Contents Page,
Vol. 1, No. 1
Quick Links
to other articles
in this issue:
Promise Keepers
Religion and the Post-Welfare State
Charitable Choice
McCaughey Babies
Islam In Virginia
Patriarch's Visit
Religion in a Cold Climate
Clinton Scandal |
Whose Man in
Havana?: John Paul's Visit to Cuba
by Anthony Burke Smith
In January, American journalists headed south to Cuba for what they expected to be the
last great contest of the Cold War. And before Monica Lewinsky sent many of them packing
back to Washington, one story after another resurrected the old Cold War narrative of the
religious Free World versus atheistic Communism. Pope John Paul IIs trip was a
"battle for Cubas soul," Newsweek declared. Time
headlined its story, "A Clash Of Faiths."Here was the freedom-loving Polish
pope, slayer of the communist dragon in his homeland, ready to do battle once again with
the forces of Marxist oppression. This time, the fight involved staring down Fidel Castro,
the Jesuit-educated Catholic schoolboy who exchanged faith in God for faith in modern
revolution. It was "an encounter between two titans of the late twentieth
century," wrote Serge F. Kovaleski in the Washington Post. In a January 14
editorial, the Post said the trip was "shaping up as a classic end-of-era
confrontation." The editorials headline: "Our Man in Havana." Yet the
trip failed to conform to this neat formulation. The pope, as it turned out, did not
traverse Cuba as a champion of Western liberal democracy but instead enacted his own
trademark "theo-drama," one that is often quite critical of the United States.
Nowhere was the popes distinctive agenda more evident than in his call for the end
of the U.S. economic embargo of Cuba. This appears to have had the largest impact of
anything that happened during the entire pilgrimage, but its significance was missed as a
result of the prevailing story line. The story line meant seeing everything through the
lens of Cold War politics. On a pilgrimage eve edition of Nightline, Ted Koppel
warned viewers not to believe the Vatican and the Cuban government when they said the
popes trip would not be political. "Everything youll be seeing over these
next few days is about tension, tension between those who left and those who stayed, those
who revere Castro and those who revile him. Tension and division." And thats
how the story played through the following week.
Coverage of the early days of the trip found little to report in the popes
condemnations of abortion and appeals for personal morality, focusing instead on his
criticism of the state-controlled education system, his call for the release of political
prisoners, and his urging of Cubans to reclaim their own history. Pontifical masses were
read like tea leaves for signs of struggle over Cubas future. This led to some
wildly over-dramatized reporting as Christiane Amanpour of CNN wondered after the
popes first day in Santa Clara whether "this could spin out of Castros
control." USA Today, by contrast, suggested that the "early returns
were good for Castros vision of a secular Cuba in which Catholics would remain under
his thumb." The final "climactic" mass in the symbolically rich Plaza of
the Revolution in Havana-where a wire sculpture of Che Guevara competed with a mural of
Jesus Christ put up for the papal mass-gave reporters a great opportunity to play the Cold
War theme. With Castro in attendance, the coverage stressed how John Pauls call for
freedom of conscience and human rights elicited chants of approval from the crowd.
After the trip, analysis centered on determining who had won the battle between freedom
and Communist oppression. Many commentators agreed that "the genie was out of the
bottle," and that Cuba could never return to its pre-papal visit days without running
great risks. John Pauls support for political dissent and the release of political
prisoners, and his encouragement of Cubans to take the future of their nation into their
own hands, had created, so the analysis went, a free space for the further development of
civil society in Cuba. More nuanced assessments pointed to significant differences between
Poland in 1979 and Cuba today, noting the small percentage of practicing Cuban Catholics,
the marginalization of the Church in Cuban society, the competition with popular religions
such as Santeria, and the status of Castro himself as a homegrown revolutionary. But while
helping to fill in the details, this analysis did not fundamentally challenge the dominant
picture of the trip as a clash of aging Cold Warriors.
John Pauls call for an end to the American embargo of Cuba, however, didnt
fit the picture. In subtle and not-so-subtle terms throughout the trip, the pope asserted
his opposition to the embargo, suggesting that he aimed to challenge American policy as
well as Castros regime. Events after the trip indicate that the pope in fact
provided cover for both the Cuban and U.S. governments to move towards improving
relations. Castros release of several hundred prisoners in February, President
Clintons easing of curbs on aid and travel to Cuba in late March, and a growing
sentiment in Congress for allowing unrestricted food and medicine to the island, suggest
that the popes call "to change, to change" was having some effect. Not all
journalists, however, missed the boat. Syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne, Jr., who once
covered the Vatican for the New York Times, wrote of John Pauls "papal
paradox"-his simultaneous embrace of human rights and skepticism towards the modern
world. Richard Rodriguez of the Pacific News Service also recognized how the popes
Catholicism subverted the stark dualism of Cold War confrontation: "For all of their
differences, these two men must understand each other culturally. Castro is recognizable
to the pope in ways that say, Bill Clinton-a Protestant, individualist and a capitalist-is
not."
In fact, signs of "papal paradox" were evident throughout the trip. While the
popes first two masses seemed unremarkable in their focus on personal morality,
family life, and abortion, they were also part of John Pauls distinctive cultural
crusade to combine these longstanding Catholic concerns with modern human rights. And as
if to confirm Rodriguezs insight, in a little reported event during the Plaza of the
Revolution mass John Paul explained that he concluded his homily in Latin because
"Cuba is part of the Latin tradition. Cuba is part of Latin America. Latin
language."
Likewise, the popes call for ending the embargo, repeated in his departing
comments at the Havana airport, was not (as some commentators suggested) a concession, the
price of his admission to Cuba. Rather, in line with the Catholic social justice
tradition, the pope condemned the embargo as a threat to the full flourishing of human
dignity in Cuba-similar to Castros repressive government.
The failure of coverage to recognize what John Paul II was up to in Cuba is not
unconnected to longstanding difficulties of approaching Roman Catholicism through the
familiar terms of American public discourse. Whether "swing voters" in
elections, or cultural conservatives who act like political liberals, Catholics often
elude traditional categories of left and right in analysis of American politics and press
coverage. For just as the pope pursued a Catholic human rights agenda in Cuba that
identified the Churchs traditional religious authority with a renewal of civil
society, many American Catholic proponents of a "seamless garment" have
advocated a pro-life politics that cuts across both liberal and conservative persuasions
in the United States. Indeed, as much as Catholics have become mainstream in American
society, Catholicism as a religious tradition remains a difficult subject for the media to
adequately interpret.
Ironically, however, John Pauls Cuban agenda turned out to be more attuned to
American political realities than the media construct that drove coverage of the trip. For
across the ideological spectrum Americans appeared ready, even eager, to cast off a Cold
War mentality and follow the popes lead on the embargo. After the trip was over, the
consensus of opinion in editorials and commentaries ranging from The Nation to
William F. Buckley, Jr. was that American policy towards Havana needed to be reevaluated.
The widespread American support for John Pauls critique of the embargo indicated
that the nation was more prepared than anyone realized to explore new possibilities with
Cuba. Coverage to the contrary, his pilgrimage was not the culmination of an
anti-Communist crusade but an effort to shape the new, still emerging, post-Cold War era
in the Americas. |