For the pope and Castro, a win-win
visit By GARY MacEOIN, Special to the
National Catholic Reporter
The duel of the titans -- Pope John Paul II and Fidel Castro --
promised by TV anchors and press pundits, never happened.
The dragon-slaying pontiff, who had humiliated Ernesto Cardenal in
Nicaragua and led Poland out of Russian bondage, turned the other cheek in
Cuba. There were two winners, and the United States emerged as the only loser.
The opening round -- Castros welcoming speech -- might well
have precipitated the hoped-for clash. In a press conference on the plane from
Rome, John Paul said he wanted Castro to tell me the truth as he sees it
-- about himself ... about the country. As if he had known what the pope
wanted, Castro did just that in his welcoming speech.
A hard-hitting summary recounted the countrys history:
extermination of the natives by the Spaniards, replacement by Africans dragged
into slavery, independence from Spain frustrated by a new form of control, this
time from the United States, and for the last 36 years an embargo designed to
reassert that control. Such were the benefits for Cuba of the
European invasion of the Americas.
Castro then turned to the role of the church in his life. His
grade and high school education in Catholic institutions gave him a vision of a
church intolerant of all other religions, denying education to black children,
providing it solely for the rich and privileged of whom I was one.
Only with the Vatican Council did the church recognize the rights of all
believers and nonbelievers, rights that were already guaranteed by the Cuban
constitution and laws.
Your Holiness, Castro continued, I sincerely
admire your courageous statements about what happened with Galileo, about the
well-known errors of the Inquisition, about cruel episodes of the Crusades,
about crimes committed during the conquest of America and about certain
scientific discoveries once the object of so many prejudices and anathemas but
no longer called in question.
It was a risky opener. It was a condemnation of the European
civilization whose glories as the carrier of Christian culture the pope
constantly vaunts. It seemed an uncalled-for parading of less than edifying
episodes in the history of the church.
Some who watched the historic meeting saw other possibilities. The
highly unusual appearance of Castro in a blue suit and wearing a tie, and the
obvious respect -- almost awe -- with which he greeted his guest softened the
harshness of the words. Was it perhaps an apologia, a confession, as though he
were saying: Look, this is Europe from Cubas experience of it. This
is the church in which I was socialized. Isnt my rejection
reasonable?
Then there was the closing appeal and challenge. See for yourself
what we have done: a people with fewer inequalities, fewer abandoned citizens,
fewer children without schools, fewer citizens without a hospital, more
teachers and doctors per inhabitant than any country in the world. No one is
better prepared than we are to join in your felicitous proposal that is also
ours: that equal distribution of riches and solidarity between
individuals and peoples should be globalized.
Understandably, the popes prepared response did not address
the substance of Castros challenge. But the relationship between the two
men, quite different from John Pauls with any of the other communist
heads of state with which he has dealt, showed that Castros respect for
his guest was reciprocated.
In this context, both must be seen as winners. John Paul had the
states cooperation in bringing his evangelization formula to yet another
country. His Masses and homilies in the principal cities, all presented live on
Cuban TV, enabled him to deplore the things he found undesirable about life
under Castro: a culture of abortions and divorces, an education monopoly that
promoted atheism, severe restrictions on religious publishing, limitation of
religious practice to church buildings, few resident and work permits for
foreign clergy and the denial of human rights that are fundamental and
the basis of every civilization.
The popes incredible stamina and will power, in spite of his
obvious physical weakness, won him much sympathy. Yet his ability to project
himself was limited by his labored speech, his tired face, slow walk and one
eye almost closed at times.
For Castro, the benefits of the papal visit were enormous.
Starting on the plane from Rome, John Paul included in almost every speech a
condemnation of the U.S. embargo. Unjust and ethically
unacceptable, he said. Oppressive, he insisted in his
farewell message. While repeating his vigorous anticommunist statements, he
echoed Castros own condemnations of neoliberalism, criticizing
unsustainable economic programs that ensured that the wealthy
grew ever wealthier while the poor grew ever poorer.
Also important for Castro was the popes appeal to Cuban
exiles to cooperate peacefully and in a constructive and respectful way
in the nations progress, avoiding useless confrontation and encouraging
an atmosphere of positive dialogue and mutual understanding, and
practicing a generous solidarity with their Cuban brothers. If
Miamis Cubans respond to this call, the embargo will have lost its
primary political support.
None of this was good news for the U.S. media, which had led the
biggest invasion of Cuba since the 1961 Bay of Pigs fiasco. Monica
Lewinskys tapes came to the rescue. The networks big guns abandoned
the pope-in-Cuba story, which dwindled to the last item on the nightly news.
The reaction around the world, as sampled by means of the
Internet, was different. While the U.S. presidential scandal got major play,
Cuba continued as the lead story. And the emphasis was universally what Castro
had hoped, the embargo.
Where The New York Times had highlighted the criticism of
the Cuban regime in the popes opening address (John Paul Asks Cuba
to Open to the World), the consensus of the world press was expressed by
The Irish Times: Pope calls for change in U.S.s
Cuban embargo. Mexicos La Jornada agreed: A harsh blow
to the blockade against Cuba.
This visit is yet another illustration of the international
isolation of the United States in its policy toward Cuba, commented Le
Monde of Paris, quoting approvingly a Cuban official. It went on to record
Congressman Charles Rangel, D-NY, as saying, after a five-hour conversation
with Castro, that the embargo is a source of international embarrassment for
the United States, one that affects poor Cubans more than it does Castro.
Castros demeanor during the visit of the pope to Cuba
will do a great deal to enhance his standing internationally, The
Irish Times commented in an editorial. A very clear message was sent
from Havanas Revolution Square to Washington. ... Sanctions coupled with
political engagement have played a strong role in the past in forcing countries
to democratize. Nowhere has this been more obvious than in South Africa. The
policy toward Cuba of sanctions without engagement, without political dialogue,
has made little progress.
The principal loser, concluded La Jornada,
was undoubtedly intolerance, especially the intolerance of the U.S.
political sector that insists on maintaining the blockade and engaging in
aggression designed to undermine Cuban self-determination. The principal
winner, on the other hand, was the spirit of negotiation on differences and of
the steps being taken in Cubas transition.
Many observers noted the significance of the papal visit for the
normalization of church-state relations in Cuba. This is a process that has
already advanced significantly. Believers are no longer excluded from
membership in the Communist Party. Actually two Protestant pastors are members
of Congress. More visas are being granted to missionaries from overseas.
The Catholic dioceses publish monthly magazines and newsletters.
The Center of Civic and Religious Formation of the diocese of Binary del Rise,
established four years ago, publishes a magazine in which Christians, Marxists
and agnostics freely debate their views. It is financed by the diocese and by
the German Advent and other international Catholic organizations.
The atmosphere has radically changed, and there are many
indications that change will continue. As the Rome daily Il Manifesto
noted in an editorial:
For the average Cuban it has been a shock to hear in person
or on TV, for the first time in 40 years, criticisms of the regime (such as
that of Bishop Matrices Sets of Santiago at the Saturday Mass) that up to now
would have sent anyone so daring to the galleys.
What may slow the change, Il Manifesto fears, is what it
calls sexy-gate. Turmoil in Washington, compounded by upcoming
elections, may prevent any serious discussion of U.S.-Cuban relations for a
long time. Perhaps it can be delayed, but the process set in motion by John
Paul and Fidel Castro cannot be reversed.
|