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.