1. The Facts

It is a matter of public interest that Archbishop Casaroli, Secretary of the Vatican's Council for Public Affairs, in an interview not long ago commented on his recent visit to Cuba (cf. O Estado de Sao Paulo, April 7). His Excellency stressed that "the Catholics who live in Cuba are happy under the socialist regime." It is not necessary to say what kind of socialist regime he refers, for it is well known that the regime existing in Cuba is a Communist one.

His Excellency, in speaking of Fidel Castro's regime, went on to say that "the Catholics and the Cuban people in general do not have the slightest problem with the socialist government."

Wishing perhaps to give an air of impartiality to these amazing declarations, Archbishop Casaroli then lamented that the number of priests in Cuba is nevertheless insufficient: a mere 200. He indicated, furthermore, that he had asked Castro to permit greater opportunity for public worship. And he concluded by stating quite unexpectedly that "the Catholics of the Island are as respected for their beliefs as any of the other citizens."

If one considers only what is im­mediately apparent in these declara­tions, it is perplexing to discover that Archbishop Casaroli, while rec­ognizing that Cuban Catholics suffer restrictions in their public worship, states at the same time that they are "respected for their beliefs." As if the right of public worship was not one of the most sacred of their liberties.

If the non‑Catholic subjects of the Cuban regime are respected as much as the Catholics, then one can say that in Cuba nobody is respected ...

What, then, is the nature of this happiness, which according to Arch­bishop Casaroli the Cuban Catholics enjoy? It seems to be the harsh hap­piness dispensed by the Communist regime to all of its subjects, that is, the bowing of their heads under it. So Archbishop Casaroli states that "the Cuban Catholic Church and her spiritu­al guide always take care not to create any problem for the socialist regime which rules the Island."

Analyzed in greater depth, the ob­servations of this high Vatican digni­tary about his trip lead to conclusions of a higher order.

In an age in which His Holiness Paul VI has given more stress than ever to the importance of normal material conditions as a factor favorable to the practice of virtue, it is inconceivable that Archbishop Casaroli would con­sider Cuban Catholic's to be "happy under the socialist regime" of Fidel Castro, if they are immersed in misery. Hence we deduce that according to Archbishop Casaroli they enjoy at least the minimum economic condi­tions which are tolerable.

Now everyone knows that this is not actually the case. And, moreover, those Catholics who take seriously the encyclicals of Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII know that this cannot be, since these Popes taught that a Com­munist regime is the opposite of the natural order of things. And the sub­version of the natural order ‑ in the economy as well as in any other field ‑ can only bring catastrophic fruits.

Accordingly, Catholics anywhere in the world who might be naive or ill-­informed on the true social doctrine of the Church, upon reading the re­sults of Archbishop Casaroli's inquiry in Cuba, will be led to a conclusion diametrically opposed to reality. In other words, they will believe there is nothing to fear from the implantation of Communism in the various coun­tries, for according to this hypothesis they will be perfectly "happy," both with respect to their religious interests and their material circumstances.

It hurts to say it, but the obvious truth is this: Archbishop Casaroli's trip to Cuba resulted in a whitewash of Castro's regime.

This fact, terrible in itself, is but an episode in the policy of distention that the Vatican has been carrying out for a long time in regard to Communist regimes. Several of these moves are very well known to the public.

One of them was the trip to Russia in 1971 by His Eminence Cardinal Willebrands, President of the Secre­tariat for Christian Unity. The official purpose of his visit was to attend the inauguration of Bishop Pimen as the "orthodox" patriarch of Moscow. Pi­men is the man in whom the Kremlin atheists place their confidence where religious affairs are concerned. This visit to him by Cardinal Willebrands was, in itself, highly prestigious to the heterodox prelate, justly considered the "dark beast" by the non‑Com­munist orthodox people throughout the whole world. Pimen affirmed the nullity of the act through which in 1595 the Ukrainians reverted from schism back to the Catholic Church. This amounted to proclaiming that the Ukrainians must not be under the jurisdiction of the Pope, but under Pimen himself and others of his ilk. Instead of reacting in the face of this clamorous aggression against the rights of the Catholic Church and the con­sciences of the Ukrainian Catholics, Cardinal Willebrands and the delega­tion that accompanied him did not say a word. He who is silent, consents, teaches the Roman Law. Distention ...

As is natural, this capitulation caus­ed a profound trauma among those Catholics who follow with close atten­tion the policies of the Holy See. The trauma was even greater among the millions of Ukrainian Catholics scat­tered throughout Canada, the United States, and other countries. And it was related to the dramatic dissensions be­tween the Holy See and His Eminence, the valorous Joseph Cardinal Slipyj, Major‑Archbishop of the Ukrainians during the Synod of bishops held in Rome in 1971.

Seen in its entirety, the conduct of His Eminence Cardinal Silva Hen­riquez, Archbishop of Santiago, Chile, constitutes another episode in the dis­tention toward Communist govern­ments being promoted by Vatican dip­lomacy. It is notorious ‑ as the Chilean TFP demonstrated in a lucid manifesto printed by several news­papers ‑ that the Chilean prelate used the weight of influence and authority inherent in his position to help Allende rise to power, to be inaugurated in cheerful circumstances, and to be maintained in the presi­dency till the tragic moment in which this atheist leader committed suicide. Acting with a flexibility incompatible with his reputation, His Eminence Cardinal Silva Henriquez attempted to adjust himself to the order of things that came after Allende's regime. But notwithstanding this, the Cardinal's constant manifestations of sympathy for the Chilean Marxists have not yet ceased. Only recently, His Eminence celebrated a Requiem Mass in the chapel of his residence for the soul of another Communist, "comrade" Toha, a former minister of Allende who, in­cidentally, was also an unhappy sui­cide. Relatives and friends of the dead attended this Mass (cf. Jornal do Brasil, March 18, 1974).

It has not been reported that the prelate suffered the slightest reproach for all these attitudes, so suitable for bringing Catholics closer to Commun­ism. If someone imagined he would lose his archdiocese, he has been wait­ing in vain for it till now. Cardinal Silva Henriquez goes on calmly, still invested with the mission of conduct­ing to Jesus Christ the souls of his populous and important archdiocese.

While he conserves his position by implementing the policy of distention, another archbishop, in contrast, has lost his archdiocese. We refer to one of the most striking personalities of the Church in the twentieth century, a person whose name is pronounced with veneration and enthusiasm by all Catholics faithful to the traditional social and economic teachings which have emanated from the Holy See. The name of this prelate, moreover, is regarded with high respect by per­sons of the most diverse religions. He is a fleuron of glory of the Church in the eyes of even those who do not be­lieve in Her. This fleuron was broken recently. His Eminence Cardinal Mindszenty was dismissed from the archdiocese of Esztergom in order to facilitate rapprochement with the Hungarian Communist government.

As is evident, the visit of Arch­bishop Casaroli to Cuba ‑ still ab­stracting from the interview he gave after leaving the Island ‑ is inserted as a link in a chain of facts which suc­ceed each other over a period of years.

Where will this chain end? What dol­orous surprises, what new moral traumas are in store for those who continue accepting, with all its con­sequences, the immutable social and economic doctrine taught by Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII? We are cer­tain that innumerable Catholics, upon reading these facts again, and know­ing the perplexity, anguish, and trauma expressed in these lines, will feel that their own interior drama is being depicted: It is a most intimate and poignant drama, because above and beyond its involvement with social and economic matters, it has an es­sentially religious character. It con­cerns what is most fundamental, alive, and tender in the soul of the Roman and Apostolic Catholic: his spiritual bonds with the Vicar of Jesus Christ.