that had come into existence after 1789 (…)

“Let us be content to say here that the text (Gaudium et Spes) serves as a counter-syllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789. Only from this perspective can we understand, on the one hand, its ghetto-mentality, of which we have spoken above; only from this perspective can we understand, on the other hand, the meaning of this remarkable meeting of Church and world. Basically, the word “world” means the spirit of the modern era, in contrast to which the Church’s group-consciousness saw itself as a separate subject that now, after a war that had been in turn both hot and cold, was intent on dialogue and cooperation.”

Leo XIV’s comments form a part of what Ratzinger called the “official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” They are a direct and open embrace of the watchwords and slogans of the French Revolution and its ideological heirs – albeit phrased in a way that might pacify some, by certain parallels with the comments from the previous Popes mentioned.

But those parallels are ultimately illusory; and once the context has been clarified, Leo XIV’s ideological alignment becomes clear.