CUBAN biSHOPS JOin 'marxtholics' by CARLOS ALBERTO Montaner MIAMI HERALd, AUGUST 18 1986 A REPLY by BRYAN O. WALSH
The latest round in a campaign of villification against the Catholic
bishops of Cuba was fired by Carlos Alberto Montaner, a Madrid-based journalist,
in his article ’’Cuban Bishops Join Marxtholics published in the Miami Herald
on August 18th. In an extraordinary resume of half truths and errors in fact,
Montaner purports to expose a Castro-directed conspiracy which allegedly has
used the Cuban bishops and the Catholic Church as willing instruments in
promoting marxism. A careful reading of the article leaves one with two choices:
either Montaner does not check his facts or he does not care as long as he can
twist the truth to suit his thesis
The Paris-based Catholic Committee against Hunger and for Development
(CCHD) is a semi-autonomous arm of the French Bishops Conference. Its judgement
in some of its grants to third world countries has been questioned, and the
French bishops have recently taken steps to bring it under tighter rein.
However, to state that it preaches the doctrine of 'Marxtholics' under a facade
of charitable works is at best to state a half truth. To say that ‘‘The church is
full of Marxtholics who maintain more or less the same notions as those of
liberation Theology," is exaggeration carried to the point of nonsense, if not
slander. Apparently, Montaner is unaware of, or chooses to ignore the April 9th
letter of Pope John Paul II (whom he invokes many times) to the Brazilian
bishops. The letter states: "We are convinced , we and you, that the theology of
liberation is not only opportune, but useful and necessary."
Montaner next introduces his readers to Reconciliation Theology, which
he proceeds to define as "the 'realistic' acceptance of tame, collaborationist
churches in countries — Algeria, Tanzania, Cuba, Vietnam, Nicaragua — in which
communism or any variant of authoritarian socialism has managed to gain sway." I 2.
While there may be some writers who have used such a definition, reconcilliation
is the essence of Christianity and is a perfectly orthodox concept in theology.
Reconciliation between God and man and between men is and always has been the motivating objective of Catholic theology. It is the reason why the Church has
rejected some forms of liberation theology which are based on the marxist principle of the inevitability of class warfare. But it suits Montaner's theme
to redefine this perfectly respectable concept in terms of a Catholic accommodation with marxism as if this were widely accepted in the Catholic
Church
Montaner states that CCHD gave the Cuban government one m illion francs
(about $140,000) for charitable works in 1981. He claims that it was this French
connection that Castro used to mobilize the American Catholic hierarchy to
change President Reagan's hostile policy towards Cuba and Nicaragua. To do this,
Castro needed, according to Montaner, the help of three Cuban b ishops, Jaime
Garcia Alamino, Adolfo Herrera, and Jaime Ortega, who would agree to collaborate
with marxism. One problem with this a llegation is that there is no B ishop Garcia
A lamino in Cuba and Adolfo Herrera's real name is Adolfo Rodriquez Herrera
The next step, according to Montaner was Castro's 1982 plan for a
Catholic Encounter in Havana. The truth is that this national meeting of the
Catholic Church in Cuba, the f irst since 1960, was originally suggested at a
retreat in E l Cobre in July 1979 by Monsignor Azcarte, the retired auxiliary
b ishop of Havana, as a result of the Third General Conference of Latin American
B ishops convened by Pope John Paul II in Puebla, Mexico. The actual decision to
proceed with it was made a year later by all the Cuban bishops. Every step of
the preparation for this h istoric event of Cuban church h istory was planned in
the closest collaboration with the Vatican. Recognizing its importance, Pope
John Paul sent Cardinal Pironio, President of the Pontifical Council of the
Laity, as his personal representative to the meeting held in Havana in February 3.
1986 (not 1985 as stated by Montaner). In May of this year, two of the Cuban
b ishops went to Rome to report in person to the Holy Father on the conclusions
of the meeting.
According to Montaner, "The Encounter essentially concluded that
collaboration between Marxists and Catholics was possible and desirable.” This
statement is intellectually dishonest, as it seeks to convey to Miamians a false
impression of the Encounter's conclusions and of the Church's reality in Cuba
today.
The final report of the Encounter is an inspiring profession of faith.
There is absolutely nothing in it that in any way conflicts with the full
teaching of the Catholic Church. When it speaks of the real world in Cuba, a world which it clearly states is ruled by m ilitant atheism, it d iscusses the
role of the Christian in that world. It recalls accurately the h istory of the
revolution, of the repression suffered by the Church, of the explusion of the
clergy and religious. It rejects any ideological commitment as a precondition
for the rights it claims to preach the gospel no. 1 7 4 . A careful reading of the
final report will reveal that within the reality that is Cuba today, as in
Poland, the Church, in order to carry out its m ission, must enter into dialo gue
wuth the regime. The report makes clear that the Cuban Church is committed to
not compromising its principles and the faith.
Certainly it is desirable from Castro's point of view to have Mother
Teresa visit Cuba. But it is also an opportunity for the Church whose presence
and witness in that society will be stronger when her sisters establish an
apostolate there. It may not seem important in Madrid, but it is a sign of hope
for the practicing Catholics in Cuba. Since this is the real world, Castro's
desire for a visit by the Holy Father is a further opportunity for the Church in
Cuba to win concessions from the regime. Montaner gives little credit to Pope
John Paul, whom he professes to admire as a Pole and as a patriot, when he even postulates his being manipulated by Castro or by anyone else.
In private conversations, some Cuban b ishops have expressed concern about the use of the name Marti by the U.S. government radio station which broadcasts to Cuba. This, they believe, was the provocation which derailed the long-sought
U.S. Cuban Immigration agreement last year. As a result, the sufferings of many political prisoners and Cuban families, both in Cuba and Miami, were prolonged.
To say that these b ishops were fulfilling a "dirty job recommended to them by
Castro" amounts to slander.
According to Montaner, "The second d irty job 'suggested' by the Cuban government was that Armando Valladares, a m ilitant, combative Catholic who spent 22 years in Castro's jails for defending his religious and political convictions, be attacked and d iscredited. This they did." What the Cuban b ishops did was to answer, in the from of a letter to the editor, a vicious attack on them, similar to Montaner's own article, written by Valladares and published in the conservative Paris newspaper, La Croix. Montaner then attributes to the
Cuban B ishops' Conference resonsibility for the publication of the same letter
in a paid advertisement in the miami Herald The truth is that the advertisement was placed by a small Miami Cuban Protestant church with absolutely no connection to the Cuban B ishop's Conference and without its permission However even if it had been p laced by the Conference, it would have been a legitimate defense against the unwarranted attack by Valladares.
The third dirty job allegedly given to the Cuban bishops was to get the
Catholic bishops of South Florida to persuade the Holy Father not to come to
Miami because it would be hard for him to go to Cuba later. The logic of this accusation is difficult to follow. If Castro wants the Pope to come to Cuba, as
Montaner states, then surely the justification for visiting the repressed
Catholics in Cuba is a ll the greater if the Holy Father has already been in
Miami The only one who is going to prevent the Holy Father from going to Cuba 5. is Castro, who, according to Montaner, wants to embrace him in Havana. It does not make sense. Beyond the question of logic, this fact is clear. When consulted about the implications of a papal visit to Miami, the Cuban bishops were very supportive. Any objection would have been taken very seriously in Miami as
Church authorities here are very sensitive to anything that might cause problems for the Church in Cuba.
What does all of this mean? The evidence is mounting that there is a carefully organized campaign to discredit the Cuban bishops and the Church in
Cuba. It surfaced in Miami's Cuban media last October when it was announced that an official delegation of Cuban b ishops would return the visit made to the Cuban
Church by a group of U.S. b ishops the previous March (not September 1984, as stated by Montaner). The arrival of the b ishops in Washington was greeted by a vicious attack on them in Miami's Cuban media led by Jorge Mas Canosa, chairman of the Board of Radio Marti and of the Cuban National Foundation in a broadcast on WQBA. The meeting of the Cuban Church in Havana last February has also been the subject of constant attacks in Miami's Cuban media.
The real question is why? It seems that there are those who view, with some twisted logic of their own, both the survival and the current signs of renewed life in the Catholic Church in Cuba as a feather in Castro's cap.
Instead of rejoicing that once again the Church has survived persecution, the very b ishops, priests, s isters and laity who have maintained the faith against great odds are now vilified and slandered. The very fact that the Church in
Cuba has taken on new life under the vigorous leadership of a Pope who knows communism from the inside is decried. Certainly, any leniency on the part of the
Cuban regime towards the Church does not mean that it is about to embrace the faith. It is a battle of wits as well as of grace. The attacks on the Cuban b ishops in the long run serve only the marxist cause by contributing to the weakening of the Catholic Church on the island. To invoke the name of Pope John 6.
Paul to discredit the Cuban bishops is to add insult to injury. The Holy Father will go to Cuba when he judges that the time is ripe for the Church in Cuba.
This is his prime concern and indeed should be the concern of all true believers. To manipulate the Church for political purposes can only serve the cause of its enemies and will ultimately discredit the manipulators themselves.