The National Catholic Register portal, the flagship organ of the EWTN media empire, publishes a hagiographic puff piece on Venerable Félix Varela, framing the 19th-century Cuban priest as a mascot for the geopolitical détente between the United States and the communist regime in Havana. The article, authored by Francis X. Rocca and Gigi Duncan, drips with the syrupy rhetoric of “bridge-building,” “reconciliation,” and “civic flourishing,” utterly devoid of the supernatural language of the True Church. It cites the antipope Benedict XVI’s 2012 declaration of “Venerable” as authoritative, quotes “bishops” and “priests” of the conciliar sect as legitimate pastors, and presents the cause for canonization as a bureaucratic fundraising project. The thesis is clear: the conciliar sect exploits a historical figure to legitimize its own naturalistic agenda of religious indifferentism and political compromise with Marxism, betraying the Social Kingship of Christ and the immutable condemnation of Communism.
The Illegitimacy of the “Canonization” Factory Under Usurpers
The article’s entire premise rests on the validity of the “cause for canonization” processed by the structures occupying the Vatican. It states: “In 2012, Pope Benedict XVI declared Father Varela ‘Venerable’ and recognized his heroic virtues, opening the way for beatification and, ultimately, canonization.” This is the first and fatal error. Joseph Ratzinger (Benedict XVI) was a manifest Modernist heretic who, by the very fact of his public adhesion to the errors of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality), lost the papal office ipso facto according to the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine and the principles of Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code. As Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice: “A manifest heretic… by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” A non-Christian cannot be Pope; a manifest heretic is not a Christian. Therefore, the declaration of “Venerable” by Ratzinger possesses zero canonical and theological weight. It is an act of a private individual, a usurper of the See of Peter, no more binding than the decree of a Masonic lodge.
The article further reveals the mercenary nature of the neo-church’s saint-making industry: “U.S. Catholic officials have estimated that a cause can cost approximately $250,000… with some estimates placing the total cost closer to $500,000… ‘You need sponsors who have deep pockets, and Cuba did not have that, especially after 1959, when communists took over.'” Here the simonia of the conciliar sect is laid bare. The Sanctorum Mater instruction of the neo-church treats sanctity as a commodity requiring “deep pockets.” St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, condemned the Modernist error that “The Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and theological sciences” (prop. 57), but here we see the Church of the New Advent is an enemy of the very gratuity of grace. The true Church does not sell canonizations; the paramasonic structure merchandises them to fund its bureaucracy.
Naturalistic “Reconciliation” vs. The Social Kingship of Christ
The article’s central theme is political: “Father Varela can be a bridge between the Cuban American community and the current population of the island… For Cuba to advance, there has to be a real reconciliation between Cubans who left… and the Cubans who are back home. There has to be forgiveness, mutual forgiveness.” This is the language of Masonic humanitarianism, not Catholic theology. The “reconciliation” proposed is horizontal, sociological, and devoid of the vertical dimension of conversion to the Una, Sancta, Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), thundered against this very error: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed… the main reason why some have the right to command and others have the duty to obey was removed.” The article quotes Deacon Everett: “God and country have to be intertwined for a country to really flourish.” This sounds pious, but in the mouth of a minister of the neo-church—which teaches Dignitatis Humanae (religious liberty) and Gaudium et Spes (autonomy of the temporal order)—it is a fraud. The “God” of the conciliar sect is the vague deity of the United Nations, not Jesus Christ, King of Kings, whose royal dignity demands that all relations in the state be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments (Quas Primas).
The Syllabus of Pius IX (1864) explicitly condemns the errors driving this narrative:
- Prop. 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” (The article assumes a secular political framework for Cuba’s future).
- Prop. 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State…” (The “reconciliation” implies acceptance of the communist regime’s legitimacy).
- Prop. 80: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” (This is precisely the program of the neo-church: terms with Communism).
There is no “reconciliation” with Communism; there is only the conversion of the communist to the Catholic Faith or his eternal damnation. Pius XI in Divini Redemptoris (1937) declared Communism “intrinsically perverse” and forbade any collaboration. The article’s silence on the persecution of the true Church in Cuba—the imprisonment of priests faithful to Tradition, the suppression of the Traditional Mass, the indoctrination of youth in atheism—is deafening. It speaks of “humanitarian crisis” (shortages, blackouts) but not the spiritual crisis of souls deprived of the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary and the true Sacraments.
The “Clergy” of the Neo-Church: Blind Guides Leading the Blind
The article parades a gallery of conciliar officials as authoritative voices: “Bishop Octavio Cisneros,” “Bishop Felipe de Jesús Estévez,” “Father Alberto Reyes,” “Deacon Fred Everett.” These men hold no jurisdiction in the Catholic Church. They were “ordained” in the invalid Novus Ordo rite of Paul VI (1968), which altered the form and intention of the Sacrament of Orders, rendering it doubtful at best, invalid in practice. They belong to a sect that has defected from the Faith (Canon 188.4). As Cardinal Billot teaches regarding Nestorius: “He who has departed from the faith with such preaching cannot depose or remove anyone.” These men cannot “promote a cause,” they cannot “evangelize,” they cannot “reconcile.” They are functionaries of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place.
The article quotes “Bishop” Estévez: “The Cuban people need to be evangelized because the state… has hindered evangelization… this would be a boost to the evangelization of Cuba.” What “evangelization”? The neo-church’s “evangelization” is the proclamation of a false gospel: man’s dignity, religious liberty, dialogue, and the “common good” defined by Masonic lodges. It is the “broad and liberal Protestantism” condemned in Lamentabili (prop. 65). True evangelization is “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19-20). The conciliar sect teaches none of the “whatsoever things” defined by the Council of Trent, Vatican I, or the pre-1958 Magisterium.
Historical Revisionism: Varela as a Precursor of Modernism?
The article frames Varela as “the first man who taught us to think” (José de la Luz y Caballero) and highlights his advocacy for “independence and the abolition of slavery” in the Spanish Cortes. While opposition to the chattel slavery of the 19th century is compatible with natural law, the article’s emphasis on “independence” and “thinking for oneself” smells of the Liberal Catholic error condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832) and Pius IX in the Syllabus. The “freedom” Varela sought in the Cortes Generales was likely the liberalism condemned as “the pest of indifferentism” (Syllabus, Prop. 79). The article uses Varela as a post hoc justification for the neo-church’s agenda: a “priest” who fits the mold of a “social activist” and “bridge-builder,” ignoring the integral Catholic priesthood which is sacerdotal, propitiatory, and hierarchical.
The mention of “St. Frances Xavier Cabrini” alongside Varela in a mural at “St. Patrick’s Cathedral” (the conciliar seat in NYC) is telling. Mother Cabrini was canonized by Pius XII in 1946—a valid Pope. But placing Varela next to her in the neo-church’s cathedral is an act of theft of glory, draping the conciliar sect’s novelties in the mantle of pre-conciliar sanctity.
The Symptomatic Level: The “Saint” as a Fundraising Tool for a Dying Sect
Carlos Eire, the Yale historian quoted, inadvertently exposes the rot: “Promoting a cause for canonization is typically a costly process… ‘You need sponsors who have deep pockets, and Cuba did not have that, especially after 1959, when communists took over.'” This reveals the ecclesiology of the neo-church: a corporation. The “Church” is an NGO requiring capital investment for “brand recognition” (canonization). The “Cuban Church was a persecuted Church. And very, very poor.” True. But the true Church thrives in persecution (Tertullian: Semen est sanguis christianorum). The conciliar sect withers because it has lost the supernatural principle. It needs “Venerable Varela” now because it needs a “Cuban saint” for marketing purposes—to keep the donor base engaged, to signal virtue to the State Department, to pretend relevance in a Cuba it has betrayed by its Ostpolitik (the 1962 Vatican-Moscow Agreement, the silence on Communism at Vatican II).
The article admits: “Awareness of Father Varela’s candidacy for sainthood is much greater among Cuban Americans than among Cubans on the island, who tend to view Father Varela as a remote and intellectual figure… People do not have a devotion to him.” Sensus Fidelium—the true sense of the faithful—rejects the neo-church’s manufactured saints. The Cubans on the island, suffering under the yoke of Communism, know instinctively that a “saint” produced by the same hierarchy that dialogues with their oppressors is a contradiction in terms.
Conclusion: No Salvation in the Structures of the Antichrist
The article ends with the hope that Varela’s emphasis on “virtue and piety could help shape a healthier civic life in Cuba after decades of communism and official atheism.” This is the Pelagian heresy of the Modernists: civic virtue without sanctifying grace, “healthy civic life” without the Reign of Christ the King. “There is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), teaches Pius XI in Quas Primas. Not “reconciliation,” not “bridges,” not “mutual forgiveness,” not “Varela the intellectual.”
The only hope for Cuba is the restoration of the Catholic Church: the Traditional Latin Mass, the Catechism of Trent, the Syllabus of Errors, the Social Kingship of Christ, and bishops with valid Orders and true jurisdiction (if any remain) or the intervention of a true Pope. The neo-church’s “Venerable Varela” is a simulacrum, a wax figure dressed in a cassock to hide the vacuum of the abomination of desolation. “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves” (Matt 7:15). The Register, EWTN, and the entire conciliar apparatus are the wolves. Varela, if he is in glory, weeps at the use of his name to legitimize the synagogue of Satan that occupies his homeland’s hierarchy.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat. Not in the neo-church. Not in Havana’s “reconciliation.” Only in the Tradition.
Source:
Amid US-Cuba Tensions, a Candidate for Sainthood Offers Hope (ncregister.com)
Date: 06.08.2026