HAY QUE HABLAR DE JUSTICIA ANTES DE SANTIDAD

Desde su establecimiento en mayo del 2006, este blog ha estado textualmente dedicado a promover y dar seguimiento a la causa de canonización de Monseñor Romero. Este ha sido un emprendimiento exclusivo a favor de la causa establecida en los procedimientos internos de la Iglesia Católica Romana para declarar oficialmente a Mons. Romero como un santo. Pero, trás una profundización muy fundamental sobre el caso y los hechos, estamos cambiando un poco el enfoque para dar énfasis a los procesos legales del mundo seglar, las investigaciones a fondo del crímen político, del asesinato desde una perspectiva humana y terrenal que de frutos en la buzqueda de verdad, justicia, paz y reconciliación, especialmente en la esfera del pueblo de El Salvador. Ese proceso ha entrado a una etapa mucho más aguda, especialmente a raíz de los hechos tocantes al caso Romero ante la Corte Internacional de Derechos Humanos de la Organización de Estados Americanos. Este ente ha estado investigando el caso Romero desde 1993 y finalmente se ha llegado el momento en que el gobierno salvadoreño por primera vez digne oportuno responder a las aseveraciones de las partes actoras en el caso. Existe mucha controversia en la etapa actual sobre varios temas pertinentes, pero lo importante es que estos procesos se desarrollen de manera conveniente para hacer justicia y buzcar la verdad.

Desde un sentido más profundo, es importante asegurar que los procesos de canonización no se usen de manera pretextual, para postergar la justicia en el mundo actual. Es muy importante que Mons. Romero sea reconocido santo, más que todo para hacer realidad la oración que Cristo nos mandó a rezar: "hágase tu voluntad así en la tierra como en los cielos." No cabe duda que Mons. Romero es santo en el reino celestial, y por eso es muy conveniente reflejar esa realidad en la iglesia terrenal. Sin embargo, Mons. Romero sería el primero en llamarnos a no mistificar los procesos sagrados de la iglesia, tergiversandolos para hacer ocultar las responsabilidades éticas y morales que se deben cumplier acá en la tierra antes de llegar al altar, a menos que el Padre Celestial nos obligue, como a Moisés, a quitarnos las sandalias antes de plantar nuestros pies en el suelo de la santidad. Es un hecho de que nunca se ha cumplido el deber de hacer justicia en el caso Mons. Romero, y es igüalmente un hecho de que la apertura actual en el caso CIDH nos presenta una oportunidad. Cabe mentar que esclarecer los hechos jurídicamente en los casos legales sería un gran aporte a los elementos más agudos en el proceso eclesial, para establecer los elementos necesarios para el decreto de martirio que se buzca obtener.

Por eso, nos resulta conveniente por el momento cambiar un poco el enfoque, de los procesos canónicos a los procesos jurídicos de Monseñor Romero. Hagamos, Señor, tu voluntad de que impere la justicia y la verdad, antes de pretender formalizar la correspondencia entre el cielo y la tierra con un decreto de canonización, cuando estemos en alguna situación de desacato en nuestra responsabilidad.

STATE RESPONSIBILITY AND CANONIZATION

No one accuses Fernando Sáenz of doing things that will benefit Salvadoran society at the expense of ecclesial concerns. In fact, just the opposite is true: the Archbishop of San Salvador is often seen pleading with supporters of his assassinated predecessor Óscar Romero, to give emphasis to ritual and sacramental aspects of the canonization process, at the expense of more urgent worldly calls for continued denunciations and social criticism that may be warranted by the moment. Sáenz is fond of calling for Romero's memory not to be "politicized" by association with current day protests and political issues of the day, and of calling instead for people to pray for miracles in Romero's name and report positive results to the canonization office. Consider then Sáenz' latest endeavor -- a quiet negotiation with the government to have the state admit its role in the Romero assassination.

In typical form, Sáenz bristled at the insinuation of stealth in his conversations with the government. "There are no secrets in the dialogue," Sáenz insisted, seeing no hint of insconsistency as he added, "it is simply a meeting for which, while there are no agreements, it is better to maintain a prudential silence until we have results." He also declined to identify the members of two commissions formed to lead the dialogue, when their sessions are scheduled or held, the topics for discussion, or the number of meetings intended. Sáenz assured reporters that his goals in the "negotiations" are to obtain the concessions demanded by human rights activists and governmnet critics across the board: "we are looking for a way that the state's responsibility is acknowledged." Sáenz recognized that the talks are geared to searching for ways to undergird a "true peace." Tellingly, Sáenz did not explain how obtaining an admission from the government regarding state responsibility for the Romero assassination would aid the canonization cause pending in Rome.

At first glance, it would appear to complicate matters. The key element in the Romero case is the prong of analysis known by its Latin term, ODIUM FIDEI, or "hatred of the faith," which canon law requires must be the motive in fact of a martyr's persecutor. Lacking that motive, there can be no martyrdom. The sticking point in the Romero case has been the fact that anti-religious motives have commingled with purely political or tactical motives, and the censors and relators of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints have had a difficult time finding a purely anti-religious motive when both the actors and the victim were ostensibly Christians, and even Catholics. Saying that the state is the author of the crime muddies the analysis even further because of the conceptual stumbling block that a state possesses no mind, and the practical obstacle of identifying the "motives" behind an institutional decision. Anyone who has ever done legislative intent research will be familiar with the problems involved. However, the law provides ready solutions to these problems in the concepts of agency law and imputed or attributed intent (corporate or institutional mindset, such as "mens rea" and intent, can be inferred from the actions of individuals who posses either knowledge or intent). Therefore, any confusion introduced by state responsibility could be easily overcome. However, state responsibility adds very little to the "odium fidei" analysis (possibly, it allows some flexibility since you can attribute intent based on actions and beliefs done or held by different people). One can conclude that Sáenz is pursuing an objective which helps Salvadoran society as a whole -- the search for the truth, closure, the fulfillment of the terms of the Peace Accords, etc. -- that does not necessarily further a strict ecclesiastic aim.

MONS. ROMERO Y SAN JUAN CRISÓSTOMO

«Sólo El Salvador será fermentado en la vida divina, en el reino de Dios, si de verdad los cristianos de El Salvador se proponen a no vivir una fe tan lánguida, una fe tan miedosa, una fe tan tímida; sino que de verdad como decía aquel santo -creo que San Juan Crisóstomo-: "Cuando comulgas, recibes fuego; debías de salir respirando la alegría, la fortaleza de transformar el mundo".»

--Mons. Romero, Homilía del 28 de mayo de 1978

En sus reflexiones en su audiencia general del 26 septiembre de 2007, Su Santidad el Papa Benedicto XVI profundizó sobre el legado de san Juan Crisóstomo (347-407 a.D.), proclamado patrón del Concilio Vaticano II por el Beato Juan XXIII, como un padre de la Doctrina Social de la Iglesia. El Papa Benedicto explicó como este santo se encontró en su día involucrado en «intrigas políticas», castigado por las autoridades eclesiales por sus enfrentamientos con la emperatriz y los poderosos de su era. Una parte de la Iglesia acusaba a san Juan Crisóstomo y otra parte, que incluía al papa de su día, lo favorecía, pero no tenía la fuerza para ayudarle. Despues de su muerte, pasaron 31 años antes que la memoria de este obispo de Constantinopla fuera restaurada y su nombre vindicado. Benedicto constató las obras de San Juan por los pobres, en seguida añadiendo que «Crisóstomo comprendió que no es suficiente hacer limosna, ayudar a los pobres de vez en cuando, sino que es necesario crear una nueva estructura, un nuevo modelo de sociedad; un modelo basado en la perspectiva del Nuevo Testamento». Los paralelos con la historia de Mons. Romero, de un obispo comprometido con el Evangelio hasta sus últimas consequencias, que queda mal con los poderosos y aboga por los pobres, son tantos que vale la pena comentar algunos detalles.

En la teología de Crisóstomo, explica el Santo Padre, «la vieja idea de la "polis" griega es sustituida por una nueva idea de ciudad inspirada en la fe cristiana». Esto nos hace recordar que en su discurso en Universidad de Lovaina, tanto como en su homilía del 17 de febrero de 1980, Mons. Romero profundiza que, «En su origen política es de "polis", que quiere decir: Ciudad. Los pobres nos dicen qué es la "polis", qué es la ciudad, y qué significa para la Iglesia vivir realmente en el mundo, en la "polis", en la ciudad.» Según lo expone el papa, San Juan Crisóstomo tambien definió la "polis" desde la perspectiva de los pobres, ya que insistió en que ellos fuesen incluidos en su alcanze, mientras que las definiciones griegas de la misma palabra excluían a los pobres y a los esclavos. Así mismo, en la teología de San Juan Crisóstomo, «la vieja idea de la "polis" griega es sustituida por una nueva idea de ciudad inspirada en la fe cristiana».

Crisóstomo defendió, nos dice el gran maestro vaticano, «el primado de cada ... persona en cuanto tal, incluso del esclavo y del pobre». Este «primado de la persona» de San Juan Crisóstomo es lo mismo de lo que nos hablaba Mons. Romero cuando predicaba en su homilía del 2 de marzo de 1980 que:

A la Iglesia no le importa más que el hombre. El hombre, el hijo de Dios; y por eso le duele encontrar cadáveres de hombres, torturas a hombres, sufrimiento de hombres. Para la Iglesia, la meta de todos los proyectos tiene que ser éste de Dios: el hijo, el hombre. Todo hombre es hijo de Dios y en cada hombre matado es un cristo sacrificado que la Iglesia también venera.

El «primado de la persona» o «primado del hombre», continua Benedicto, «nos dice que nuestra "polis" es otra, "nuestra patria está en los cielos" y esta patria nuestra, incluso en esta tierra, nos hace a todos iguales, hermanos y hermanas, y nos obliga a la solidaridad». Y en la prédica de Mons. Romero encontramos la misma idea:

El cristiano es habitante de la eternidad, que va peregrinando en esta tierra, trabajándola, porque le tiene que dar cuenta a Dios, pero que su patria definitiva es allá dónde Cristo vive para siempre, y donde seremos felices con él, con el gran liberado, los pueblos liberados; los hombres liberados serán aquellos que han hecho suya ésta que San Pablo llama "la energía que posee todo para someterlo todo a Cristo". (Ibidem.)

San Juan Crisóstomo y Mons. Romero, ¡rogad por nosotros! +

ROMERO FOR YOM KIPPUR

Perhaps there is no more fitting way for us to pay our respects to the Jewish Day of Atonement, than to reflect on the Hebrew prophets' influence on Oscar Romero's theology and preaching. Yom Kippur is celebrated this year on Saturday September 22. The feast commemorates the episode related in the Book of Exodus wherein the Isrealites built a shrine to a golden calf in honor of the Apis bull, thereby engaging in idolatry. After the crisis was mediated by Moses, it was engrained in the annals of Jewish history as the "Chet ha'Egel" or "The Sin of the Calf."

In his sermon of February 24, 1980 -- given exactly one month before his martyrdom -- Archbishop Romero states that, "one of the services that the Church is providing today is to unmask idolatries: the idolatry of money, the idolatry of power, the pretense to keep men on their knees before those false gods." In this perspective, Archbishop Romero was powerfully driven by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. The previous Sunday, March 17, Romero had preached: "How awesome are the prophets when they denounce those who annex house to house and conjoin property with property and become the owners of the entire country!" The clear reference to Isaiah 5:8 reveals the Scriptural underpinnings of a man who has been himself called a "modern prophet," who heard in the voice of Christ preaching the Beatitudes, "the accent of the prophets of the Old Testament." (March 17 Sermon.)

Romero explained the pertinancy of the Old Hebrew texts to 20th Century El Salvador:

The impovireshed majorities of our country find the voice of the prophets of Israel in our Church. There are those among us who sell the just for money and the poor for a pair of sandals, as stated by the prophets (Amos 2:6-7,8). Those who stack violence and deprivation in their palaces, those who squash the poor, those who make a reign of violence approach while they lie in marble beds, those who join house to house and annex field to field in order to occupy the entire place and have the country all to themselves. These texts of the prophets are not distant voices that we read reverently in our liturgy, they are the daily realities whose cruelty and intensity we live day to day.

In fashioning his responses to these "daily realities," Archbishop Romero drew on Jeremiah, Isaiah, Hosea, Amos and Micah as much as he drew on the Second Vatican Council and the social teaching of the Popes. The legacy of the Hebrew prophets over Archbishop Romero is made manifest today in the instinctive attraction that Romero's ministry has for the delegations of American Jewish World Service students who have made Ciudad Romero a mecca for exploring their relationship between Judaism and the developing world.

An expert in the Old Testament said a few days after Archbishop Romero's assassination that Biblical Israel had eight great prophets and that, in our days, Archbishop Romero would be one of them. On this Yom Kippur/Day of Atonement, we meditate upon Archbishop Romero's fidelity to the Hebrew prophets:

It is wise to read the Old Testament, to read, above all, the prophets and to hear in the tenor of the prophets the severe reprimands, the calls to order that the prophets made, even to the kings, to the rulers, to the wealthy, to those who abused and who trampled their people. 'You are the cause of God's breaking His alliance with this nation,' the prophets said to them, and they called to repentance. 'Convert, renew yourselves." (Jan. 1, 1978 Sermon.)

Romero believed that Christ's mission resumed that call to repentance and reconciliation, and that his ministry was the echo of that call to repentance: "Convert yourselves, be faithful to the alliance of your Baptism, be faithful to your Lord!" (Id.).

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK

In a brazen move that illustrates the danger of political manipulation of the Romero image, the Hugo Chavez regime in Venezuela announced a new website about Archbishop Romero and sponsored a Liberation Theology seminar in Caracas on the occasion of Romero's 90th birthday in which participants triumphantly declared that Romero was a "liberation theologian" and that socialism and liberation theology, alone, were the viable alternatives to gain social justice in Latin America. These developments followed the announcement last month that El Salvador's ARENA government, whose ruling party was established by the man signaled as the intellectual author of the Romero assassination, would officially back the Romero canonization drive. Both gambits demonstrate how political actors have exploited a perceived void in ownership of the Romero brand for self-serving purposes, given the lack of action on the ecclesiastic front along those lines.

A much-circulated AP story by Nicole Winfield, timed to coincide with the 90th anniversary of Romero's birth this past week alleges that, "The campaign to make him a Roman Catholic saint appears to be languishing." Winfield does not point to any specific setbacks or identifiable obstacles that were not already known, and would justify such analysis. In fact, Winfield acknowledges various incremental gains, such as the record-correcting Morozzo della Rocca biography, and Pope Benedict's astonishing remark that "Romero as a person merits beatification." Winfield's depiction of church paralysis before the controversy surrounding Romero and, more specifically, the complexities of the analyses of the political as opposed to purely theological ramifications of his martyrdom, however, does describe the reality perceived by political actors who appear to conclude that the Church has foresaken Romero, and that he is up for grabs (in very simplified terms).

On the one hand, of course the Church is right to stay out of partisan rows over the purely political implications of Romero's ministry, and there is even perhaps some benefit in having the extremists on both ends of the political spectrum fight over the scraps of Romero's legacy that they like, so that they will benefit from the edification of being exposed to Romero's message and perhaps find in it enough traces of the Gospel and the Magisterium as to be made better for it. On the other hand, the danger that they will corrupt and defile the figure and message of Romero seems all too great to leave it to chance. When Bishop Vincenzo Paglia first received the appointment of postulator of Romero's cause, he immediately reported to John Paul II, after having reviewed Romero's orthodoxy, "Romero is ours!" However, ownership is extrinsically linked to possession, and where an owner relinquishes possession, he eventually relinquishes right if another interposes a claim and too much times passes in between.

EL SALV. SUMA SU APOYO A LA BEATIFICACIÓN

El estado salvadoreño se ha comprometido a prestar una intervención ante la Santa Sede para pedir la beatificación de su más destacado hijo, Mons. Oscar A. Romero. Desde varias perspectivas, el anuncio constituye algo excepcional. Es la primera vez que el gobierno de El Salvador se pronuncia oficialmente sobre la causa de canonización de Mons. Romero. Es raro el caso en que un gobierno intervenga de manera oficial en una causa de canonización.

Desgraciadamente, el anuncio por parte del gobierno, hecho despues de un encuentro con Tutela Legal del Arzobispado de San Salvador y el Centro de Justicia y el Derecho Internacional, ha sido percibido como una maniobra cínica por el estado, ya que ofreció su anuncio sobre la beatificación en lugar de lo que estos organismos le pedían: la derroga de la amnistía que prohibe enjuiciar a los sospechados del magnicidio de Romero, y la aceptación por el estado de su parte en el asesinato. Ciertamente la propuesta del gobierno es especiosa y vacía por tres razones. En primer lugar, el gobierno pretende dar, en substitución de algo justificado y necesario en si mismo, otra cosa que tambien lo es. No se puede substituir la justicia para Mons. Romero con la santidad para Mons. Romero porque las dos causas son obligadas, y no es ninguna "concesión" ceder a una de las dos cosas. En segundo lugar, la intervención que el gobierno ofrece viene sumamente tardía, hasta el punto de ser inútil y de nada necesaria. Ya Mons. Romero está en una etapa avanzada de su proceso, y no por la ayuda del estado salvadoreño ha llegado a tener la estatura de heroe espiritual a nivel internacional que lo impulsa hacia la beatificación. Finalmente, el anuncio del gobierno salvadoreño incluye varias contradiciones en su argumento, inclusive que no se puede investigar porque existe una amnistía, que no se puede aceptar responsabilidad porque ya se investigó (aunque la amnistía no permite investigar), y que no se puede quitar la amnistía porque hay que ser responsable (aunque se rechaza la responsabilidad de la actuación del estado).

Es evidente que el gobierno no se adhiere a la ley de no usar para fines políticos la figura de Romero con que constantemente acusa a la oposición, porque cuando le conviene usar la figura de Romero para salir de un aprieto, lo hace con abandono singular. Pero lo que nos interesa analizar en esta conexión es si esta intervención podría hasta dañar la causa de beatificación. El peligro viene desde el hecho de que una causa de martirio se basa en la teoría de que el mártir fue asesinado por un victimario que actua en odio a la fe cristiana de la víctima (el famoso ODIUM FIDEI). Sin embargo, si el victimario se está sumando a los promotores de la causa, ¿no puede esto interferir con la teoría del ODIUM? Aunque es interesante la noción, la respuesta está bien clara: no hace estorbo. Al mismo Jesús despues de haber sido crucificado le reconocieron sus asesinos, "Este verdaderamente era el Hijo de Dios," y no deja de ser su sacrificio un acto divino con un significado teológico monumental. De hecho, el único daño que se percibe en esta conexión es la posible contaminación que semejante maniobra política de un gobierno tenga sobre el resultado de una causa de canonización: que digan que fue beatificado como resultado de las políticas sucias de un gobierno sin sentido de la santidad.

El análisis final puede ser este. Aunque hay riesgo de manchar la pureza del proceso, la promesa del gobierno puede hacer un bien. Hay que ser optimista y tener fe, y es posible que gente decente en el gobierno y entre los salvadoreños tomen el respaldo del gobierno con un sentido de autenticidad, y que esto ayude a la reconciliación (usando la palabra en el sentido espiritual, que conlleva el sentido de arrepentimiento y de perdón). Principalmente, el aporte que esta decisión daría al proceso es quitar el pretexto de que la beatificación sería polémica, o rechazada por el sector conservador, ya que ellos son los que están en el gobierno. Tambien hay que aceptar el progreso aún cuando sea lento y reconocer que por lo menos ya no se está calumniando a Mons. Romero como un agitador a la violencia, ni a sus seguidores como devotos de una causa ilegítima como se hacía hasta hace poco. Hay que reconocer este progreso, y no dejar de pedir más.

RATZINGER & ROMERO

Marveling on the theological insight of Pope Benedict's new book, "Jesus of Nazareth," the leading papal biographer George Weigel asks, «When was the last time you heard a sermon in which [the Beatitudes] were described as 'a sort of veiled interior biography of Jesus, a kind of portrait of his figure'-- and thus 'a roadmap for the Church, a model of what she herself should be'?» Mystified by the unusual slant given to familiar Biblical stories by the stellar theologian-pope, the author goes on to query, «How many preachers explain [the stories of Jesus’s temptations in the desert] as dramatic variations on the perennial human temptation to utopianism, to a self-sufficiency that 'pushes God off the stage'?» (George Weigel, NEWSWEEK, May 21, 2007 issue, "A Jesus Beyond Politics, Pope Benedict becomes the teacher he always wanted to be.")

Archbishop Oscar Romero made exactly those observations in two consecutive sermons in February 1980, in the final run-up of homilies that would lead to his March 24, 1980 assassination. It is perhaps no wonder then that, an audit of Archbishop Romero's preaching conducted by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith under then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger found no fault in Romero's theology and concluded that, «Romero was not a revolutionary bishop, but a man of the Church, of the Gospel, and of the Poor.» (ANSA News Service, March 15, 2005.) Speaking over the Sahara desert during the flight to Brazil to open the V General Synod of the Latin American Bishops' Conference, Pope Benedict remarked that Romero «was certainly a great witness to the faith. He was a man of great Christian virtue, who was committed to peace and against the dictatorship.» The Pope noted that, «He was killed during the moment of consecration,» and that his death was therefore, «a testimony to the faith.» The Pope concluded, «That Romero as a person merits beatification, I have no doubt,» and that he was awaiting the final report from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints. (See Transcript, http://ncrcafe.org/node/1081 )

Weigel notes that in analyzing the Sermon on the Mount, «Benedict XVI unpacks the New Testament with the help of his profound knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.» In his February 17, 1980 Sermon, Romero took his listeners through each of the Beatitudes, leading into one by saying, «Take note of the moment in which Christ teaches this Beatitude so that we can see its reach. Let us not tear it out of the context of the history of Israel.» Romero then goes on to encapsulate the entire history of Israel from Abraham to Moses to the Roman occupation in a whirlwind two-minute capsule summary to hightlight the "context." Weigel continues to explicate the Pope's analysis: «Why is it the meek to whom the Beatitudes promise the inheritance of 'the land'? Because, explains Ratzinger, drawing on the imagery of the Exodus, 'the land was given [to the people of Israel] as a space for obedience, a realm of openness to God that was to be freed from the abomination of idolatry'.» In Feb. 1980, Romero talked about the relationship of the land to God's promises to Israel, and like Joseph Ratzinger, he also spoke in terms of 'idolatry:' «That is why Jesus preached with such enthusiasm, 'Happy are you the poor, because yours is the Kingdom of God! You are the best prepared to understand what is not understood by those who kneel before the false idols and trust in them. You who do not have those idols, you who do not trust because you do not have money or power, you who are disenfranchised of everything, the poorer you are, the more you are the owners of the Kingdom of God!»

Weigel writes that, «amidst some familiar Ratzingerian themes, there is a new chord struck with particular force, it is Benedict XVI’s insistence, repeated several times, that a Christian Church faithful to its Lord cannot be a Church of power ... For the fusion of faith and political power always comes at a price: faith becomes the servant of power and must bend to its criteria.» Similarly, Romero concluded in his February 17, 1980 sermon: «That is why, brothers and sisters, it is no prestige for the Church to be in good stead with the powerful. This is the prestige of the Church: to feel that the poor feel it as theirs, knowing that the Church lives a dimension on the earth calling everyone, including the rich, to convert and be saved, from the world of the poor, because they are the only ones who are Blessed.»

That point is further emphasized in an analysis of Jesus' temptations in the desert. In his book, Pope Benedict likens Satans' temptations of Jesus to the «perennial human temptation to utopianism.» In his next Sunday sermon, given on February 24, 1980 -- exactly one month before his martyrdom -- Archbishop Romero compared the temptation to turn bread to stones to political solutions that seek facile or immediate solutions of complex problems, «like so many politicians who only wish to have everything taken care of and who demand even what is impossible. These infantile demands are very much like the temptation of the Devil: to want to turn stones to bread and thus get out of hunger.» In a stinging after-touch, Romero tacks on the temptation to resort to artificial contraception as a way to combat world hunger: «to deprive men from coming into being alive» instead of preparing the banquet of life «so that there is enough bread for everyone.» Weigel concludes that Pope Benedict sees in the temptations an invitation to accept «the murderous depredations of those twentieth-century totalitarians who made ultramundane gods out of themselves,» a danger that Romero obviously recognized also.

A STANDARD OF 'ORTHOPRAXY'

The 27th anniversary of Archbishop Romero's martyrdom saw a flurry of public statements regarding the status of the canonization cause made to the Spanish language and Salvadoran press. Among the most interesting revelations are the statements by Msgr. Rafael Urrutia and Archbishop Fernando Saenz in San Salvador. According to their statements, in November 2006, the Vatican informed the San Salvador archdiocese that the after the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) reviewed and cleared Romero's orthodoxy ("right thought") in 2001-2004, it would retain Romero's file for an analysis of his orthopraxy ("right action"). Therefore, the canonization process is not moving forward in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, but remains detoured in the CDF. Urrutia revealed that, at that time, the Vatican even proposed that Romero's cause be modified from one premised on martyrdom to a traditional sainthood cause based on spiritual virtues -- hinting at the level of difficulty in proving Romero's status as a martyr.

The unprecedented scrutiny of Romero's orthopraxy, Urrutia revealed, would center on Romero's pastoral actions as archbishop, as these are revealed in his sermons and diaries -- which have already been combed through for doctrinal error and found to be theologically sound. In a December 2006 letter from Fr. Jon Sobrino to Fr. Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, the Jesuit Superior General, Fr. Sobrino reveals that the inquest that led to a recent CDF notification against two of Sobrino's books also raised suspicion against Romero, and Sobrino indicates that one of the clerics instigating suspicion of Romero is the Colombian cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, the retired prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy who led a campaign against Liberation Theology from the Latin American Bishops' Conference beginning in the 1970s. Previous reports had pointed to "Latin American cardinals" as the source of obstacles against Romero's sainthood. Nevertheless, the sainthood cause caught a break from an unexpected source when Pope Benedict XVI cited Romero in his March 25 Angelus greeting, lauding the "Yes" of Virgin Mary and the martyrs to Christs' call to sacrifice.

If Archbishop Romero, whose writing and preaching has been cleared of doctrinal error, is examined again for error in his pastoral action, one wonders what standard of review is employed by the Vatican commissions studying the matter. A logic of fairness would suggest that, where someone has already been found to be a right-thinker (orthodox), the presumption of right-action (orthopraxy) would automatically attach, unless demonstrated otherwise. In other words, the theological censors ought not go in with a fine tooth comb looking for the slightest hint of 'not-right' action, but they should presume that someone who is a good Christian and adheres to the tenets of the Faith, will also dutifully carry them out, and not shirk them in the execution. Stated differently, a Servant of God who has passed one study by the CDF should be accorded more deference in subsequent investigations, particularly, where logic would dictate, as here, that the clean bill of health on one theological factor would also result in a positive result in a derivative and related area (as are thought and action).

In other judicial processes (canon law being, after all, a legal process), tribunals adopt "standards of review" appropriate to different types of situations. For example, appellate courts give some deference to trial courts in certain matters, such as a trial court's fact-finding function. The appeals court realizes that it has limited ability to re-conduct a trial and will examine the lower court's decision making and legal analysis, but not its basic factual investigation. That premise has some carry-over value where theological scholars are reviewing a Church pastor's action. It is unfair to conduct a full-hindsight review, for example, that does not give due consideration to the pressures and constraints with which a pastor, in a situation of repression and political instability, would have faced acting in the pressure cooker of real time, and not in the contemplative luxury after the fact. The Church is very sensitive, for example, about criticisms against the actions of Pope Pius XII regarding the Holocaust, for many of the same reasons. Moreover, there is a theological factor to be accounted for, which is that a pastor, especially a bishop, is not just an official to be second-guessed: he was put there by Providence, and by the holy process of Apostolic Succession. An archbishop who is also primate of his countrymen, during a national tribulation, must also be presumed to have been put there by God for a reason, and not forsaken by the Holy Spirit in his decisions.

In sum, the approach should not be tantamount to "de novo" review: "Would we, the theological scholars sitting around in the Vatican archives in 2007, be taking this action?" -- but, instead, "Is Brother Romero, in the crossfires of rightwing assassins, burying hundreds of peasants every week in a cataclysm of social injustice, entitled to deference in his pastoral action unless he strays so decisively from his stated principles that he abuses the discretion that would reasonably be accorded to him under the circumstances?" Let us pray that the guardians of the Faith adhere strictly to this tenet of fairness.

THE SOBRINO FLAP

Last week's landmark "Notification" by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) regarding Jesuit theologian Jon Sobrino, a leading proponent of Liberation Theology closely allied with Archbishop Romero, has raised questions of whether the Vatican censure will affect the progress of Romero's beatification. In a December 13, 2006 letter to the Jesuit Superior General, Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach, published on the Internet, Sobrino wrote: "I know quite well that my possible influence in his writings and homilies has been a problem for his canonization in the Vatican." Sobrino goes on to detail that he has drafted and signed a 20 page explanation. Sobrino first responded to Vatican objections regarding his theology in March 2005, the same month that Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, the postulator of Archbishop Romero's beatification cause, first announced that beatification was imminent, possibly occurring within six months to a year. By fall 2005, those rosy expectations were quashed, and it seems possible that the Sobrino flap was the cause of the derailment.

If that were true, that result would be most unfortunate. Perhaps a key document to the recovery and clarification of Archbishop Romero's theology as being free from the narrow, methodological errors attributed to Sobrino, is a sermon Romero delivered on August 5, 1976, in which, half a year before being named Archbishop, Romero criticized precisely the types of theological shortcomings in Sobrino's scholarship that are complained of in the Vatican's "Notification." Fr. James Brockman recounts the episode in his Romero biography:

Romero preached the homily at the pontifical mass [for the Feast of the Transfiguration, El Salvador's national patronal feast] ... He spoke of the doctrine of the human and divine natures of Christ, defined by Council of Chalcedon in 451, and proceeded to make a swinging attack on "so-called new Christologies." Jon Sobrino, director of the Center for Theological Reflection at the Central America University had just published a book on Christology and took Romero's words as an attack on his work... Romero spoke of Christ as liberator, but most of his words were a warning about merely temporal liberation ... He attacks the new theology because it seems to him to threaten the church's teaching and belief in the divinity of Christ.

"The Word Remains: A Life of Oscar Romero," Orbis Books, 1982, 1989, 1999.

Father Brockman's description seems astonishing, in light of last week's "Notification" because it goes to the heart of the subject matter of concern to the CDF, including the divinity of Jesus and the correct construction of the early councils (both matters specifically referred to in the "Notification"). Brockman goes on to acknowledge, as Fr. Sobrino does in his Dec. 2006 letter, that Sobrino collaborated with Romero in two of Romero's works: his second pastoral letter, and his speech at Leuven University. Brockman indicates that Romero heavily revised the first, and accepted the latter. If Romero's revisions were made consistent with his 1976 speech, Romero's treatment of Sobrino would be in step with the Church's -- calling attention, but not excluding -- and it would appear that the CDF and the Congregation for the Causes of Saints should be able to come to an expeditious resolution (assuming they have identified the right pieces of the puzzle).

DOCE CARDENALES SIMPATIZANTES

Son los príncipes de la Iglesia Romana. Cada uno de ellos puede ser el próximo papa. Todos son hombres sobresalientes en la sociedad, la política y la cultura, y llevan importantes cargos en la organización más grande del mundo. Pero, además de ser miembros del colegio cardenalicio, los siguientes purpurados son simpatizantes abiertos de la causa de canonización de Mons. Romero. Esto es importante, ya que muchas veces se reporta la "oposición jerárquica" a la beatificación de Romero -- frequentemente, sin identificar a los que supuestamente se oponen -- y estos ejemplos sirven para comprobar que la jerarquía está acogiendo el legado de este futuro santo. Y no son personajes obscuros, desconocidos, sino que los jerarcas principales de ciudades principales, como Londres, París, y Los Ángeles.

1. RODRÍGUEZ de Tegucigalpa (Honduras). El Cardenal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga puede ser uno de los más grandes admiradores de Mons. Romero en la Iglesia. En un discurso en la Universidad de Notre Dame lo calificó como el obispo modelo para el nuevo mileneo, y divulgó que había dedicado su cardinalicio a varios pastores que admiraba, incluyendo Romero. Considera a Romero el mártir más querido del siglo XX, y también escribió un discurso para conmemorar el XXV aniversario del asesinato.

2. MARTINI de Milán (Italia). El Cardenal Carlo Maria Martini, igual que el Cardenal Rodríguez, fue considerado posible sucesor al papa Juan Pablo II. Retado a identificar los tres cardenales más influyentes, mencionó a Óscar Romero, porque aunque nunca fué nombrado cardenal formalmente, dijo que lo considera cardenal por la escarlata de su sangre derramada. El sucesor de Pablo VI como arzobispo de Milán tambien tuvo escritos en que habla muy ciertamene sobre el "martirio" de Mons. Romero.

3. MAHONY de Los Ángeles, Calif. (Estados Unidos). El Cardenal Rogelio M. Mahony viajó a El Salvador en marzo del 2000 para celebrar una misa al aire libre en la Plaza de las Américas, en que enfatizó que Mons. Romero fue un auténtico pastor de la Iglesia. Además, Mahony tiene una foto de Mons. Romero en su despacho, y se dice que el purpurado encuentra inspiración en el ejemplo de Romero para tratar temas sociales en su arzobispado, incluso en el ámbito de la política de migración de los Estados Unidos.

4. ETCHEGARAY de París (Francia). El Cardenal Roger Marie Élie Etchegaray escribió el prefacio para la biografia sobre Mons. Romero por Roberto Morozzo della Rocca. Este libro pretendió "rescatar" la figura de Mons. Romero y calificarlo de una vez para todas como un hombre que perteneció y sigue perteneciendo a la Iglesia. En su introducción, el cardenal francés enfatizo que entre más científica y escrupulosa la examinación de la vida de Romero, más grande la estatura que logrará alcanzar en la Iglesia.

5. HUME de Londres (Gran Bretaña). El Cardenal Basil Hume dijo en una misa en la Catedral de Westminster: “Yo creo personalmente que un día Óscar Romero será declarado santo.” Tomamos el nombre del purpurado británico como representante de los demás cardenales ahora difuntos que quisieron a Romero (como el Cardenal Hickey, el Cardenal Corripio Ahumada, etc.).

6. SILVESTRINI de Roma (Prefecto de la Congregación para las Iglesias Orientales). El Cardenal Achille Silvestrini escribió un prefacio para una biografia de Romero llamada Oscar Romero e l’America Centrale del Suo Tempo.

7. QUEZADA de Ciudad de Guatemala (Guatemala). El Cardenal Rodolfo Quezada Toruño se apuntó para participar en las celebraciones del XXV aniversario del martirio de Mons. Romero en San Salvador y permaneció en la ciudad a pesar del fallecimiento de Su Santidad el Papa Juan Pablo II.

8. CASSIDY de Sydney (Australia). El cardenal Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy ha asistido a congresos sobre la persona de Mons. Romero, y su presencia nos trasmite su acompañamiento de la figura de Mons. Romero en una manera muy abierta y destacada.

9 y 10. MURPHY O'CONNOR de Westminster y O’BRIEN de Edinburgh (Gran Bretaña). El Cardenal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor y el Cardenal Keith Patrick O'Brien son miembros de una fundación dedicada a conservar la memoria de Mons. Romero en Inglaterra.

11. TUCCI de Napolí (Italia). El Cardenal Roberto Tucci, S.J., acompañaba al Papa Juan Pablo II en todos sus viajes afuera de Roma y visitó con él al tumba de Mons. Romero. Se ha refirido a Mons. Romero publicamente como el "obispo que fue martirizado mientras celebraba la misa".

12. RATZINGER de Bavaria y Roma (Prefecto de la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe). No se nos olvida que antes de su elección como Romano Pontífice, el Cardenal Joseph Alois Ratzinger calificó a Mons. Romero como "un hombre de la Iglesia, del Evangelio, y de los pobres". Como papa, Benedicto XVI caracterizó a Mons. Romero como "un hombre de la paz y del diálogo" cuya beatificación debe seguir su debido camino.

No pretendemos que esta lista sea exclusiva y comprensiva, porque bien sabemos que seguramente hay otros cardenales de la estatura de estos nombrados que han reconocido en el sacrificio de Mons. Romero un eco pequeño pero certero del martirio salvífico de Jesucristo.

2007 BEATIFICATION OUTLOOK

The first few months of 2005 saw a heady rush in the Romero beatification cause, following years of stagnation. The vice postulator, Msgr. Rafael Urrutia, told the Salvadoran press, “we have advanced 95 percent” of the way, and the postulator, Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, predicted beatification in as little as six months’ time. In September ‘05, Paglia told the National Catholic Reporter to expect “good news” within a month. Then, at a meeting of Cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saint in October, something happened. That month, the Prefect of that saint-making body told the press that Paglia’s calculations did not add up, and the following month, a Vatican publication predicted that beatification was still “years away.”

In March 2006, San Salvador Archbishop Fernando Sáenz confirmed the obvious: the beatification cause was proceeding very slowly now. Romero friend and Opus Dei cleric Jesús Delgado gave the Salvadoran press the intriguing tidbit that “the shadows of the orthopraxis are still conniving over the Romero case and the Church has prudently and wisely has decided to take its time.” That Spring, three synchronized signals regarding the case came from the highest levels of the Church hierarchy. In May 2006, Pope Benedict himself declared that, in order to establish martyrdom, there must be, “moral certainty” that the persecutor's action stemmed “directly or indirectly” from a hatred of the faith, as opposed to political motivations. At about the same time, the head of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, and Msgr. Paglia both signaled that this was the sticking point in Romero’s case. At about that time, the trail goes cold on clues regarding the Romero beatification.

2007 would therefore seem to be a no-action year -- were it not for the fact that three major dates on the Catholic agenda this year all augur in favor of progress in the Romero beatification cause. The first is the fact that this year will mark the 30th anniversary of Romero’s ascension to the San Salvador archbishopric. Romero was selected on February 9, and invested on February 22, 1977. This year also marks several associated milestones, including the 30th anniversary of Romero’s priests, Rutilio Grande (March 12) and Alfonso Navarro. To provide a bookend to the reflection, 2007 also marks the 15th anniversary of the Salvadoran Peace Accords. The time, would therefore, seem ripe to tie it altogether and attempt to resolve the political implications for the beatification in a manner that helped the society most affected by the question -- Salvadoran society -- to have closure and reconciliation.

The other significant anniversary this year is that March 26, 2007 -- two days after the 27th anniversary of the Romero assassination -- marks the 40th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Populorum Progressio. This is the one where the Pope declares that, “The world is sick. The poor nations remain poor while the rich ones become still richer. The very life of poor nations, civil peace in developing countries, and world peace itself are at stake.” Pope Paul, whom Romero believed to be supportive of his pastoral work, concludes “We want to be clearly understood on this point: The state of affairs must be confronted boldly, and its concomitant injustices must be challenged and overcome. Everyone must lend a ready hand to this task, particularly those who can do most by reason of their education, their office, or their authority.” In his three years as archbishop, Romero cited Populorum Progressio in 16 different sermons.

Finally, in May 2007, the Latin American Bishops are having the fifth general assembly in Aparecida, Brazil, in a gathering that will be attended by Pope Benedict. This is the successor conference to the 1968 conference, held in Medellin, Colombia, which gave us the phrase “preferential option for the poor,” and the Puebla conference, held in 1979, which Romero himself attended. Arguably, there is no more prominent apostle of the teachings of the CELAM fathers than Archbishop Oscar Romero, who embraced the teachings of the conferences and followed the teachings to the bitter end, even if it meant death and martyrdom. Previous conferences have recognized the heroic deeds of men like Bartolome de las Casas who bravely have confronted what the bishops themselves defined as the continent’s most urgent problem -- economic and social injustice. This year’s gathering would be a fitting forum for recognition of Romero.