The news that Pope Francis has “unblocked” the canonization of Archbishop Óscar A. Romero has been analyzed by numerous
commentators. Here is what some leading
voices are saying.
Pat
Marrin, of the National
Catholic Reporter, described the overall significance of the news:
[U]nder a new pope, the
shocking nature of Romero’s death and the stunning implications of his example
have made his canonization even more relevant for the universal church. What
the bishops at Medellín 45 years ago called the “institutionalized violence” of
poverty remains the fate of billions of people in the world, and this continues
to pose the question Francis is now echoing: “Does the church walk with the
poor?”
Bill
Blair, of the Republican
American, echoed the sentiment that canonizing Romero would fit with Pope
Francis’ apparent objectives.
[T]his newly minted Latin
American pope would do well on many levels to shepherd the archbishop’s path to
beatification and eventual sainthood. On a personal level, Francis would
benefit from his advocacy of Romero because it would help to silence those
critics who have claimed Francis remained publicly silent during Argentina’s “dirty
war” from 1976 to 1983.
Jorge
Costadoat, S.J., acknowledged the conflicting motives behind
“blocking” and “unblocking” the canonization cause.
Archbishop Romero has been
the most controversial figure in the Latin American Church. Perhaps having “blocked”
the progress of the Romero process has been a well-intentioned act. Why not?
Prudence could have urged previous Popes, or some Vatican prefect, that to
exalt the figure of this martyr would have caused major upheavals between the
Church and Latin American governments, and within the Church. What does Pope
Francis seek to gain by rehabilitating a divisive man? To unblock the Romero cause
is a divisive act. As blocking it has been. We have to believe in either case,
there has been no ill will. Nobody forces us to think ill. But we should recognize
that conflict is a historical reality. And, ultimately, what matters is who you
are with, and what you fight against.
The activist priest Plazido
Erdozain focused on perceived intrigues within the Church.
Ever since they named this
pope, there have been some signs of positive change, but I have always believed
that actions speak louder than words. Well,
to reopen the Romero process is an important signal. It had been blocked, even
though the Salvadoran Church has sought to revise his life in order to make it
palatable to the Vatican. The Salvadoran Church put Msgr. Delgado (Jesus
Delgado) in charge of his canonization cause.
He is convinced that we, the Christian base communities, are the enemies
of Archbishop Romero. Personally, I do not care whether or not canonize him. A [popular
song] says the way to make Monseñor a
saint is by following his path. I don’t very much like the idea of making
saints in order to file them away, but it is a good sign of change ... It is a
break with the scheme they had with the two previous popes, and in even the
Salvadoran Church, because, they promoted making him a saint, but all they have
written about Archbishop Romero is just to spiritualize him; but not in the
true sense—imbuing him with the spirit of Christ—but relegating him to a
spiritualist.
Julian
Filochowski, of the Romero Trust in the UK, sought to reconcile the opposing views.
[Romero] was absolutely orthodox
and absolutely radical ... Romero was a deeply spiritual man with a rich life of
prayer. His example for us is the
beautiful and transparent synthesis he achieved, by living and witnessing to
the faith and promoting peace with justice.
Jon
Sobrino, S.J., of the Central American University in San
Salvador, hoped the canonization would harmonize the contradictions, rather
than impose the official view.
We do not know what will be
written in the Vatican decrees for beatification and canonization. We would
like it if, in addition to Rome’s universal gloss, the decree also includes the
important things about Monseñor that
we see from here. Hopefully, it will present Archbishop Romero, the traditional
saint and the Salvadoran saint, as we have tried to describe him.
Columnist David
Gibson proposed one way to diffuse the apparent tensions.
Pairing the canonizations of
John Paul and Romero is a scenario that would raise eyebrows, but the idea is
not unprecedented in the politics of saint-making. Pairing the canonizations of the patron saint
of liberation theology with the pope who tried to suppress it would be
unconventional—but perhaps not for Francis, who already has proven himself to
be the most unconventional of popes with a set of priorities all his own.
We will continue to monitor this discussion, but, at this
juncture, the commentary suggests that the disagreement about whether or not to
canonize Archbishop Romero has as much to do with internecine Church debates,
as with Archbishop Romero himself.
No comments:
Post a Comment