Something else caught my eye today…a BuzzFeed story picked up by the Miami Herald’s Naked Politics blog on Marco Rubio’s Mormon past. Not as much the story itself, which I find somewhat interesting but a non-issue, but the coverage the story is getting in several MSM outlets, including CNN and ABC.

I don’t really know what to make of the attention this is getting…there’s no “gotcha” material unless you consider someone converting from Catholicism to Mormonism in his childhood, then reverting to Catholicism as a teen, then attending a non-denominational church while still practicing Catholicism something to be skeptical about. I don’t, but I wonder if that’s at least a small part of it, not to mention the ties to Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith.

I thought we weren’t supposed to make a big deal of someone’s personal religious faith, right?

Just wait until Marco Rubio gets picked to be the GOP’s #2 on the ticket this fall and see what kind of personal stuff the MSM decides to turn into big stories. Univision’s attacks on Rubio will seem like child’s play.

Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

Here’s a good explanation of why Catholics wear ashes on their foreheads on Ash Wednesday.

I have to admit I struggled a little in coming up with things to “give up” for Lent. In past years I have given up sweets, coffee…pretty much the typical stuff most people give up during the 40 days of Lent. Fortunately I can’t say I’m too dependent on these things and can usually enjoy them in moderation. I’m also fortunate in that I don’t have any real bad vices or habits.

Nevertheless, there’s always something I can improve on. Those who know me and are close to me know this all too well. I can always be more giving of my time for God, family, friends and community, more patient and supportive and more understanding and accepting of others’ opinions.

This is just the beginning. Yes, I will still abstain from sweets and that extra cup of coffee…but for Lent 2012 I have decided to subtract by addition, so to speak. Reduce my selfishness by focusing on others.

May your Lent be filled with much blessings.

The article’s profile of several people reveals that the driving desire behind their pilgrimage is the hope for unity and reconciliation and the belief that through faith and hope, everything is possible.

Ralph Gazitua, has led the prison ministry for the Archdiocese of Miami for more than two decades and sees some similarities between his work in those institutions and efforts to spread the gospel in Cuba. “I’ve seen amazing things happen through the force of prayer,” says Gazitua, who has visited the Vatican several times. “Our message as a group of pilgrims should be clear. Through strong faith, everything is possible.

I couldn’t agree more. Another thing that struck me about this article and in other stories involving the Catholic Church in Cuba is that there is a focus (at least from this side of the Straits) on Cuban-Americans opening up to Cubans on the island, putting all the hurt behind them and seeking reconciliation. Again, I agree.

What’s often missing or obscured from this message, however, is that reconciliation is a two-way street. Also and most importantly, reconciliation can only come after an honest and sincere admission of wrong-doing and a professed commitment to correct those wrongs. For us on this side, it means putting the hurt and enmity behind us and reach out to our brothers and sisters in Cuba.

What does it mean for those on the island, especially those who have either directly or indirectly caused so much pain?

Unfortunately, Ms. Veciana-Suarez’s profile of the pilgrims doesn’t address this part of the question. Perhaps they don’t want to reveal their true feelings in public, especially to a journalist. Understandable. But I’m afraid what we might be seeing is a timidity in approach, one that has all the right intentions but doesn’t want to risk ruffling the feathers that need to be ruffled.

The following section involving Carlos Saladrigas, one of the pilgrims, best reflects this supposed timidity:

…the sight of enthusiastic throngs greeting Pope John Paul 14 years ago proved to be an eye-opening experience for some exiles — those who were there to witness it and those who refused to go but watched from Miami.

Businessman Carlos Saladrigas was one of them. He spearheaded the opposition to the church-sponsored cruise in 1998. But “after I saw the images on television and I heard what was being said, it was clear to me that I had made a mistake. I realized I wanted to be there,” he says.

Those powerful images got him thinking — and talking. He spoke at length with Father Jose Conrado Rodriguez, an outspoken priest from a parish in Santiago de Cuba. Father Rodriguez is best known for the 2009 open letter he sent Raul Castro condemning the restrictions on freedoms and the harassment of his parishioners. “He convinced me it was necessary to seek a neutral process,” Saladrigas said — a process the Catholic church could facilitate.

Saladrigas and wife Olga, practicing Catholics who met as teenagers teaching catechism classes in Miami, will be in Cuba for Benedict’s visit. He defends the church’s position against those who claim that a religious institution should not play into Castro’s hands. “The church is doing what it always does,” he adds. “It provides moral guidance (emphasis mine). It spreads the gospel. This is about evangelization, about hope.”

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? ¹⁵ Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. ¹⁶ If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? ¹⁷ In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

St. James’ words of wisdom are lived daily by those in Cuba who literally fight for their lives every day in the name of freedom. People like Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet and the Ladies in White, to name but a few. It would be easy for them to accept their fate and only strive to  ”keep warm and well fed”. But faith demands more from them and from all of us.

I can think of no better message of hope and love that the pilgrims can deliver than to make it clear to our brothers and sisters on the island, without fear and with full confidence in the grace of God, that they speak for all the people of God in support their God-given right to live in freedom, the same freedom they enjoy in their country of exile and adoption.  Yes, we need faith and hope. But we need to turn it into concrete actions of love, including those that may cause us to suffer. On a daily basis, Cuba’s brave dissidents show us this by example.

I hope and pray that when these people hit the ground in Cuba, the pain and suffering they will surely see will remind them that true reconciliation will never take place until good and decent people have the courage and the faith to stand up and demand that all of us be treated with the dignity and love we were created in.

Full article follows.

BY ANA VECIANA-SUAREZ

AVECIANA@MIAMIHERALD.COM

By dissidents, we mean of the regime, not the Catholic Church. However, the three men highlighted in the article (Rev. Jose Conrado Rodriguez, Oswaldo Paya and Dagoberto Valdes) haven’t exactly fallen in lockstep with the Church leadership in Cuba or with some circles of the Vatican. That’s OK…because as I explained in a comment to the previous post earlier today, it’s fine for Catholics to disagree with clergy on non-doctrinal matters as long as their judgment is prudent, sound, rational and grounded in truth and love.

All three have shown different ways of combating the regime and even the Church, some more popular than others. As importantly, all three plan on attending the Masses Pope Benedict will celebrate in Cuba in March. As I stated in a previous post, we ought to see the Pope’s visit to Cuba as an opportunity to spread faith and grace to a people who so desperately need it. Whether one agrees more with Rev. Jose Conrado Rodriguez’s more direct approach in fighting the regime (consider me in this camp), Paya’s softer brand of compromise which nevertheless has won him international praise and notoriety or Valdes’ approach from the ranks of the laity, these folks (and many more in Cuba) deserve to be supported and encouraged by the Pope’s visit and the message of hope that only he can deliver, not to mention by a Vatican that sadly has too-often betrayed the trust of faithful, anti-regime Catholics in Cuba and elsewhere.

My sincere hope is that Pope Benedict XVI meets with as many dissidents as the regime allows him to, including these three individuals. I expressed this desire in another recent post. I still think that the Pope’s failure to meet with dissidents would be a blow to those brave individuals, and while I hope and pray I also fear the regime would never allow such meetings to happen. Let’s see what happens, but we must be open to the possibilities which seem ever so remote but can only be executed if the Pope steps foot on Cuban soil.

The entire Herald article is included below.

BY JUAN O. TAMAYO

JTAMAYO@ELNUEVOHERALD.COM

Nice try, Mr. Morin. Real cute, and you nailed Rick Santorum’s signature teeth-clench. Unfortunately, it’s a clear (and blatant) distortion of the issue (and I won’t even bring up the whole aspirin thing since Santorum has already clearly addressed it). I mean, when the majority of Catholics have used contraception at one point or another in their lives; when contraceptives are already easily available at low cost without government intervention; when no Catholic bishop or politician has advocated for a government banning of all contraceptives, this whole notion that the Catholic Church and Catholic politicians such as Rick Santorum are “interfering in the bedroom” is just plain stupid. People may try to spin it any way they want, but if that was indeed the case, boy are they doing a bad job!

This is just another case of people believing what they want to believe, facts be damned.

This AP article published by the Miami Herald on Cuban Cardinal Jaime Ortega is the most comprehensive and detailed look into both the Cardinal’s past and his complex and perplexing relationship with the Cuban regime.

Although I’m no fan of many of the Cardinal’s actions (or in-actions), it’s a fair article and reveals nuances, little-known facts and those internal struggles and conflicts we all face as human beings. As a popular Spanish saying goes: Cada persona es un mundo (Every person is a world unto himself). It’s a little long but worth a read.

Dr. Biscet’s words to Congress yesterday included:

“I would say to him, that I would love for him to lobby for our freedom of speech and for a multi-party system, so that everyone can participate and be represented,” Biscet said. “We hope that his coming will bring great change to our country.”

The Miami Herald article linked above quotes Cuban journalist Norberto Hernandez Gonzalez, who brings up a good point which hits at the primary reason the Cuban regime fears people like Dr. Biscet:

“He’s not a product of Miami Beach, he’s not a product of Miami, he’s not a product of Cubans in exile,” he said. “This is a man that was educated in Cuba, and he sees that this is a dictator, that this a country that oppresses human rights. That this is a country that allows no one the freedom to express themselves. And he’s personally seen what they do to people who are seeking freedom of expression.”

This whole chimichanga-gate thing is over-rated and blown way out of proportion, IMO.

Dana Milbank’s standard-issue lefty column bashing Republicans for apparently hating on Hispanics was making a reference to an odd John McCain chimichanga comment  during discussions on the nomination of Cuban-born Adalberto Jose Jordan to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. The remark was later tweeted by Obama campaign manager Jim Messina.

OK…so Milbank tied in the McCain chimichanga remark to Republicans and Hispanics. Messina found it as yet another way to zing his opponents. Politics as usual. Yes, a lame attempt at snarky humor it was, but I don’t see the particular reference to the chimichanga as offensive or racist to anyone. Sorry. Thus, I see the indignant reaction among some Republicans as being a bit over the top and, just as Messina’s tweet, driven by partisan politics. If the roles were reversed, Republicans would shrug this off as “what’s the big deal, didn’t you get it?”.

What ought to be offensive isn’t the chimichanga reference itself, but Messina’s party’s utter lack of accomplishments in improving the lives of Hispanics in this country. He shouldn’t be gloating about something which his party has done absolutely nothing positive .

So…what should we make of this? Quite frankly, this is one of those topics that really pushes at our views of both reality and our preconceived notions of such. How in the world can we allow a man who has directly caused the unjust suffering of so many people to come back to the faith? Is this just a ruse to grant favor with the Pope? Is he sincere?

The fact is, we really don’t know the answers to any of these questions. Only Castro and God do. However, let’s just pretend for a moment that Castro is indeed sincere; that as his life near’s its end he fears eternal damnation and is seeking repentance. This wouldn’t be the first time someone in a similar situation makes that decision. While that contrition may not be a perfect one, it’s one God accepts from all of us…all the time. We’ll also assume that Castro’s supposed confession (talk about the confession to end all confessions) is as complete as humanly possible and that he sincerely plans to carry out his penance (talk about the penance to end all penances).

With these assumptions and conditions in mind, should we view a Castro con(re)version as something good? My answer to that question is YES.  It is a stretch, at least in our human minds, to envision Castro doing all this. But fortunately for ALL of us, God has much more patience and trust than us mere mortals. This is certainly not to say that once Castro kneels down, confesses his sins, receives absolution and his penance, all the bad he’s caused can be brushed aside and forgotten. It’s not having faith in Castro or any sinner, but faith in the grace of God transmitted through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

What this DOES NOT represent is an appeasement, compromise or excuse for Castro’s actions. Unfortunately, that’s the way we too often see the act of forgiving as. The Catholic Church calls it reconciliation for a reason: to be reconciled with God through the accepting and admission of one’s sins, receiving of grace and the penance received and accomplished.

Jesus caused scandal by eating and hanging out with sinners of all types. He converted a ruthless murderer, Saul, to the great apostle St. Paul. Countless others have followed similar trajectories. He gives all of us countless chances to repent our sins. So, why NOT Castro? Again, I’m not holding my breath but only God has the capacity to deliver what we can’t even begin to hope for.

I think we can apply a similar principle to the Pope’s upcoming visit to Cuba. Looking at faith, hope and reconciliation through the lens of the Church, the Pope’s visit to Cuba represents that endless reservoir of hope that so often escapes human understanding. The goal of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit should be to inspire that hope in all Cubans, which is why I see the Pontiff’s visit to Cuba as a good thing. Even better and most definitely ideal would be a meeting with dissidents and opposition members, many of whom are faithful Catholics and have endured much hardship in the open practice of their faith. I can only pray that such a meeting will materialize.

All of us who care for a free Cuba and for the freedom of a much-maligned people should pray for the Pope and the Church hierarchy in Cuba that the visit to Cuba in March bear much fruit. We should also pray for the Cuban people.

And…yes…we should pray for Fidel Castro, as utterly impossible as it may seem. After all, the Cuban people would be better served by a converted Castro than by the old one. So would the bearded dictator.

However, for those who like to bring up these numbers in support of their argument…here’s an analysis of the aforementioned Guttmacher Institute study which found some holes the size of Texas:

…The survey was limited to women between 15-44. Ah, well, that explains how we weren’t including the elderly, but it also means that the silly “percent of all Catholic women” thing should be chucked out right from the beginning. More strikingly, as Neil pointed out to me after looking up the study, it excluded any women who were a) not sexually active, where that is defined as having had sexual intercourse in the past three months (there go all the nuns), b) postpartum, c) pregnant, or d) trying to get pregnant! In other words, the study was specifically designed (as the prose discussion on p. 8 makes explicit, in bold print) to include only women for whom a pregnancy would be unintended and who are “at risk” of becoming pregnant. Whether or not it included women who considered themselves neither trying nor not trying to get pregnant (there are some such women in the world) is unclear. It’s also unclear whether it included women who have had their reproductive organs removed because of some medical problem. Presumably the study was intended to exclude women in both of these categories, as neither would count as a woman “at risk of an unintended pregnancy.”

There’s a lot more and I recommend reading the entire article here.