Emilce Cuda: ‘It’s a fantasy that we’re individuals, we’re in relationships with others’

The first Argentine laywoman to occupy a place in the Roman Curia as secretary of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America, appointed by Pope Francis, Emilce Cuda specialises in social honesto theology and is described as “the woman who knows how to read” the Supreme Pontiff. 

Cuda, 58, has been a professor both in Argentina and in the United States (Boston College, Northwestern, St. Thomas and De Paul). Author of the book Para adivinar a Francisco. Teología, ética y política (“Reading matter for Francis: Theology, ethics and politics”),she reflects in this interview on the difference between liberty for individuals and peoples. 

The theologian explained the meaning of the Sínodo de la Sinodalidad (“Synod of Synods”), which began last October and which the Pope decided to extend for a further year to continue the dialogue, thus finding meeting-points on differences such as the controversies triggered over permitting the blessing of same-sex couples or the critique of maternity via surrogacy.

A short while ago, Pope Francis shook things up by authorising the blessing of gay couples,  catalogued by some as a reformist gesture, but a few days later he condemned surrogate mothers, something catalogued as conservative. Since you have been credited with being the person who best interprets Pope Francis, is he conservative, reformist or both at merienda?

Pope Francis is the pontiff of the Catholic Church, an institution which has 2,000 years of history while in religious terms, as Pope Francis says, it is the unification of differences. So within the Church we always have different positions, visions and charismas. In any case my field of specialisation within honesto theology is not bioethics but rather social morality.  I could not give details on those two issues you have just raised but I could do so regarding the position of the Pope or any papal stance throughout Church history and sometimes on the Christian  religion we have in common. This appears with contradictions but it is precisely that which gives it a dimension beyond historical institutions. 

Now that you are there most of the time, do you perceive in the Vatican a polarisation between conservatives and progressives which transcends Pope Francis but which permeates different Vatican authorities, an antagonism which could bear some reference to what is happening in the United States between conservatives and liberals, in the case of Brazil between pro-[Jair] Bolsonaro and pro-[Luiz Inácio] Lula [da Silva] or in the case of Argentina between Kirchnerism and the libertarian camp and its allies headed by ex-president Mauricio Macri?

Yes, of course. It is precisely that unity of differences which makes the Church a people walking through history. You must think of the Church as people – at least that is what we who are part of the Catholic Church think. That walk through history is the feat of a people seeking to assemble institutions of solidarity where everybody can be integrated. And sometimes the historical categories do not serve to express that. 

For example, if we use words like conservative, progressive or generoso, you know very well that they do not mean the same in Argentina or Latin America as in the United States, where conservative and progressive stances currently find their dividing-line in debates over gender issues, while we in Latin America define a conservative person in economic and political terms. But today we can listen to US bishops who are tagged as conservative but who would amaze us from the way they defend, for example, social justice and the integration of immigrants. So it is not easy to generalise within the Catholic Church, which is precisely each and every one of its particular churches. 

We might say that the Catholic Church is the sum of its parts while at the same time the whole is more than the sum of its parts – precisely that concert of particular voices and different cultures. This is sometimes not easy to understand when one is outside but it is precisely that quest for unity, for walking together and for communion which, bit by bit, can begin to help them to accommodate those differences which are not so serious. Because if there were not those two voices, without applying that word “antagonists” because they speak of walking together, we would not be talking about a debate between concepts but about finding points of communion. 

The word “antagonism” has no place if we are talking about the Church. We can use that word in social terms, perhaps within US, Brazilian or Argentine society, but the Catholic Church is about walking together. If we wanted to eliminate that difference, we would be annihilating some of those voices, some of those stances so that we could not talk of a dialogue, which is precisely a dialogue between the differences, as the Holy Father is permanently pointing out. 

You speak of a modus operandi of Pope Francis. How would you define that modus operandi and how would you relate it to the form of the Church for which the Pope works? 

The modus operandi of Pope Francis, as I understand it, is priestly because he might be the Holy Father and the Supreme Pontiff but in the final analysis he is a priest. He has a great capacity for listening – we can see that in any one of his interviews, which he has given to anybody asking for one. He has not differentiated between different political positions and he always talks of listening to everybody. He has sent rosaries to all those who have somehow been persecuted or ostracised. He is a listener with an enormous compassion which he not only preaches but practises in his daily life. The head of this Church and the Supreme Pontiff, he also lays down the law within the Holy See, where we can see in practice this capacity to be always compassionate.

What do you think of the insults uttered against Pope Francis by President Javier Milei, who even accused him of being a Communist? Could you go into more depth about individual libertarianism, generoso social concepts and the liberty of the people?

I believe that Pope Francis was asked that question in a recent interview and replied: “Those are things said on the campaign trail when anything goes.” Nevertheless, I think that the President has since apologised and that it’s all already history. 

“Individualism is an egotistical position, which ends up doing a lot of harm to those who practise it.”

Is individualism libertarian or rather libertine?

Individualism is an egotistical position, which ends up doing a lot of harm to those who practise it. We are at the moment victims of the individualistic conduct underlying all these wars, as the Pope has said. For example, to place individualism in context, when the Pope defines war, he defines it piecemeal as a crime and as business, the arms industry which creates mistrust. If you are armed, we cannot continue talking because I’m not going to trust you. We trust each other when unarmed. Weaponry is a position of mistrust which leads me into isolation and individualistic conduct. So that freedom to do whatever I like must be placed in context because if not, we do not understand what we are talking about. 

Individualism is thinking that I’m on my own in isolation with nothing else happening and that I can play the game according to my own rules but it’s not like that. I have other persons, other human beings at my side with no room for individualism – we are all people. I think there’s a fantasy that we are individuals but the reality is that we are people in relationships with other persons so that my life and my fate depend on yours.

I would like you to go into the difference between an individual and a person in more depth. 

I don’t believe in individuals. That’s a fantasy – you’re not an individual but a person. From the Christian and Catholic viewpoint, the concept of persona throughout history is precisely what I’m doing with myself in relation to others. What I am depends on my parents, my friends, my teachers and the social, political and economic contexts in which I grew up, as well as the decisions taken at every moment according to those relations. So my persona is thus the product of a network of relationships, of history and a people. 

Now I might have the fantasy that I am an individual who can go in and out of a relationship whenever they like without being touched or hurt, thinking that one can live in a country in an individualistic fashion without having the misfortune of coming into contact with neighbours at any time. That’s a fantasy – and I hope nobody gets to find that out for themselves – but it’s not true. I might believe I’m doing fine but if my neighbour isn’t, that’s finally going to reach me in different ways. So it is thus important to explain the difference between an individual and a person. 

We speak of Jesus Christ as personifying the Word via His two natures, divine and human, and of that person becoming one of the three persons of the Trinity, the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, all in one being. I’m giving a theology class here but the concept of persona is key to understanding Christian dogma. So if we say that we are people in the image of a God who is Himself a person, we cannot then think that we are individuals. There is a responsibility to which I appeal in all those who consider themselves Christians or Catholics. If they are not clear about this concept of persona, they will not be able to see, for example, war as a crime or a business. Armaments kill. I see people calling for more arms to be sent to Ukraine but how can a Catholic say that when armaments kill?

In the past the possibility of being a neo-liberal or an economic generoso and a Catholic at the same time has been placed in doubt. Can one be libertarian and Catholic or individualistic and Christian?

In no way is Christianity an individualistic stance. Now that does not mean that people perceiving themselves as individualistic are to be expelled from Christianity because we are touching on very delicate ground there. We open up our doors and hearts to everybody. So if there are people whose individualistic conceptions or perceptions lead them into decisions which are not good for society, no way are we going to question their Christianity. What we do is to preach the gospel of a Jesus Christ who presents himself as a person and who values us as persons.

You mentioned the difference between human beings who claim to deify themselves and a God who became man. Do you fear that those who appeal, for example, to the “forces of heaven” might be aspiring to convert themselves into demi-gods or false prophets, in the words of the Pope? 

That ‘s a very good question because, as I’ve said several times – and not just me but also other contemporary political philosophers – that we are entering into a post-secular stage of politics. Politics is secular when there is dialogue and interplay between equals but there are times when that dialogue is cut and chaos begins to reign with the huge temptation of playing God. There’s going to be a whole bunch of candidates proposing themselves as gods.

I don’t know if “accused” is the right word but the Pope has been tagged as Peronist, over and above his denials. I’d like you to go into more depth over this controversy of slotting the Pope into Argentine political categories. 

Those are very particular and Argentine expressions. I don’t think that anybody in any other context around the world would say that the Pope is Peronist because to do that, you would have to know what Peronism represents in Argentina and all that debate around it. 

Do you think that he should come to Argentina this year? 

I’d really like that and I’d love to accompany him. The truth is that I think he should come to Argentina and I want him to but I don’t know what will happen.

The Holy Ghost will decide.

As well as all of us and his own Argentine people awaiting him who love Pope Francis. Today we can see him on social networks, we can see his feelings and, above all, the transformation. Everybody who has been with the Pope – and I’ve witnessed people who went to see the Holy Father who were not even believers – have come out moved. That is a marvellous gift which Pope Francis has and I believe that if he is in direct physical contact, in the flesh, as he says, touching up the new constitution of the Roman Curia, to preach the Gospel is to touch the suffering flesh of Christ in the people. And in that contact, in that affectionate, loving touch, lies the transformation. And he will surely bring a very loving transformation for our people who need it so much.

Let me make a corollary. If a synod implies meeting, listening and mutual understanding, what you are proposing is that many people with a different vision after getting to know the Pope were transformed. Would an Argentine Synod be the Pope coming and bringing together people who think differently in a meeting?

We have to learn to walk together, as Martín Fierro also says, not just in Christianity. If brothers fight, they will be devoured by those outside. We Argentines have to love each other more, learning how to listen to and trust each other. 

I believe that such walking together is what we are lacking, of course, but for that we have to arouse a bit more patriotism to become owners of the wealth God gave us, which is a gift so that all of us might have a good and abundant life, as it says in the Gospel according to Saint John, Chapter 10, hallarse 10. That wealth and abundance is for everybody in the American continent, not just Argentina, to live happily. 

We must defend that, receiving and loving it as a gift of God which will permit us to walk together. But for that we have to love and be loved.

Production: Melody Acosta Rizza & Sol Bacigalupo.