The Omission of Christ’s Social Kingship in Reporting on Nicaraguan Persecution
[EWTN News] reports that Nicaraguan churches were “filled with the faithful” during Holy Week 2026 despite governmental restrictions, police surveillance, and the ban on public processions. Father Edwing Román, a Nicaraguan priest in exile in Florida, described how “thousands of Lenten and Holy Week activities were canceled” and that “religious celebrations have been restricted to inside the churches, courtyards, or atriums, under police surveillance.” The article notes the presence of “Sandinista guards” to harass processions, the regime’s denial of any suppression, and the extensive coverage by pro-government media. It quotes U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau denouncing the ban on processions and the regime’s response titled “Utterly False.” Exiled bishops like Silvio Báez delivered homilies in Miami, while Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes led services in Managua under police watch. The article concludes by highlighting the “tremendous work of the priests” and the people’s “complete generosity and absolute freedom” to attend church.
The article’s naturalistic focus and omission of Catholic social teaching expose the theological bankruptcy of the post-conciliar hierarchy’s approach to persecution. By framing the issue solely in terms of “religious freedom” and attendance numbers, it completely sidesteps the non-negotiable Catholic doctrine of the social reign of Christ the King—a doctrine that demands the public subordination of all states to the law of the Gospel, not merely tolerance for private worship.
Naturalistic Reporting That Silences the Supernatural
The article reduces the persecution to a matter of “restrictions,” “surveillance,” and “propaganda,” analyzing it through the lens of political science and human rights discourse. There is no mention of the spiritual warfare underlying the conflict, the offense against the divine majesty of Christ, or the duty of Catholic rulers to establish the Social Kingship of Christ. The tone is that of a neutral observer documenting civil liberties violations, not a Catholic voice proclaiming the absolute primacy of God’s law over human law.
This silence is heretical. Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Quas Primas, which established the feast of Christ the King, declared that the plague of secularism (laicism) has “long been hidden in the soul of society” and that its errors have produced “seeds of discord sown everywhere, flames of envy and hostility… domestic peace completely shattered… the whole society profoundly shaken and heading towards destruction.” The article mentions the regime’s “propaganda” and “harassment” but never identifies them as manifestations of the secularist apostasy condemned by Pius XI. It fails to state the obvious: a state that forbids public processions of the King of Kings is in open rebellion against the divine order.
The Heresy of “Religious Freedom” as the Framework
The article’s entire narrative is framed by the conciliar error of “religious freedom.” It cites U.S. government criticism based on this principle and notes the regime’s claim that “thousands of religious activities… are taking place.” Both sides operate within the naturalistic paradigm of the “right to worship,” a concept condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.
Error #77 of the Syllabus states: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” This is precisely the premise underlying the U.S. State Department’s statement and the article’s implicit approval of it. True Catholic doctrine holds that the state has the duty to recognize the Catholic religion as the sole religion of the state and to prohibit public worship of false religions. The article’s acceptance of the “religious freedom” narrative is a direct repudiation of the Syllabus and the entire Catholic social order.
Furthermore, the article quotes Cardinal Brenes saying the people attended with “complete generosity and absolute freedom.” This is a grotesque distortion. How can there be “absolute freedom” when public processions are banned, when police monitor church entrances, and when the regime employs propaganda to lure people away from Holy Week services? This language whitewashes persecution and aligns with the conciliar sect’s obsession with “dialogue” and “tolerance” rather than with the uncompromising witness of the martyrs.
The False “Shepherds” of the Conciliar Sect
The article presents exiled bishops like Silvio Báez and Rolando Álvarez, and Cardinal Leopoldo Brenes, as legitimate pastors. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, these men are members of the conciliar sect, which has embraced the errors of Vatican II. Their very presence in the “church” structures after the 1958 apostasy invalidates their jurisdiction. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that an office becomes vacant by “public defection from the Catholic faith.” The post-conciliar hierarchy’s public adherence to religious freedom, ecumenism, and the separation of Church and state constitutes such a defection.
Báez’s homily, as reported, speaks of a “liberating God who does not accommodate the pretensions of the powerful.” This is liberation theology—a heresy condemned by the Church. It reduces the Gospel to social justice and omits the necessity of the conversion of souls and the public confession of Christ’s kingship. Pius XI in Quas Primas stated that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses all men” and that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations” only insofar as they serve the expansion of Christ’s kingdom. Báez’s rhetoric, devoid of any call for the state to recognize Christ’s authority, is pure Modernism.
The Silence on the True Cause: Apostasy from Christ the King
The article never once mentions the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ. It does not quote Pius XI’s thunderous declaration: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” It does not condemn the Nicaraguan regime for its explicit violation of the first commandment and its rejection of the public reign of Christ.
Instead, it focuses on superficial details: police presence, media coverage, the number of attendees. This is symptomatic of the conciliar sect’s entire approach: it treats persecution as a problem of “tolerance” and “human rights” rather than as a cosmic battle between Christ and Satan. The article’s failure to call for the conversion of Nicaragua to the Social Kingship of Christ is a damning indictment of the faith of those it quotes. They are not fighting for the restoration of Christ’s rights; they are merely complaining about their own comfort.
The Usurper “Pope” Leo XIV and the Invalid Liturgy
The article mentions that Bishop Rolando Álvarez “participated in the Rite of the Adoration of the Cross at the Vatican during Holy Week” alongside “Pope Leo XIV.” This is sacrilegious. Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) is an antipope, as the See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958. Any liturgical acts he presides over are invalid. The participation of an exiled bishop in such a rite demonstrates his communion with the conciliar apostasy, not with the true Church.
Moreover, the article describes Holy Week services without any reference to the traditional Latin liturgy, which is the only valid expression of the Catholic faith. The post-conciliar “reform” of Holy Week, promulgated by Annibale Bugnini, is a desecration that strips the sacred rites of their sacrificial and propitiatory character. The “churches packed” with people are likely attending these invalid services, which cannot fulfill the obligation to assist at the Holy Week offices. The article’s silence on this liturgical devastation is complicit in the ongoing sacrilege.
Conclusion: A Conciliar Narrative That Denies the Faith
The article is a paradigm of the conciliar sect’s apostasy. It replaces the immutable Catholic doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ—so clearly defined by Pius XI in Quas Primas—with the naturalistic, Masonic principle of “religious freedom.” It presents persecuted clerics who are themselves part of the apostasy, preaching a gospel of social liberation without the necessity of the state’s confession of Christ. It frames the conflict in secular terms of human rights, thereby denying that the primary issue is the honor due to God.
True Catholic response to such persecution would be to proclaim, as Pius XI did, that “the State must recognize the authority of Christ the King” and that “when rulers and legitimate superiors have the conviction that they exercise authority not so much by their own right as by the command and in the place of the Divine King, then peace will flourish.” Instead, the article offers only a plaintive cry for “religious freedom,” which is error #77 of the Syllabus. This is not a defense of the Church; it is a surrender to the very secularism that Pius XI called “the plague that poisons human society.”
The faithful in Nicaragua deserve to hear the unvarnished truth: their suffering is a direct result of the world’s rejection of Christ’s kingship, and their only hope is the restoration of the Social Reign of Christ the King—a hope that cannot be realized through dialogue with the enemies of Christ but through the uncompromising confession of the faith, even unto death. The conciliar hierarchy, by abandoning this doctrine, has left them spiritually defenseless.
Source:
Churches packed in Nicaragua for Holy Week amid restrictions and police presence (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 07.04.2026