The Apostasy of the Cuban “Bishops”: Rejecting Christ the King for Naturalistic Humanism
The cited article reports statements from Father Ariel Suárez, assistant secretary of the Cuban Bishops’ Conference, concerning the island’s socioeconomic crisis. Speaking to the Italian bishops’ newspaper Avvenire, Suárez describes widespread shortages of food, medicine, transportation, and water, coupled with inflation and psychological distress. He asserts that political pluralism “is an asset, not a threat,” and calls for “genuine freedom with responsibility,” dialogue with the United States, and the reunification of Cuban families. The bishops, under the authority of the antipope “Leo XIV,” postponed their ad limina visit to remain with their flock. Suárez concludes by imploring the international community to “put an end to all this suffering.”
This analysis reveals not a Catholic pastoral response but a complete abdication of the Church’s supernatural mission. The “bishops” speak exclusively in the language of naturalistic humanism, utterly silent on sin, grace, the sacraments, and the absolute necessity of Christ’s reign over all nations. Their program is a blueprint for apostasy, directly contradicting the integral Catholic faith as defined before the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958.
1. Factual Deconstruction: A Diagnosis That Ignores the True Disease
The article’s factual premise is the material suffering of the Cuban people. However, the “bishops’” analysis is radically deficient because it omits the primary cause of all societal ills: sin and the rejection of the Social Kingship of Jesus Christ. They diagnose economic mismanagement and political rigidity but remain silent on the fundamental error of a state that denies the Catholic faith and persecutes the Church. This omission is not accidental; it is the hallmark of Modernism.
Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), which established the feast of Christ the King, explicitly links societal decay to the rejection of Christ’s law:
“…this kind of outpouring of evil has afflicted the whole world because very many have removed Jesus Christ and His most holy law from their customs, from private, family, and public life… the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.”
The Cuban situation is a direct consequence of the state’s atheistic communism, which the “bishops” treat merely as a political system to be managed through “pluralism” and “dialogue.” They never call for the conversion of Cuba to the Catholic faith, nor for the explicit recognition of the Catholic Church as the sole true religion and the state’s duty to uphold it. Their silence on the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX (1864) is deafening. That document condemns in the strongest terms the separation of Church and State (#55), the idea that the Church cannot define that Catholicism is the only true religion (#21), and the notion that “it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State” (#77).
Furthermore, Suárez’s call for “political pluralism” as “an asset” is a direct repudiation of the Catholic doctrine that the state has a duty to recognize and privilege the one true religion. The Syllabus condemns the error that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (#15) and that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (#16). By framing pluralism as an “asset,” the “bishops” promote religious indifferentism, a poison that the Syllabus and St. Pius X’s Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) explicitly condemn. Proposition #65 of Lamentabili states: “The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated” – a principle that extends to all Catholic doctrine: it cannot be “tolerated” as one option among many in a pluralistic marketplace of ideas.
2. Linguistic and Rhetorical Analysis: The Language of Naturalism, Not Faith
The vocabulary employed by Suárez is symptomatic of the post-conciliar apostasy. Phrases like “human fulfillment,” “personal and family projects,” “common good,” “enormous human capital,” and “great goodness present among Cubans” are pure Pelagian naturalism. They assume an inherent goodness and autonomy of man apart from grace, a heresy condemned by the Church Fathers and defined against by the Council of Trent.
The call for “genuine freedom with responsibility” and to “respect one another without excluding or stigmatizing anyone” is the language of secular human rights, not Catholic social teaching. Catholic freedom is always ordered to the ultimate end of God (finis ultimus); it is the freedom of the children of God to choose the good, not a neutral right to self-determination. The “bishops” invert this, making the subjective experience of freedom and non-stigmatization the primary goal, rather than the objective reign of Christ the King.
Most revealing is the total absence of supernatural terminology. There is no mention of sin, grace, sacraments, conversion, redemption, heaven, hell, or the final judgment. This is the “silence about supernatural matters” identified in the instructions as “the gravest accusation.” It exposes a mentality that has been completely secularized, viewing the world through a purely sociological and economic lens. This is the exact “hermeneutics of discontinuity” that Benedict XVI later tried to dress up as “hermeneutics of continuity,” but which is in reality the synthesis of all heresies—Modernism—condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907) and its attached decree Lamentabili sane exitu.
3. Theological Confrontation: The Reign of Christ vs. The Cult of Man
The “bishops’” entire program collapses before the unassailable doctrine of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, so clearly defined in Quas Primas. Pius XI writes:
“…the name and authority of king in the proper sense belong to Christ the Man… He possesses, in a word, dominion over all creatures, not by force but by essence and nature… it is clear that there is no power in us that is exempt from this reign. It is therefore necessary that Christ reign in the mind of man… in the will… in the heart… in the body and its members.”
He further declares that this reign extends to states:
“…His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ… Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.”
The “bishops” of Cuba, by advocating for a pluralistic state where “Catholicism” is merely one option among many, are directly opposing this dogma. They advocate for a secular or neutrally religious state, which is precisely the error condemned in Quas Primas itself: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.”
Their appeal to “dialogue” as an end in itself (“With dialogue, one always wins”) is a repudiation of the Church’s duty to condemn error and call for conversion. True Catholic dialogue is always for the purpose of bringing souls to Christ, not for achieving a peaceful coexistence of error. Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemned the idea that the civil power can “interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (#44) and that “the civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (#44). The “bishops” here are inviting the very secular interference they should be resisting, by asking the “international community” (a euphemism for globalist, anti-Catholic powers) to solve a problem that requires a Catholic solution.
Their focus on material alleviation (“put an end to all this suffering”) without the concomitant call for spiritual conversion is a satanic inversion of the Gospel. Our Lord said, “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matt. 6:33). The “bishops” seek the material things first and omit the kingdom of God entirely. This is the “cult of man” condemned by St. Pius X, where human well-being becomes the ultimate end, displacing God.
4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Fruit of the Conciliar Apostasy
This episode is not an anomaly but the logical fruit of the revolution initiated by John XXIII and his successors. The “bishops” operate within the framework of the “Church of the New Advent,” which has replaced the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus with a theory of “invincible ignorance” and “elements of sanctification” outside the Church. This leads inevitably to a neutral stance toward false religions and ideologies.
The post-conciliar magisterium, from “Paul VI” through “Francis” and now “Leo XIV,” has consistently promoted religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and dialogue as primary virtues. This has created a generation of “bishops” who view the state’s neutrality or even hostility to Catholicism not as a calamity but as a normal condition to be managed through “pluralism” and “conversation.” They have internalized the Modernist principle that the Church must adapt to the “signs of the times” as defined by the world, not by the unchanging doctrine of the Fathers.
Their specific request to postpone the ad limina visit to “be with the flock” is a parody of pastoral solicitude. True shepherds would be with the flock to strengthen them in the faith, to administer the sacraments (which are likely scarce or invalid in Cuba due to the post-conciliar liturgical revolution), and to exhort them to patient suffering for Christ, not to lobby for political reforms. They模仿 the “pastoral” style of the conciliar sect, which prioritizes “accompaniment” and “listening” over dogmatic clarity and the call to repentance.
Their silence on the conversion of Cuba is a direct consequence of the ecumenical spirit of Assisi and the subsequent normalization of relations with communist states (e.g., the “Ostpolitik” of the 1960s-70s). The Modernist hierarchy now sees its role as a moral consultant to world powers, not as the sole ark of salvation preaching the necessity of Catholic states. This is the “diversion from apostasy” noted in the “False Fatima Apparitions” file: focusing on external threats (here, economic collapse) while ignoring the internal modernist apostasy that has destroyed the Church’s social doctrine.
5. The Only Catholic Response: Christ the King or Chaos
Contrast the “bishops’” naturalistic program with the unchangeable Catholic doctrine. The Syllabus (#40) condemns the error that “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society.” In truth, society’s well-being depends on the teaching of the Catholic Church. Pius XI in Quas Primas promises “unheard-of blessings” if men recognize Christ’s kingship: “due freedom, order, and tranquility, and concord and peace.”
The Catholic solution for Cuba is not pluralism but the conversion of the nation to the Catholic faith and the establishment of a Catholic state where the Church is free and the laws reflect the Ten Commandments. This means the suppression of communist ideology and the restriction of false religions, not their “pluralistic” coexistence. The “bishops” should be calling for the Consecration of Cuba to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, as Leo XIII urged, and for the public acknowledgment of Christ as King by the state. Instead, they echo the modernist mantra of “freedom” and “dialogue,” which are masks for the indifferentism condemned by Pius IX.
Their appeal to the “international community” is particularly abhorrent. The “international community” is the network of globalist, masonic, and communist powers actively working for the dissolution of nations and the establishment of a one-world religion of man. By asking this community to “end the suffering,” the “bishops” are effectively inviting the very forces that promote abortion, contraception, and the persecution of the true Church to “solve” a problem they themselves have helped create by abandoning the Social Kingship of Christ.
Conclusion: Apostates in Episcopal Robes
Father Ariel Suárez and the Cuban Bishops’ Conference are not Catholic bishops. They are functionaries of the conciliar sect, promoting the naturalistic, modernist, and indifferentist errors that have been condemned in Quas Primas, the Syllabus of Errors, and Lamentabili sane exitu. Their solution to Cuba’s crisis—political pluralism and dialogue—is a surrender to the very errors that caused the crisis. They offer the poison of secular humanism as the antidote to the disease of communism, ignoring that both are offspring of the same Enlightenment apostasy.
The true Catholic response is the one given by Pius XI: the public and solemn recognition of Christ the King as the sole sovereign of individuals, families, and states. Until the Cuban people and their rulers are converted and the state formally submits to the law of Christ, no lasting peace or justice is possible. The “bishops” have chosen the path of apostasy, aligning themselves with the “international community” of the Antichrist rather than with the Regnum Christi. Their words are not those of shepherds but of wolves in sheep’s clothing, leading souls further into the abyss of naturalism and away from the only true hope: the Sacred Heart of Jesus, King of nations.
“For there is no power but from God: and those that are, are ordained of God” (Romans 13:1). The “bishops” of Cuba have rejected this fundamental truth, preferring the idol of human “pluralism” to the reign of the Incarnate Word.
Source:
Political pluralism in Cuba would be an asset, bishops’ assistant secretary says (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 19.02.2026