A document
issued by an assembly of Central American bishops attended by Archbishop Óscar A. Romero held in Antigua Guatemala in 1970 could prove to be one of the doctrinal
constitutions for Romero’s theology a decade later. In the initial analysis,
the document seems to confirm that the “radicalization” of Archbishop Romero
was, at least in part, a recourse to a pastoral line authorized by the Central
American bishops 10 years earlier.
In June 1970
Romero participated in the 15th Assembly of the Council of Bishops of Central
America (CEDAC) in Antigua Guatemala. Romero had participated previously as a
priest, as he was the secretary of CEDAC, but this would be his first as bishop
with plenary participation in the episcopal body. The inspiration for this
meeting, Romero wrote, would be “the
spirit of the Council of Medellín” in 1968. That is, the Central American
bishops sought to apply the doctrine of Vatican II to the reality of Central
America under the same guidelines that guided CELAM in Medellin, the episcopal
conference which proclaimed “the preferential option for the poor” and was a
milestone in the emergence of “liberation theology.”
While it is
true that Romero was not an active author of the Antigua text, and he never cited
it in his preaching, it is clear that it is a conceptual bridge between the
Second Vatican Council, Medellin, and the eventual pastoral line that Romero
adopted. In fact, Romero makes the text and ideas his own, transmitting them to
his countrymen in a series of newspaper columns in 1970, but warning that the “hard”
part of the message should not be confused with the “demagogic spirit in which other false prophets sow hatred and violence.”
Romero, “Una voz de alerta,” La Prensa Gráfica, June 16, 1970.
The bishops’
message cited by Romero contains a clear denunciation of social injustice,
evidenced by “hunger and misery, endemic disease
and infant mortality, illiteracy and marginalization, deep income inequalities
and tensions between social classes, outbreaks of violence and meager
participation of the population in managing the common good.” The Central American bishops, including
Romero, are not shy about attributing responsibility for such conditions,
reproaching “the growing manifestation of
selfishness in the economically satisfied sectors” who “in their desire to maintain their privileges,
take repressive measures and hinder promotion and development.”
Among the
most important passages are those relating to repression used to impose unfair
conditions, “hiding behind ideological characterizations
of others, and justifying their actions on the preservation of order, even appealing
to force and violence to maintain the present order which works out quite favorably
for them.” This complaint does not remain in the air as a theoretical prospect,
but is substantiated with details: “It is
publicly known that many citizens have been subjected to physical and mental
torture. With horror and sorrow we receive, almost daily, news of the discovery
of hideously disfigured and mutilated corpses.” It is striking to compare
these words with the specific denunciations made by Romero during his
archbishopric, ten years later (as they are very similar).
In his newspaper
column, Romero cites the clauses of the Antigua document lamenting the denial to
“workers and especially the peasants of
the freedom of association that the papal magisterium has been calling for since
1891” and also that “communications
media ... do not fulfill their mission or lack objective information or selfishly
deform that which they provide.” The bishops cite biblical phrases that
disallow violence and the lack of solidarity, such as the words of Christ to
Peter (Mt. 26:52) and God’s questioning of Cain (Gen. 4:10). To these, Romero
adds the address of Blessed Paul VI closing the Council, in which he defends
the ability of the Church to provide input to civilian governments on matters
outside its traditional competence: “the situation of a Church which, amidst a world
which has forgotten God and the true greatness of man, has the audacity to opine
about the rights of God and man.” Romero,
“La voz de la Iglesia de Centroamérica,”
La Prensa Gráfica, June 15, 1970.
The bishops’ document
concludes with individualized calls to the various sectors of Central American
society — to the state and government sectors, to the armed forces and security
authorities, to employers and the forces of production, to educators, to youth,
and to subversive groups — in a manner reminiscent of similar calls included in
Romero’s penultimate Sunday homily of March 16, 1980. Romero relates this part of the
document of the bishops in a column he titles “God wills it! “(La Prensa Gráfica, August 4, 1970.) That
very phrase — “God wills it” — figures among the closing words of Romero’s
March 16, 1980 homily, which concludes: “God wills it, we must be reconciled, and so let us be reconciled and make El
Salvador a land of sisters and brothers, all children of one Father who waits
for us with outstretched arms.” The correspondence between the two messages
Romero taught ten years apart is uncanny.
Finally, it
is hard to overstate the significance of the fact that this pastoral document
was promulgated in the city of Antigua Guatemala, the old capital of the
Federal Republic of Central America (1824-1839), which included El Salvador.
More important than the political and historical importance of the city is the
spiritual stature it attained, as the location of CEDAC and site of a retreat in
which Romero participated in 1972 with Cardinal Eduardo Pironio, his great mentor
and friend. Finally, the position that Antigua occupies as a traditional
pilgrimage destination for Holy Week makes it a sort of Central American prototype
of Jerusalem, justifying the application of the Antigua message to the “crucified
people” of El Salvador.
Archbishop
Romero, who described his Church as “The
Church of Easter”
in his first pastoral letter, would consider the City of the Way of the Cross a
fitting model. “History must enable
people who have lived the way of the cross,” Romero preached one month before his martyrdom, “to rise to freedom — to a freedom that can
be enjoyed on this earth but that same freedom will not be definitive until we
enjoy it in the fullness of the Kingdom of God.”
In his People,
Archbishop Romero recognized the Via
Crucis, for which Antigua served as Via
Lucis.
No comments:
Post a Comment