Few things reveal the anti-Catholic character of the Synodal Modernist Church more clearly than its approach to evangelization.
In few places is the post-conciliar rebellion more glaringly visible than in the deliberate effort of its recent papal claimants to turn proselytizing into a dirty word and to redefine evangelization into something almost unrecognizable to Catholics who conform to Christ and the teachings He left for us through His One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Dispatch
Especially the last two claimants to the papal throne — Francis and Leo XIV, following the trajectory set by Benedict XVI — have dug in their heels against the plain meaning of Christ’s Great Commission: “Going therefore, teach ye all nations… teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19–20). Our Lord did not command His Apostles to merely “attract,” “accompany,” “dialogue,” or passively “witness” while waiting for curiosity to arise. He commanded them to go, to teach, to baptize, and to convert. And let us not forget this was often to be done under the threat of death. But, as we know, unlike the effeminate cowards who now claim to be the Catholic hierarchy, the real heroes of the faith not only embraced the possibility of martyrdom but yearned for it.
Why, then, this modern hostility to conversion? The reason is not difficult to understand. Once Vatican II introduced religious indifferentism, false ecumenism, and practical universalism through documents like Nostra Aetate, the missionary impulse of Catholicism had to be neutralized. If all religions are to be treated as possessing equal dignity, if false religions are no longer seen principally as errors to be corrected but as parallel paths to God, then seeking converts becomes embarrassing. The teeth of the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus — outside the Church there is no salvation — had to be pulled and the dogma had to be transformed into a decorative slogan with no practical force in order to appease the Christ-hating Jews, Muslims, atheists, and globalist scum.
Thus, Catholicism is reduced from the one true Church founded by Christ into merely one Christian denomination among many, and worse, Christianity itself becomes just one religion among others. The consequential result is traitors like “Bishop” Robert Barron telling the Jewish influencer Ben Shapiro that Christ is not the only way, but merely the “privileged way.” Such statements would have scandalized every Catholic generation before the Council but today they are treated as enlightened moderation. In Barron’s defense, it is a case of monkey see monkey do, as the last three conciliar popes really pushed back against Jesus Christ’s Great Commission.
Read More: ‘The end of the Catholic religion’: Fr. Fenton on Vatican II
This betrayal explains why the modern hierarchy must attack “proselytism.” To convert souls would imply that error matters, that false religion endangers salvation, and that the Catholic Church alone possesses the fullness of truth. But the conciliar system cannot allow that implication. It must replace conversion and zeal with coexistence, dialogue, and polite accompaniment (to hell).
The foundational modern expression of this inversion came from Benedict XVI at Aparecida in 2007: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by attraction.” This phrase became one of the defining slogans of the post-conciliar Church. While Benedict did not openly deny conversion, he cunningly shifted the emphasis dramatically: mission was no longer primarily the active pursuit of souls, but the passive radiance of witness.
Francis took this formula and made it a central dogma of his pontificate. In his famous 2013 remarks to Eugenio Scalfari, he declared bluntly: “Proselytism is solemn nonsense.” Note he did not say “imprudent” or “excessive,” but “nonsense.” In effect, the heretic Bergoglio called Christ’s final instruction “nonsense.” Instead, he contrasted conversion with dialogue, encounter, and mutual listening, as though the Church’s mission were to host conversations with lost souls and the followers of false religions, rather than rescue them from damnation.
While speaking from the Vatican, he repeated Benedict’s slogan: “The Church does not grow by proselytizing; she grows by attracting others.” Again and again, he insisted that Christians should not seek first to persuade or recruit, but merely to witness. In another widely circulated remark, he stated: “Don’t proselytize; respect others’ beliefs.” The command is striking: not merely does it avoid coercion, but proselytizing itself.
His language became even more severe. Addressing Catholic schools, he bellowed in his trademark rude way: “Never proselytize in schools! Never!” Speaking of the Orthodox, he said proselytism was “a big sin against ecumenism” and insisted Catholics must never proselytize them. (Remember, in the Synodal Religion there is no sin but eco-sins and ecu-sins!) By 2023, Francis escalated the rhetoric even further, declaring that Christians who proselytize are “pagans disguised as Christians.”
Imagine Saint Francis Xavier hearing such words. Imagine Saint Dominic, Saint Patrick, Saint Boniface, or Saint Isaac Jogues being told that their burning desire to convert pagans made them “pagans disguised as Christians.” The absurdity is staggering. The greatest missionaries in Catholic history would be condemned by the very men claiming to occupy Peter’s Chair.
Leo follows in Bergoglio’s footsteps
Along came Little Bob Prevost. Leo XIV has not corrected this path; he has explicitly embraced it. In January 2026 he repeated Benedict’s exact formula: “The Church does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by attraction.” He praised Francis for repeating this principle and stated, “Today, I joyfully revisit this theme.” In his own teaching, he warned against “the temptation of proselytism” and rejected “a logic of mere institutional preservation or expansion.” By the time of the publication of this article, he has again repeated his instruction not to proselytize on at least three occasions, most recently during his African safari.
Taken to its logical conclusion, it is clear that for Bergoglio and Prevost, institutional growth is suspect and wanting more Catholics is a temptation to sin. Mission must not be “conquest,” but attraction. This despite the fact that the Church Militant was always understood precisely as militant — fighting for souls, conquering error, and extending the reign of Christ the King over nations. The modern language deliberately strips Catholic mission of its triumphant character.
Defenders of this new theology protest that Francis and Leo only reject manipulative or coercive conversion tactics, but this defense is undermined by the usurper popes’ own words. The issue for them is not merely coercion but conversion itself. Francis did not say “forced conversions are nonsense.” He said proselytism is nonsense. He did not merely condemn abuse, but the very mentality of actively seeking converts.
More alarming is how they redefine “true evangelization.” Francis repeatedly explained that evangelization is not persuading others, not “making conversions,” and not convincing people intellectually. Instead, it is simply “living the Gospel” visibly — being kind, forgiving, helping the poor, and waiting for others to ask why. I know dozens of atheists who are kind, who help the poor, and who are forgiving. These things in themselves do not point to Christ or His work on the Cross and what it means for us.
To an atheist, Francis advised Catholics do not preach; “the last thing you have to do is say something.” Just live your life, and if he asks, explain. Let the Holy Spirit do the rest. Again, the Argentine heretic made it clear that apologetics and zeal for souls should be regarded with suspicion.
Holy witness matters and the saints always taught that example strengthens preaching. But they never taught that witness replaces proclamation. Saint Paul did not merely radiate virtue in Athens, he stood and preached Christ crucified. The Apostles did not wait for Rome to become “curious”, they turned the world upside down through fearless proclamation and ultimately paid with their lives. I guess it would have been a better option from a survival standpoint to have just “piqued their curiosity” and not preached, and that way avoided the lions in the Colosseum.
Leo XIV systematizes the same idea in more polished theological language. Evangelization, he says, is not institutional expansion but “the communication of divine love” and that it spreads “through attraction rather than conquest.” What in the name of Deepak Chopra does that even mean?! Christ attracts? The Church merely radiates? Again, the missionary imperative is softened into atmosphere and new age babble.
But herein lies the problem with the Synodal Church’s “approach”: souls are not saved by atmosphere, but by truth, grace, baptism, repentance, and submission to Christ’s Church. This may be hard to do, but it is eminently simple to understand. And these “popes’” preference is not without consequence, as per Ezekiel 3:17-19 they will have blood on their hands in the eyes of God.
This is why the Catholic understanding of proselytism must be defended. To make proselytes was never a shameful thing because it meant bringing souls out of darkness into the marvelous light of Christ. It meant calling error by its name and inviting sinners into the Ark of Salvation. Ultimately it meant loving souls enough to risk offending them for the sake of eternal life.
The Synodal Church cannot tolerate that spirit because it has made peace with the world. It prefers dialogue with false religions to their conversion, coexistence with error to combatting against it, and institutional diplomacy to apostolic courage. It “respects” falsehood and in doing so betrays Truth Himself.
Christ did not say, “Go and attract.” He said, “Go and teach” and, “He that believeth not shall be condemned.” The Apostles understood this. The martyrs understood this. The missionaries understood this. The modern conciliar hierarchy of the Synodal Church clearly chooses not to.
