CUBAN Bishops Join 'Marxtholics' by CARLOS ALBERTO Montaner MIAMI Herald, AUGUST 18 1986 a REPLY by BRYAN O
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.