|
Work material that was used for a meeting of the priests
of the diocese of Santiago de Cuba, Holguín, Bayamo-Manzanillo
and Guantánamo.
Introduction
During the days before the visit of the Pope to Cuba,
everyone expected something. The Church, larger spaces within
which to carry out its mission; the prisoners, freedom;
housewives, to be able to obtain more food; the people, that
their problems be resolved. But it was also suspected that
those enormous expectations would not be satisfied by the
Papal visit. Now, a year and a half after this historical
papal visit to Cuba, we can definitely ask ourselves: Where
are we and what did we achieve with the visit of the Pope to
our country? We intend to answer these questions with the
following reflections.
Suggestions and constructive criticism from the
Pope
All the expectations generated, both the "objective" and
the fantastic, found their echo and incarnation in a phrase
which for many synthesized and summarized the message of His
Holiness to Cuba and to the Cubans: "Cuba should open itself
to the world, and the world should open to Cuba" (1). The
phrase was insightful, as it referred to the double blockade
suffered by the Cuban people: the internal, imposed by the
communist system, and the external, synthesized in the
commercial embargo by the United State to the Island. To those
who only affirm the importance of the first, the Cuban problem
can be resolved through internal change, with the evolution,
transformation or dissolution of the present system. To those
who blame everything on the external blockade, its lifting (a
decision which depends on a foreign government) would solve
the extremely difficult present situation of the nation.
A dispassionate and objective look is sufficient to
discover that our problems are of such caliber that they
involve decisions that are internal and external, personal and
collective, both inside and outside Cuba. The Pope cast this
look and synthesized the situation in this double opening:
from Cuba to the world and from the world to Cuba.
Another "main-idea" of the Holy Father was that we Cubans
should be the protagonists of our own history (2). This
exhortation to the protagonism of the people encompasses a
double criticism: on one hand of the paternalism which makes
us expect everything "from above", and on the other, the
immobility that leads us to expect solutions "from outside",
to stand idly by while expecting others to solve our problems.
The solution will come from within and from inside: it must
come from our people and from their hearts; otherwise, it will
not be a solution. Many years ago, at the onset of the first
confrontations between the Church and the emerging socialist
state, Mons. Pérez Serantes said: "Rome or Moscow" to deny
that Cuba's future depended on Washington and Moscow. As the
old Latin proverb states: "Roma locuta, causa finita"…Rome,
the Pope, almost forty years later, has said that the future
is in our hands and depends on us. Now then, we should ask:
What has prevented and still prevents us from taking the reins
of our life and our history into our own hands? To answer
these questions we should analyze, even if only briefly, the
phenomenon of totalitarianism in which we have been immersed,
in one way or another, for the past forty years.
The situation, which has characterized the development of
the socio-economic and cultural evolution of Cuba during the
past forty years, can be synthesized in one word:
totalitarianism. The Cuban communists did not invent the
totalitarian state; they simply adapted their Marxist-Leninist
version and benefited from the extensive experience available.
In confronting the United States, the neighboring superpower
in the Cold War, the only door that remained open to the Cuban
government was a strategic alliance with the block opposing
the United States: the Eastern block headed by the Soviet
Union. In this fashion, the existence and survival of the
Cuban project was inevitably linked to the so-called "real
socialism" and to its methodology.
Totalitarianism permanently adopts and applies the forms of
reaction typically used in warfare. The "habit of violence,
the simplicity of extreme passions, the submission of the
individual and the collective" ensure a maximum feeling of
solidarity brought about by a shared fear; induced
egalitarianism; unity without fissures; and the need of action
directed and controlled by the one in charge. The totalitarian
society exhibits a rare mix of paternalism and ferocity. It
has been said that "this cult to violence, as a means as well
as an end, makes totalitarianism a close cousin of political
'gangsterism', with its acute perception of opportunity."
If the womb from which totalitarianism has emerged is war
and violence, the pursued objective is that of the destruction
and of the total reconstruction of a society of masses based
on ideological postulates, operating through mechanisms of
organization and control which utilize the most modern
artifacts of science and technology. But the ideology is not a
simple method of thinking, or a philosophical structure made
purely of ideas. It is an instrument of action which mobilizes
the historic forces towards one goal: the establishment of
absolute political power in the hands of a sole party which
reigns over "a united people who shall never be defeated."
From this, we can characterize the system based on the
following elements:
- The objective of creating a new society and a new man
comes from a millennial ideology that mobilizes the entire
population to action.
- A sole party of the masses, hierarchically structured,
and simultaneously directed by an absolute dictator, directs
this action.
- A system of physical or psychological terror, exercised
by the party, but which also supervises the party through a
sophisticated system of security and vigilance which
utilizes modern methods of control (informational and
electronic), and especially, scientific psychology and the
constant study of the population's morale/emotional state
and opinion.
- The control of information through mass media allows for
the creation of a "virtual reality" which has very little or
nothing at all to do with reality and which allows the
belief that one is living in the best of worlds...or at
least, that "other worlds are even worse."
- The absolute control of the armaments and the army, as
well as a centrally planned economy, enable those in
government to exert the maximum control over people's lives.
We thus face a situation of such an absolute control over
the souls and bodies of men and of the simultaneous capacity
to plan and control the individuals and the society, which is
perhaps unprecedented by any monarch or government. Radio and
television also carry out indirect and sophisticated control
that "programs" the consciousness from within and is barely
perceived by the programmed individuals. All this provides the
totalitarian system with a diabolical efficacy in the
domination of people.
The syndrome of learned helplessness or "nothing can be
done"
It is convenient to analyze the consequences on human
beings of a continuous and prolonged exposure to the politics
of the totalitarian system. We will call it the "syndrome of
learned helplessness" or "induced hopelessness." As a starting
point, we have the experiments by American psychologist Martin
Seligman. Dr. Seligman researched the behavior of two groups
of dogs, one subjected to a disturbing and highly anguishing
situation, without any possibility of escaping it: the animals
in this experiment, regardless of what they did, received
electrical charges and could not leave the cages in which they
were locked. The other group, subjected to a similar
situation, could, by activating certain mechanisms, escape
from this place of torture. After several attempts, they were
able to free themselves.
When both groups of animals were subjected to a new
situation which had the possibility of escape for both groups,
those of the first group resigned themselves to their fate,
without even trying to find an escape from their situation,
even though it was available to them. In contrast to the first
group, those of the second group were able to find the new
door to escape from their place of torture.
The investigations of Professor Seligman have been applied
to human psychology and to psycho-sociology. The results have
been very fruitful when applied to the totalitarian reality.
It is presented as a situation without any way out, which, if
it is assumed as such, becomes a paradigmatic case of
helplessness. In this same way, the propaganda generated by
the regime is aimed at convincing us that change is
impossible, or that change will end in chaos: that is, that
there is no possible solution to the present situation.
A phrase by journalist Soledad Cruz incontrovertibly
expresses these ideas: "There is no one who can overthrow
this, but there is also no one who can fix it." This idea is
reinforced using old proverbs such as (translated from
Spanish): "a known evil is better than an unknown good", and
other similar ones. The most perfect state of helplessness is
the one that implies the renunciation to the mere attempt to
achieve change. In order to create this attitude, all cards
are used, such as: terror, fear of failure, discouragement,
lack of confidence in oneself and in others, and all forms of
division and suspicion. Its most extreme expression is when
they are able to convince us that "people are not worth the
effort", that they are unworthy of our sacrifice. This is how
the omnipotence of the State feeds the impotence of its
citizens.
But these ideas, attitudes and situations that form a state
of helplessness only succeed if they are believed by those who
suffer them. When the helplessness syndrome appears in human
beings, it is maintained by ideas, attitudes and experiences
which are repeated. They are most dangerous when they appear
unconditioned and are applied in the most impersonal and
aseptic manner.
As we saw in the case of the animals subjected to a
prolonged state of helplessness, they will respond with
inaction. Helplessness operates to dissuade the imagination
and creativity of its victims. A change in the situation is
not followed by a change in habits, but rather, by the
maintenance of the same mechanisms of response, which had
already been acquired. The syndrome of learned helplessness is
the key mechanism to explain the apathy of people in a
totalitarian or a post-totalitarian state. The system itself
has functioned like a giant mechanism that generates
helplessness through the control of: the different spheres of
life (political-administrative, economic, and socio-cultural);
information and of the centers of ideological formation or
education; and, the mechanisms of vigilance, pressure and
repression. It is aimed at transmitting to the people the
sensation that nothing escapes the absolute power of the State
and its representatives. All this has the objective of
imposing upon us the syndrome of helplessness.
Joan Manuel Serrat says in "Pueblo Blanco": "Awake, tender
people, this land is sick, and do not expect tomorrow what it
did not give you yesterday. Leave your mule, your woman and
your raiment, and follow the path of the Hebrew people. Search
for another moon; perhaps tomorrow fortune will smile; and, if
you have to cry, it is better to weep facing the sea. If I
could join the flight of pigeons and abandoning hills leave my
people behind, I swear to you by what I was, that I would
leave this place; but the dead are in captivity and will not
let us leave the cemetery."
To live in truth: a door to emerge from
helplessness
"Truth will set you free"--John 9,32
They married us to falsehood and they forced us to live in
it. That is why it seems that our world sinks when we hear the
truth. As if it would not be worth it that the world would
sink rather than to live in falsehood.-- José Martí
What the totalitarian system both fears and runs away from
the most is the simple truth. The system cannot stand the
critical spirit that questions those incontrovertible truths
pronounced from the throne of absolute power. The totalitarian
regime operates as an immense generator of virtual reality,
but it only functions for those who decide or at least
passively accept to live within it. Those who decide to live
in truth and do not collaborate with the conventionalities
that sustain the system, become an example for others and a
danger to the system. Vaclav Havel has analyzed this reality
using the example of the shopkeeper who places a political
slogan in his vegetable stand ("true democracy only exists in
socialism"). Neither he nor his customers believe the slogan;
very probably, they will not even read it.
The purpose of the sign is not to express what the
shopkeeper thinks, but to send a message of loyalty to the
system. The real message says: "I, Juan, the storekeeper, stay
out of trouble and therefore obey by placing this sign. The
only thing I ask in exchange is to be left in peace." If we
were to translate in real terms the situation of the
shopkeeper we would give him a sign that reads: "I have fear
and therefore I obey without making any noises." But the
shopkeeper would refuse it; he would be ashamed to show in a
window, at the public view, such an explicit declaration of
his degradation. This is how the ideology functions: it covers
up the truth with "elevated" words and serve as an alibi for
the controlling power as well as for the man who humiliates
himself before this power.
The distance that exists between words and life represents
and reveals the distance that separates the abject initiative
of a false life, which is expressed through lies, and an
honest life, lived in truth. Unmasking falsehood becomes the
first mission of the man who wants to be loyal to himself and
who wants to live in truth. On the contrary, by believing the
lie, or behaving as though he believed it, he becomes a
supporter of the regime and prolongs it. This is what is
called "accepting the rules of the game." Man does not decide
his own life. On the contrary, life, ritualized through
ideology, receives man's loyalty and is imposed on him as his
irrevocable destiny. By obeying the ideology, man signs the
death sentence of his own liberty and that of others. He
becomes an accomplice to the slavery of his brothers. Man can
only again find his identity and repressed dignity through an
act of liberty and defiance. When a man decides to "live in
the truth", he demonstrates that this type of life is possible
and embarrasses those who continue to live a lie. He questions
the prevailing power and becomes the greatest threat to the
pretended omnipotence of this power. We find the greatest
confirmation of this in the historical downfall of the
post-totalitarian communist world in 1989: this structure of
power, up until that point apparently monolithic, fell like a
deck of cards, during a few days, and, except for the
experience in Romania, in a peaceful manner, without anyone
defending the "ancient regime."
This gaining of conscience that we have spoken about is not
a political act, but a moral one. The totalitarian system,
which has taken over all aspects of life--the civil society,
the economy, culture, and even family life and the most
intimate personal dimension--classifies as "political" all
action heading towards "living in the truth." All actions
aimed at enabling people to recover their responsibility and
to exercise their capacity to decide are a direct threat to
the system, and provoke an angry and violent reaction on the
part of the authorities.
In addition to the ritualized ideology, which serves as a
justification for the system by creating a virtual reality
that hides and distorts the "real reality", the system has its
most firm support in fear. This becomes the key to the
ultimate acceptance of the "virtual reality." As we can
clearly observe, fear functions to dissuade any action toward
assuming one's own responsibility: jail, easily imposed in a
legal system that initiates processes based on the
"presumption" of guilt, can have such a high price that no
prudent man would want to pay. The increase of the police
forces, and its increasing threatening character, serve to
dissuade a population which is increasingly becoming more
"expressive" of its true feelings and thoughts. On the other
hand, there is the "easy outlet" offered by immigration: an
individual solution to which very few are willing to renounce,
"ornamented" with the justification of being able to help the
family who stays behind. From the social point of view, the
solution of immigration functions as a "placebo", an efficient
tranquilizer, as it offers the hope that the lottery can make
it possible anytime.
On the other hand, one does not have to be a specialist in
economics to discover that the present chapter of the life of
the nation increasingly depends more on immediate revenues to
survive. There is no effort, not even an intent, to achieve a
long term development with a vision of the future. Life is
lived one day at a time; this is true for the citizens as well
as for the State. The nation's infrastructures are destroyed;
this is not prevented by any restorations or substitutions.
The liberalizing measures which would enable a rapid
agricultural, industrial and business recovery are not taken
by the government as it fears that these will lead first to
the loss of economic control and later to the loss of
political control. That is why we see that each step forward
in individual initiatives in agriculture, commerce, and
business is always followed by one step backward.
A similar situation exists in fields, which were
traditionally represented as the unquestionable successes of
the Revolution: education and health. In a recent article,
Ignacio Sotelo stated that he had noted that in Cuba, where
everyone had learned to read, the number of functional
analphabets was constantly increasing: no one reads…because
there is nothing to read, it is out of the reach of people, or
there is no time or no desire. The same can be said about
health: illnesses due to shortages are on the increase. The
physical and psychological deterioration of the people is too
visible to necessitate illustrating it with examples or
statistics; it has acquired incontrovertible dimensions…it is
sufficient to open one's eyes and observe.
All in all, the situation is so chaotic that the government
has been forced to "open its hand." As Jorge Domínguez has
stated: the regime continues to maintain its totalitarian
will, but it is unable to exert it like before, hence the
unavoidable loss of control and the repressive measures of the
recent months (the laws of January and the increase in the
number of and in the incentives offered to the police forces).
In Cuba, the totalitarian regime gave way to a
post-totalitarian regime in the seventies. (The totalitarian
regime is based on the absolute control of the situation and
the mobilization of the masses to seek the active support of
the system. The post-totalitarian system attempts to maintain
control by the state not by mobilizing, but by paralyzing the
masses, thus avoiding the growth of the emerging civil
society.) Today, there is discussion as to whether the
post-totalitarian Cuban regime is headed toward an
authoritarian regime with the characteristics of a sultanate.
What remains indisputable is that totalitarianism will be
maintained by the regime in the midst of changes, sometimes
imperceptible and slow, but real, which are taking place in
the country.
A year and a half ago, the path that the Church offered, as
expressed by the Pope, was based on an internal and external
opening; the initiation of a national dialogue; a call to
personal responsibility; and the respect to the principle of
subsidiary. This search for the common good was expressed in
Martí's formula of "with all and for the good of all." The
response has been to recrudesce the weakened and obsolete
mechanisms of totalitarian control, which generate
helplessness and dissuade the people from accepting their
responsibility as individuals and as citizens. Based on what
we have said, it is now convenient to analyze what should be
the response of the Church in this situation.
The Church at the crossroads of the present and the
future
Forty years ago, at the beginning of the communist
experience in the nation, the Church raised its voice and
faced the new reality. Totalitarianism in Cuba started with
the aura of a heroic struggle for liberty and justice, through
a popular mobilization without precedent in the history of the
country. The gradually progressive implementation of communism
in the revolution, through a very accelerated process,
resulted in the taking of absolute power. The revolutionary
power, invested with a kind of redeeming authority, swept away
with the existing institutions and the entire republican past:
with its good and its mistakes. The consequence was "a year
zero": that of an absolute power that controlled all spheres
of life.
The confrontation of the Church, which denounced the
communist presence in the revolution and its turn to the
radical left, resulted in the dismantling of the Church, its
means of action, and its institutions. Perhaps there was an
error in the calculation of the "strength" of the Church that
during the first fifty years had been able to grow in numbers,
presence and prestige in the national life, as expressed by
Mons. Meurice in his welcoming speech to the Pope. The short
and intense period of confrontation was accompanied by a
"policy" of leaving the nation, both involuntarily and
voluntarily. Certain priests asked the faithful to leave Cuba,
and some priests, alerted by their superiors, or on their own
initiative, started to abandon the country. Nevertheless,
there are exceptions at the level of laypersons,
religious orders, and priests. Those who did not leave
were forced to leave by the government, thus leaving the
Church in a state of survival.
When the Church started to reconstruct its forces and to
reinitiate its work, it was faced with a reality which was not
only hostile, but which dominated the entire spectrum of the
socio-economic, cultural and political life of the nation: a
government which took all the initiatives and left no loose
ends in its eagerness to control the lives of the people. The
Church followed the same destiny of all institutions that were
not born with the revolution or of those that were already in
its hands: a dying and cystic existence, separated from the
social life, which we experienced for years and years with a
small group of the faithful, who were as frightened as they
were heroic. The same happened to the Protestant Churches and
fraternal associations.
During these forty years, when the situation became
especially difficult due to the so-called "internal
contradictions within the system", the solution provided by
the government was to "open the door" so that those "not in
agreement" could leave the country. With each exodus, the
Church experienced the reduction of its members and the
destruction of its slow and tenacious pastoral work. It was a
tantalizing torture that has given our mission a peculiar
provisional quality: we have had to improvise each time, with
both plans and people…because people were leaving. Even under
these circumstances, the Church exhorted the faithful to stay,
to remain committed to their country and their people. On the
other side there were many factors: the reunion with the
family, a peaceful life, the hope for liberty, and the
expectations of prosperity. The phenomenon of the exodus and
the existence of a community of more than two million Cubans
who live permanently outside the country have become one of
the key problems of national life; it weighs on the present
and the future of Cuba. It is a fact which cannot be ignored,
and which should not be forgotten: it implies too many people
and too many aspects for us not to take it into account.
As we know, in 1980 the Church initiated a process of
internal renovation with the Ecclesiastic Reflection
(Reflexión Eclesial-REC). This process, with culminated with
the Cuban National Ecclesiastic Encounter (Encuentro Eclesial
Nacional Cubano-ENEC), is characterized by the search of our
identity and our historical and existential vocation in light
of the Gospel and at the service of our people. The REC
established the dialogue as a fundamental element of our being
and our function as a Church. It was as part of a process,
that coincided with the great changes in the Soviet Union and
the countries of Eastern Europe (the perestroika and
glasnost), during which the Church proposed, clearly and from
its own experience, a dialogue as the most adequate and
efficient way to face the problems of the country.
It is regrettable that after the ENEC the reflective aspect
of REC has diminished.
Together with the process of internal renovation, the
Church opened itself to a ministerial action which emerged
from its own renewed evangelizing conviction. It coincided
with the Mission of the Cross (Misión de la Cruz), facing the
celebration of the half millennium of faith in the Latin
American Continent. This stage is having its culmination with
the Celebration of the Jubilee of the Third Millennium, which
had its highest inflection in the visit of John Paul II to
Cuba in January of 1998. The proposal to the people of the way
to faith through the missions coincided with the profound
crisis in worldwide communism, with the dissolution of the
Soviet Union and the disappearance of the block of socialists
countries, which had profound and varied repercussions in
Cuba, on its people and on the government.
In view of the crisis generated by the fall of Marxism in
Europe and the deeply critical situation of the nation, all
the People of God, through the Final Document of the ENEC, and
the Bishops, as pastors of the Church, on repeated occasions
and directly to the government, proposed a "National
Dialogue." This dialogue, while respecting the differences and
interests of all parts, including the Cubans in exile, would
have advanced daring solutions, extensive and efficient enough
to mobilize the moral and material forces of the nation. It
meant giving each other a vote of confidence and from that
point "setting sail into the future." The Cuban communists,
facing the grave alternative of "preserving power or saving
the fatherland", opted for the first. They reinforced the
totalitarian behavior of living in falsehood and maintaining
the paralyzing schemes of helplessness that we have already
analyzed, despite the fact that they knew that this path was a
dead end, as was demonstrated by the experience of their old
partners of the communist block. It was then than the bishops,
after a long and reflective wait, decided to publish their
Letter "Love hopes for all things" (El amor todo lo espera).
The welcoming of this letter by the Cuban people marked a
change in the recent history of the country. A considerable
number of the people saw in the words of the bishops a
reflection of their hopes, their anguishes, and their
problems. The roads for a possible solution were encompassed
by that wise and brave letter, which genially combined
prudence and audacity.
The government gave "deaf ears" to the clamor of the people
prophetically expressed by the bishops. The Church continued
its efforts to achieve a peaceful and negotiated solution to
the situation, without excluding anyone. For many, the gravest
difficulty in carrying out this proposal is not only the lack
of willingness on the part of the government and the party to
enter into a dialogue, but also the nonexistence in the nation
of an organized counterpart: the civil society, social
movement or political groups who can assume the role of
counterpart, and valid participants in a dialogue from the
State, which maintains itself typically totalitarian (or
post-totalitarian). The official position maintains this
thesis, highlighting the weakness of the dissidence, its
infiltration by all the elements of national security, and its
dependence on foreign assistance for its survival.
The dissidence, eminently peaceful, lacks the recognition
and firm support on the part of the (Church) hierarchy; at
least, that is our perception. The maximum effort to unblock
the Cuban reality was carried out by the Church with the visit
of the Pope to Cuba in January of 1998. The mobilization of
the people, its impact at the level of the nation, cities,
neighborhoods and hearts is unprecedented in the history of
our Church. The people supported the Church, listened to the
Holy Father and vibrated with the evangelical message that he
transmitted during those days. No one, either inside or
outside Cuba, denies the success of this Papal visit. The
question that we have been asking ourselves from the start
continues to be valid: What has happened after?
The Five Sores of my Church
Over 150 years ago, Father Antonio Rosmini, an Italian
priest, published a polemic book entitled "The Five Sores of
the Church." We have borrowed this title from Father Rosmini
to refer to situations that we will classify as "sores of the
Church." Nevertheless, the sense of the term does not
correspond exactly to that used by Father Rosmini. We will
talk about these sores and will refer to them in a very
particular sense: if you will, like the wounds of Jesus, which
were also the "signs" that the resurrected could show to
"confirm" that is was Him. The sores are like challenges which
our Church has, because they link it with its past and its
passion, and they become the sources of its compromise and the
reason for its action.
The new and the old Christians
In his presentation in the XXVII Inter American Reunion of
Bishops, Mons. Adolfo spoke as the old and wise pastor that he
is. Among the many interesting and profound things that he
said one stands out with the strength of a popular saying: we
have discovered that in Cuba…neither the atheists are so
atheists nor the Christians are so Christian. The challenge to
faithfulness, to the serious compromise and to our living
according the Gospel is there, present, and asking for our
reflection and sincerity. A variance to the "no one is so so",
is present in the growth in our communities and in the natural
dialectic created between the new and old Christians. The
Church should not disregard the "push" that the first
represent and the force and weight contributed by the latter.
The enthusiasm of the first and the stability and weight of
the latter should be empowered by the compromise of all. This
reality requires analysis, listening to each other in a
sincere and frank dialogue, and wisdom on the part of
responsible lay people and pastors, to ask for each other's
participation. It requires not rushing to assign very
responsible positions to people without the necessary time and
maturity and by assuming the challenge of allowing enough time
for a serious formation. Mutual appreciation is indispensable
for the growth of both groups.
The foreign and Cuban clergy
The increase in the number of priests and nuns has been
recognized as one of the principal fruits of the Papal visit,
and, without doubt, it is. But the entry of new pastoral
personnel is a challenge that should also be analyzed. The
dialectic new-old, secular-non-secular, foreign-national, also
exists as a logical result of these matters. This brings
tensions, and also wealth, which is worth analyzing. First, it
is good to remember that in the Church there are no
foreigners…"neither Jews nor pagans." The recently arrived are
and should be welcomed. They bring to our Church new methods,
enthusiasm, energy, and imagination-very important and
necessary contributions. We should neither ignore nor deny
that living during 40 years in a totalitarian system "creates
character." The helplessness is present in our Church in
bishops, priests, religious orders, and
laypersons. This is normal. When the new arrive, without
noticing, we tend to transmit "our conditioning to them." This
is not good, as it can paralyze initiatives and actions that
are necessary and even urgent. On the other hand, a necessary
amount of prudence is necessary if we do not want to lose,
with the same speed with which they entered, our recently
arrived brothers who are so necessary.
This requires a coordinated action of fraternal meetings
(which are difficult due to the excessive workload we have).
Nevertheless, we should insist on this for our mutual
fraternal and pastoral enrichment. We must be very sincere
with each other and coax each other in a light and loving
manner, in our common devotion to the Kingdom. For those of us
that have spent a lot of time here, the secular or the
non-secular, unity is important, because it has been the
indispensable condition for survival. But it is true that our
unity should enrich itself with new forms of diversity and
that even our own unity should become more dynamic. We have
much to learn from each other.
On the other hand, we should apply a "healthy division of
labor" to the problems of the nation. Cubans should assume a
larger portion of responsibility and initiative for the mere
fact of being Cuban and because we are less vulnerable to
"certain administrative actions" to which the foreigners could
be easier targets. Much dialogue and sincerity is required so
that we can all walk together, although, logically, our styles
are different. The mutual appreciation of the Lord continues
to be the indispensable condition for the growth of all.
Another aspect of the theme refers to the "very new"
(novísimos)-the new vocations which are emerging from our
communities. It is a clear theme for the future of the Church
in Cuba, because we know from experience that local Churches
should be built upon a stable clergy "that has emerged from
the land", that is the secular clergy. Here we should all work
together, seculars and non-seculars, if we wish the serious
establishment of the Church in Cuba. The theme of the
vocations goes together with the theme of our seminaries and
seminarians, of the young priests and the attention that our
bishops and priests are giving to the youngest. We should
remember that the largest incidence of abandoning the country
occurs among the youngest, and that they do not bear exclusive
responsibility for this…
Improvisation as a way of being and the paternalistic
attitude
Improvisation and a provisional quality have become an
integral part of "being national" and have "infiltrated" the
Church and our pastoral planning. Without even realizing it,
the wear and tear of this situation marks us. This is, up to a
point, inevitable in a situation such as ours: we live in a
country without future, where the every day things--understood
at its lowest form--become the horizon. But precisely because
of this, the Church should insist with its people on the need
for seeking and identifying objectives. As a result of
improvisation, weariness can dry up our strength. We then
maintain the capacity to do things, but we lack the ability to
think and plan that which we do. We invent at the spur of the
moment, but we lose the longer-term outlook, which is also
necessary. To what do we want to respond? What do we intend to
achieve? What do we want to maintain or what should we change?
These are questions that we should ask ourselves continuously,
keeping in mind the fragility of the people we face, permeated
by the "well learned helplessness", from which we do not
escape either. On the other hand, the action cannot permit us
to forget the "discourse", the message that we should
transmit, the privileged channel that we have to reach the
people: the Church, our communities. We cannot forget our
ultimate objective: to build man according to God, by the
model of Christ.
In this edification of man according to the model of
Christ, we should consider the grave problem of paternalism,
which manifests itself in the relations of our bishops with
us, and of us with our laypersons, on more than a few
occasions. This fear of going too far leads us to overprotect
our people and restrain our prophetic compromise. We must
remember that for a long time a large number of us have felt
like "seminarians who celebrate Mass" and that nothing
contributes more to maturing and the compromise of priests in
a presbiterium or of laypersons in a community than to share
the responsibility of decisions which have been discussed and
arrived at by all.
The spirit of fraternity and friendship, which corresponds
to the example of the Apostles, should mark our style of being
pastors and the way we carry out our mission. Also, it is the
best way to combat the helplessness from which the country
suffers.
Building of the Church and service to the People
Sometimes we hear voices that "we should not risk
everything that we have achieved so far." This affirmation
reminds me of the story of Karel Capec in his book
"Apócrifos". Capec writes about the psychology of Lazarus, the
friend of the Lord, after he left the sepulchre: the
experience of death was such that Lazarus became afraid of
life, and the risk it entails. He lived a life of absolute
fear, hiding away from that commitment which always entails
some risk. I do not believe that anyone who is somewhat
prudent would want to return to the year 1961, to the time of
the confrontations. But, at the same time, we cannot renounce
the call for commitment that the situation of the country
presents to us. We cannot remain quiet and do nothing.
To those who oppress the people, whatever color they may
be, any action on the part of the Church in favor of
respecting of human rights, justice and liberty would be
interpreted as "meddling in politics." Navarro Vals, in his
last visit to our country, mentioned an anecdote of John Paul
II, which sheds light on this matter. After visiting a
concentration camp, the Pope made very strong declarations. In
an interview with the press after the visit, a journalist
asked the Pope if "his declarations had not been political."
The Pope, who is usually very patient with "the boys of the
press", at the time almost "lost his cool." "One does not
rebel before this horror due to a political ideology, but due
to a moral essence, due to a basic sense of humanity",
responded the Pope to the journalist in an almost stern
tone.
We know that the Church offers a contribution which cannot
be substituted when it executes its triple ministry in the
service of evangelization, worship or charity, but we cannot
ignore situations of injustice, oppression or helplessness,
without acting in the same manner as the priest of the
Levites, referred to in the parable of the "Good Samaritan."
Mons. Pedro Meurice expressed this very clearly in his speech
of acceptance of the Doctorate Honoris Causa, at Georgetown
University: "On the other hand, while the people suffer
injustice or limitations, no matter how small, the Church
should make those needs and sufferings of its people a focal
point of the content of its relations with the State. On the
contrary, the Church would only claim what could be considered
as its institutional rights or those concerned with its
internal life, but, for the followers of Christ, these demands
can never be separated from the rights of the people."
When the people suffer, not "some", but so much injustice
or limitation, the responsibility of the Church becomes
incomparably greater. Now, if we pretend to save the
institution when the people die, we are doing no more than
repeating in a new context the old dilemma of the Jewish
pontiff: "it is in the best interest that one person dies in
order to preserve the people." Which in essence represented
not so much a preoccupation for the people, but the eagerness
of every well-established synagogue to defend its own
interests.
The poverty in the Church and the exodus of the
Christians
Mons. Adolfo spoke of the threat of a naïve sense of
triumph that would prevent us from seeing reality, exactly as
it is. There is no doubt that during the last few years the
economic possibilities of the Church have grown thanks to the
generous support that it has received from different parts of
the world. We have gone from a poor Church to a Church that
has, "that apportions and distributes", and that also runs the
risk of being perceived as the one that "keeps the largest
portion." Our life style, our houses, our cars should be
perceived as being entirely at the service of the people and
should be as modest as possible, while efficient enough to
serve their purpose. The modesty in the means and the
simplicity in the attitudes, above all in the spirit of
service to the community and the people in general, are
something that we must jealously guard.
The use of money is something that the bishops should
consult with the priests and that the priests should consult
with the communities. The maximum clarity in this point is
necessary to guarantee an administrative transparency and to
make all the members of this Church accept responsibility in
this very delicate matter. Sometimes we get the impression
that the preoccupation with material things, including the
temples, leads us to forget the essential issue that should
preoccupy us: build a Church totally at the service of the
Kingdom of God.
Experience has taught that certain Churches that have
suffered situations close to martyrdom have embarked in a
search for wealth, prestige and power at the point when the
situation has become more normal. This has even occurred to
the same people who previously had even risked their very
lives. The fact is that martyrdom does not provide character.
Each generation should look for its own style of fidelity to
the eternal Gospel of Christ, without adhering to past
merits.
We cannot exclude from our discussion the issue of the
exodus that once again threatens to empty our communities and
damage our people. In the exodus we find the traditionally
individualistic response that we Cubans have given to our
national problems. The Church should have the courage to
denounce this attitude of lack of commitment toward the fate
of the people. We should also face the exodus of priests which
we have so many times blamed, in a superficial manner, for
reasons of a material nature, without questioning if our
Church was providing sufficient motivation for the commitment
of its members, clergy and laypersons. Personal commitment, a
slow road to conversion, and sacrifice are necessary in order
to achieve freedom from induced helplessness. A Church that is
not capable of awakening this spirit of sacrifice, this
militancy of martyrdom, will never be the light in the
totalitarian darkness. But all is not lost…"if someone comes
to offer his heart."
Finally…The dialogue
The dialogue has been the always-recurring theme in the
life of our Church during the past 20 years. From the
beginnings of the REC, in the early eighties, the dialogue was
proposed over and over as the only way out of our situation.
Recently, in his presentation before the XXVII Inter American
Reunion of Bishops, in February of 1999, Mons. Adolfo insisted
on this theme, and rightfully so.
However, there exists an essential contradiction in
proclaiming the "National Dialogue" as the solution to the
present situation of the Nation. This would imply placing
responsibility for the commencement of this Dialogue in the
hands of a State which has repeatedly refused to engage in any
type of dialogue, not only de facto, but also invoking its
legal right of refusal. To propose the dialogue then becomes a
trap from which we cannot escape, due to the fact that we have
never even been able to begin a dialogue. There comes a time
when we must ask ourselves about the possibility and the sheer
necessity of starting a national dialogue in which the civil
society, at the levels in which it has already been organized
(Churches, fraternal organizations, diverse autonomous
groups…) can participate in a civic and not directly political
manner.
In spite of his physical condition and precarious health,
John Paul II had the audacity to more than meet his commitment
to come to Cuba and give us the message which, in his opinion,
would permit this Church and this people to retake into their
own hands the reins of their own destiny. Our Church knew how
to prepare for his visit with the missions, reaching the
people, house by house. The people responded to the call of
the Church, and the Church demonstrated a capacity to convoke
that it did not even realize it had. But after the visit we
did not know what else to do. We have the impression that we
lacked the answer for what in effect happened: that the
government took advantage of the trip for its foreign
propaganda and for the internal confirmation of the status
quo. To say that this is what we expected would not be
truthful. Nevertheless, it was perfectly foreseeable. The sad
thing is that, having been able to prevent it, we were
incapable of looking for alternatives, proposing other
solutions, generating processes that would have given
protagonism and hope to the people. We think that the crux of
this matter is to discover to whom we should address our
message, the true interlocutor in this dialogue which we are
proposing: the people as protagonists of their own destiny,
who decide to walk with their own feet, who organize and are
capable of struggling with and for the others…"with all and
for the good of all." We are here in order to find together
how we can achieve this. The silence of our Church in light of
the new repressive legislation and the fate of the four
dissidents who authored "The Fatherland Is for All", is, to
say the least, cause for worry.
The message that we give of commitment and hope; action and
optimism; patient struggle; and constant formation should be
born from our own commitment to the fate of our people, a
profound analysis of our reality, and a liberating pedagogy.
Liberty is only true when it has the experience of the mystery
of the incarnation and of the cross. We are all responsible.
The analysis of the syndrome of learned helplessness
demonstrates that it can be overcome only at the individual
level by the work of each person, his assumption of
responsibility, and his commitment. We must analyze the
mechanisms, the messages and the attitudes that bring about
helplessness. The following must be done: promote concrete
actions; teach people to think and exercise their skills for
critical analysis; awaken creativity; and generate processes
of participation. Only then will we transcend fear and bring
forward the best in each of us, the edification of the kingdom
of truth, justice, peace and love, that Christ taught us in
the Beatitudes (Mathew 5, 1-12 and Luke 6, 20-23), and that
José Martí poetically described in his poem "White
Rose."
|
