Though a committed atheist, I am of the opinion that the Church must play and will play an important role for change in our country. The publication Espacio Laical (Lay Space) has come to occupy a very important position in the dissemination of ideas and divergent opinions, a remarkable feat in our society. It is an interesting and coveted publication, passed from person to person as Encuentro de la Cultura Cubana (Encounter with Cuban Culture) was in its time. That being said, I would like to focus on Espacio Laical editorial #2-2012.
The editorial appears to have been written as a response to something or someone who goes unmentioned. Although it is good that we know about or are reminded of its efforts on behalf of prisoners and its condemnation of terrible actions from our nation’s recent past, there is ambiguity in the implied subject which leaves anyone not familiar with or not involved in the Church’s accords and disagreements confused. (Monseigneur?) I share and want to be part of the vision of encounter, dialogue and consensus as the basis for a national solution outlined in the text.
If it is true, as claimed, that there is no other social actor as committed to the alternative of positive change in Cuba, it is because the Church has had the advantage of being virtually the only institution outside of government with its own infrastructure. It was here when the 1959 Revolution arrived and does not worry about being accused of receiving funds from foreign sources.
I do not know what threat might lead certain factions to eliminate the Cardinal, but the Church and Ortega himself must understand that it could never come from the opposition. Since it has been outlawed and partly silenced throughout the country, it would not have the necessary means. They should surely watch out instead for those within the party/state apparatus, known as “Talibans,” who do not want change.
As a citizen, I would like to know about the different political projects mentioned. I would like to judge and discern which among them comes closest to my ideas for the country. I am disturbed that this editorial talks about “monitored and joint projects. . . to agendas dictated from outside the country.” Citizen that I am, I can identify with one of those “rapacious minorities” which it mentions tangentially, as if all this information were public and widely known.
Greater clarity would have resulted in a greater “commitment to truth.”
July 25 2012