A New Social Consciousness

“This is the point we reached in our agreement with the government: to rejoice in all the good, and to suffer all the bad.”¹ With these words, a former seminarian illustrated the shift in the social consciousness of Cuban Catholics occurring from the late 1960s onwards. As was also suggested by the then-seminarian, now a priest, an essential influence behind the shift was the Second General Assembly of Latin American Bishops Conference (CELAM) organized in Me-dellín, Colombia, in 1968. The conference had been a Latin American initiative to interpret and disseminate the conclusions of Vatican II in the region, becoming a turning point in the self-identification of Latin American Catholicism. As a result, a seismic shift was experienced in the global dynamics of Catholicism: in Medellín, the Latin American Church had pronounced a renewed social awareness and commitment to the prevailing social conditions of the region.²

Since the Medellín conference was attended by representatives of the Cuban Church,³ its repercussions were reflected upon and discussed on multiple occasions on the island following the event. The Episcopal Conference convened to study the final document, and several pastoral letters were drafted as a result of the collective interpretation of the conference and its signifi-cance for Cuba.⁴ Internationally, the results of the reflection are mostly known through the publication of two pastoral letters by the episcopate in the spring of 1969.⁵

The first of the letters, published on April 10 and coinciding with the eighth anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion, was an attempt to pronounce Latin American Catholic social doc-trine in a Cuban context. The latter, dated September 3rd, was a more in-depth reflection on Medellín’s final document and a guideline provided by the episcopate for navigating the newly acknowledged ecclesial and social realities in Cuba.⁶ As such, the publications were received as a publicly normative voice of the episcopate over the clergy, religious orders and the laity, as an attempt to portray the institutional presence of the Church within revolutionary society.

The tone of the letters followed the discourses of Vatican II and Medellín. Tying the development of ecclesial life in Cuba to the emerging impact of Vatican II and its interpretation in Latin America, the letters of 1969 may be seen as public expressions of conciliar commit-ment: as declarations of the episcopate’s new socio-ethical emphasis for the Church in the mod-ern world, they attempted to bridge the Cuban Church with the prevailing social context on the island. This was particularly visible in the first letter, in which the episcopate forcefully por-trayed the emerging social doctrine of the Church. The letter condemned the U.S. trade embargo on Cuba, stating that the “unjust conditions” of the blockade created “grave inconveniences”

1 Interview 6.

2 Lehmann 1996, 50; Tombs 2002, 96–97, 107–111; Krier Mich 2004, 241–243; Brady 2008, 154.

3 Interview 2; Interview 6; Interview 23; Interview 24.

4 See, for instance, VC 27.4.1969.

5 These two pastoral letters are included in the collection of publications, La Voz de la Iglesia, which may be seen as a construction of the canon of authoritative publications by the Cuban episcopate, as discussed in chapters I and III.

6 Comunicado 10.4.1969; Comunicado 3.9.1969. Upon their publication, the letters were consciously entitled comunicados in order to avoid the political and politicized connotation of the pastoral letters of 1959–1961.

V TINY TEMPLES: 1969–1978

176

for every Cuban both in labor and domestic life.⁷ Although the argumentation stemmed from the search for the common good of the people, many within the Church saw the stance of the bishops as an inclination towards submission to the State and government. For this reason, the statement generated controversy among Cuban Catholics both on the island and in the United States.

In discussing the reception of the letters in Cuba, both Crahan and Kirk highlight the controversy raised by the first publication among Cuban Catholics. For ecclesial traditionalists, the episcopate’s commitment to Vatican II was problematic; for the clergy and laity, who re-jected any rapprochement with the revolution, the letters appeared scandalously approving of the government; for the most progressive of Catholics, the letters and the attempted dialogue with Cuban society seemed long overdue and timid.⁸ While Kirk argues for the overshadowing effect of the first letter over the second publication in September, he also notes the remarkable ecclesial implications of the latter.⁹

The second letter, directed at the clergy and Catholic communities, voiced a deeper re-flection of Medellín transformed into action through guidelines and norms for pastoral work and Catholic presence in the revolution. While identifying contemporary atheism as an issued faced by the Church in the modern world, the document focused on highlighting Catholic faith as a process of growth through liturgy, the Bible, catechesis, mature understanding and com-mitment to faith, and witnessing in everyday life. On these areas, the bishops constructed poli-cies for the clergy to follow in Cuba: continuous renewal of liturgy according to Vatican II, organized study of the Bible by laypeople, the necessity to further develop catechesis in order to educate the laity, and the need to support individuals and communities in daily profession of spirituality and Catholic morals.¹⁰

The letters of 1969 also constructed and officiated the new normativity pronounced by the episcopate: open acknowledgment of the positive achievements of the revolution and ap-proval of them. Among the key personalities involved in drafting the letters was Francisco Oves, who explored opening dialogue with the revolution by acknowledging its positive achievements in society and the Catholic appreciation of increasing social justice.¹¹ The letters made visible the shift already rooted in the experiences of clergy and laity on the island: the movement from the margins of the revolution to within it via the shared realities of daily life and kinship. Through the pastoral letters, the voice of the episcopate was transmitted to the grassroots level. As such, its normativity inevitably became tested and contested in day-to-day reality.

Evidence on the contestation is provided by the archival sources: the discourse of Cuba’s clergy and seminarians in the fall of 1969 reveals the extent to which the episcopal voice of the letters differed from the experiences and expressions of religion at the grassroots level. Semi-narians criticized the letter of September for revealing the profound disconnection of the epis-copate from the reality of the streets and the problems faced by lay Catholics. At the same time, seminarians pointed out the ignorance and isolation of both clergy and laity to the guidelines

7 Comunicado 10.4.1969.

8 Crahan 1985; Kirk 1989, 127–131.

9 Kirk 1989, 129.

10 Comunicado 3.9.1969.

11 Alonso Tejada 1999, 36.

V TINY TEMPLES: 1969–1978

177

provided by the episcopal hierarchy.¹² Some of them defended the letter by insisting on the division of Catholics as a source of “the excess of immature criticism” on the episcopate’s policy guidelines.¹³ Yet as a whole, the letter was not received well by many sectors in society, as was acknowledged by priests from Pinar del Río, Matanzas, and Las Villas.¹⁴ Within the Church, the mixed responses were interpreted as lack of cohesion and unity.¹⁵ In this manner, the letter and its reception reflected a deeper discrepancy among the clergy and laity: shifting boundaries of political and pastoral thought within the Church. According to Crahan, this re-sulted in a considerable number of young lay activists leaving the Church, further consolidating the normativity pronounced by the leadership.¹⁶

At the heart of the confused responses was a lack of vision on what it meant for the Church to be socially conscious, yet not politically active—and whether the stance was unanimously agreed upon or even possible at all. The tone of the second letter, some of Havana’s priests complained, caused Cubans to read it as a political message, especially when read in light of the first publication and interpreted from a politicized perspective instead of recognizing the theological undercurrents of the statement. Yet, the clergy also acknowledged the true issue behind the politicized responses: it was paradoxical for the Church to claim an apolitical stance in the revolution when the predominant point of critique in all published, normative voices of the episcopate had concerned politics. As the priests dryly remarked, while the first pastoral letters in the revolution had condemned Marxism, the latest was now set about condemning the U.S. trade embargo in accordance with the Cuban government.¹⁷

In scholarly work historicizing Cuban ecclesial history and the history of Cuban Church–

State relations, the letters of 1969 are treated as a curiosity, an exceptional opening in the long-prevailing absence of the Church from the public sphere. In the episodic treatment of the histo-ries and agencies of Catholicism in the revolution in international scholarship, the publications have been used as markers ending a period of silence for the Church initiated in 1961 with the disappearance of normative voices and written evidence. From this perspective, the 1969 pub-lications mark the emergence of the Church into public discussion.¹⁸ Since archival silence has prevented deeper analysis of the intra-ecclesial discourse preceding the letters, they seem to appear as having emerged suddenly, as abrupt declarations opening up a new conversation. In this perspective, the historical processes occurring in the internal life of the Church, grassroots experiences, daily realities, and unofficial discourse remains unacknowledged. However, as the newly accessible sources clearly demonstrate, the letters of 1969 built on continuing, preceding discourse within the Church; although previously unknown to scholarly analysis, the discourse

12 COCC AY Equipo No. 4 – Seminaristas teólogos.

13 COCC AY Equipo No. 11 Seminaristas no teólogos.

14 COCC AY Equipo No. 5 Sacerdotes de las Diócesis de Pinar del Río, Matanzas y Las Villas 16.9.1969.

15 COCC AY Equipo No. 10 – Laicos–jóvenes 16.9.1969.

16 Crahan 1985.

17 COCC AY Equípo No. 3 – Clero Habana–Campo 16.9.1969.

18 The 1969 letters have been discussed by Crahan 1979 and 1985, Kirk 1989, and Alonso Tejada 1999. De La Torre calls the letters “a decisive break with the past.” De La Torre 2002, 101.

V TINY TEMPLES: 1969–1978

178

nevertheless did exist and was potent in its transformative power. Furthermore, the most publi-cized letters did not remain the sole voices of magisterium, let alone ecclesial discourse: like-wise, other publications¹⁹ on the island continued to reflect on and further develop the ideas.

As a clear sign of increasing internal discourse, and more interesting than the distilled accounts for public study by the bishops, were the voices emerging from the churches, convents, and homes of Cuban Catholics in 1969. In September, shortly after the second pastoral letter was published, these new voices rose within the Church to assess the prevailing conditions for pastoral work and ecclesial activities. For the first time in years, clergy and laity formally con-vened to discuss their experiences in future-orientated reflection. Although the extensive dis-course and its results were not made public on the island or internationally, they both voiced the experience of the Church as a community and directed the paradigmatic change taking place within the lived reality of Catholics on the island.

Providing a framework for the reflection was the course on pastoral work directed by French Canonist Fernando Boulard, who at the time served as the assessor of the Episcopal Conference in France. In Havana and Santiago de Cuba, Boulard directed two courses for re-flection on the social and pastoral work in Cuba. Clergy, religious orders, and laity from all dioceses signed up for the course: 200 representatives from Santiago de Cuba, Camagüey, and Cienfuegos came together at the national sanctuary of El Cobre, while participants from Ha-vana, Matanzas, and Pinar del Río gathered in the capital at the convent of La Inmaculada.²⁰ Crahan proposes that the meeting was organized with the objective “to iron out some of the differences” under the authority of a Vatican representative.²¹

Boulard began his visit with the celebration of Cuba’s patron saint, La Virgen de la Car-idad del Cobre, on September 8^th in Havana and concluded it with an extensive summarizing meeting at the Episcopal Conference.²² As a Catholic sociologist, Boulard was profoundly fa-miliar with both the socio-political realities of Cuba and the Cuban inter-ecclesial dynamics in the post-conciliar era, and he initiated in Cuba a systematic reflection on the prevailing condi-tions of both Catholicism and the revolution. Boulard had already conducted similar work in counseling local churches in Latin America, and he has later been acknowledged as an essential influence for several Latin American churches in their process of renewal with respect to post-Vatican II theology and pastoral work.²³

The reflection resulted in a candid critique of both the Church and prevailing circum-stances. The general tone of the discourse repeatedly focused on the hardships faced by Cubans in the late 1960s. The revolutionary reality of everyday life was depicted as a daily struggle to overcome shortages and deprivation. In contrast to the tumultuous early 1960s, the end of the

19 See, for instance, VC 27.4.1969: a published version of a pastoral letter by the episcopate, read in churches during the Mass of the preceding Sunday, April 20, 1969. This publication does not pertain to the established and analyzed documents in scholarly work.

20 COCC AY Importante.

21 Crahan 1985. Crahan’s analysis draws on an oral source. In this research, henceforth, the meeting is discussed via a collection of primary documents stored in the Archive of the Cuban Catholic Bishops’ Conference. COCC AY contains a complete body of notes from the meeting, the minutia of the reflection, the summaries of the discussion as drafted by the working groups, and the final document delivered to the Cuban bishops for a follow-up discussion and concluding proceedings.

22 COCC AY Visita del Canonigo Fernando Boulard.

23 Klaiber 1996, 371; Olimón Nolasco.

V TINY TEMPLES: 1969–1978

179

decade saw an era of stability and security for the revolution as an established framework of life.²⁴ The focus in the revolutionary experience thus began to shift from ideological fervor to more pragmatic issues of the everyday. Yet in the space of restricted expression, as argued in scholarly work, ordinary Cubans had limited opportunities to influence the course of the revo-lution.²⁵

The everyday had also become a priority for many Catholics, with the Church being able to offer space for discourse on both the revolutionary process and the Church’s role in it. An overarching sentiment expressed in the reflection of 1969 was frustration with the lack of co-herence within the Church and strategies for addressing the crucial social problems on the is-land.²⁶ One of the most acute issues was migration: the clergy described in detail the apathy they sensed in people, connecting it with the growing number of Cubans leaving the island.

They scorned their fellow Cubans, who “rely more on people (Americans) for solutions to the problems of life,”²⁷ instead of turning to the Church for support or to the State for accountability for the issues at hand. Yet, some of the clergy also acknowledged the role of the Church in contributing to the exodus by encouraging migration and recommending to believers that they leave the country as an objection to revolutionary politics and daily life in the revolution.²⁸

In intra-ecclesial life, the reflection made visible the disorganization of pastoral work, the lack of both human and material resources, and the undefined relations between clergy and laity in daily life. The lack of coherent, collective reflection on the preceding decade had resulted in a lack of common guidelines, mismanagement, and discrepancies between dioceses. Priests were asking for more organization and normative, established structures for their daily work, for national and local strategies, and for obligatory local committees with joint plans for work.

For resources of concrete pastoral work, they requested monthly retreats and courses on further education, material support for preparing homilies, and deeper theological reflection. Priests in rural dioceses demanded more equal distribution of clergy on the island: the great majority of clergy residing in Havana resulted in an excessive workload for clergy in the countryside. Intra-ecclesial financial resources were also seen as unjustly distributed between the capital, other cities, and rural communities.²⁹

Critics also addressed the episcopate. Seminarians demanded from both the episcopate and clerics more attention to the experiences and needs of ordinary Cubans and concrete action to confront the issues affecting everyday life.³⁰ Members of religious orders for women noted that the episcopate lacked dialogue with the laity in particular.³¹ In terms of their active partic-ipation in social reality, young laity saw the authoritative and normative role of the episcopate as a hindrance, calling it an “exaggeration of authority that barely takes into account the opinion

24 Pérez 2015a, 277.

25 Pérez-Stable 2012, 106; Pedraza 2007, 218.

26 COCC AY Equipo No. 3 – Clero Habana–Campo 16.9.1969.

27 COCC AY Equipo No. 3 – Clero Habana–Campo 16.9.1969.

28 COCC AY Equipo No. 3 – Clero Habana-Campo 16.9.1969.

29 COCC AY Equipo No. 1 Sacerdotes de la Capital; Equipo No. 2 Sacerdotes de La Habana; Equipo No. 5 Sacerdotes de las Diócesis de Pinar del Río, Matanzas y Cienfuegos; COCC AY Seminaristas no-teólogos; COCC AY Equipo No. 1 – Sacerdotes de la Capital 16.9.1969; COCC AY Equipo No. 2 – Sacerdotes de la Capital 16.9.1969; COCC AY Curso de Santiago.

30 COCC AY Equipo No. 4 – Seminaristas teólogos; COCC AY Equipo No. 11 Seminaristas no teólogos 16.9.1969.

31 COCC AY Equipo No. 6 – Religiosas dedicadas al apostolado 16.9.1969.

V TINY TEMPLES: 1969–1978

180

of the People of God.”³² Some of the clergy criticized “the triumphalist vision of the Church”

maintained by a hierarchy alienated from reality and the people, which resulted in a mentality of martyrdom and a “ghetto spirit, closing in on ourselves.”³³ Both clergy and laity admitted to intra-parochial disagreements on integration into and dissimilation from the revolutionary so-ciety. In contradiction to younger generations of laity, they expressed a wish for more leader-ship and direction from the bishops for straightening out disagreements.³⁴

Among clergy, priests invoked a call for more intentionally organized peer support, par-ticularly for those suffering from “the loneliness for a priest,” living in isolation in rural com-munities, although the priests also noted that the recent past and conditions of the revolution had made them more reclusive and in need of internal preparation in order to embrace a more collective orientation towards work. In the most candid of commentaries, priests noted the hos-tility of the revolutionary culture, resulting in a rejection of the clergy in daily life, which some-times resulted in damage to the self-identification and mental health of priests. Similar obser-vations were made by seminarians, who noted the need for more consistent support for clergy in psychologically challenging circumstances.³⁵

The reflection revealed critical discrepancies in pastoral orientation and work. While the clergy requested more resources for theological work, with interest in renewed explorations in the wake of Vatican II and Medellín, laypeople asked the clergy to direct more resources to-wards concrete work at the grassroots level: they required from the clergy a profound

The reflection revealed critical discrepancies in pastoral orientation and work. While the clergy requested more resources for theological work, with interest in renewed explorations in the wake of Vatican II and Medellín, laypeople asked the clergy to direct more resources to-wards concrete work at the grassroots level: they required from the clergy a profound

In document Never a Church of Silence : The Catholic Church in Revolutionary Cuba, 1959-1986 (sivua 185-200)