 |
| Portrait of Saint Oscar Arnulfo Romero, shot-up and burned by Salvadoran soldiers during the Central American University massacre in November 1989. |
Generalizing
and simplifying a lot, we could say that, whereas the opponents of Archbishop
Oscar Romero’s canonization were once characterized by their aversion to
Liberation Theology, those who disagree with his canonization today stand out
for their hostility to Pope Francis. Analyzing the opposition to “St. Romero,”
it becomes obvious that the specter of a group within the Church hostile to the
martyred bishop is a little exaggerated; it also had more validity before
Romero’s 2015 beatification, than it does now.
During
the splendid canonization ceremony in St. Peter’s Square, on October 14, 2018,
I had the good fortune to be up near the altar, just behind the section of
bishops and cardinals. In the middle of that solemnity, I heard a discordant
note from a group of devotees of Nunzio Sulprizio, the young man canonized in
the same ceremony. Someone said, “the polemical
saint”, which I presumed was intended as a criticism of Romero—although, to
be perfectly honest, it may have been aimed at Paul VI, or it could have been
part of a defense of the new saint which repeated the old criticism in order to
refute it. However, my takeaway from the episode was that even from the altar at
his own canonization, Romero was still prone to be whispered about.
Now,
we must be clear that post canonization criticism of a saint is nothing out of
this world, nor is any criticism of the canonization itself. When St. Josemaría
Escriva, the founder of Opus Dei, was
canonized, concerns were raised about alleged irregularities in the process.
The canonization of St. John Paul II also attracted criticism based on errors
attributed to the pontiff, including a lack of firmness in dealing with sexual
abuse allegations against Marcial Maciel and his Legion of Christ. Even Saint
Teresa of Calcutta was criticized in her canonization for not probing more
deeply into the causes of poverty, among other chastisements. And these have
been the most prominent saints of the recent era! Generally, if a saint is
sufficiently known, he or she will face criticism.
What
distinguishes Archbishop Romero from the others is that his canonization cause is
said to have been delayed because of the opposition to his being raised to the
altars. In a now famous speech,
Pope Francis himself lamented that after his death, Romero “was defamed, slandered, soiled ... even by
his brothers in the priesthood and in the episcopate.” The postulator of
the cause, Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, asserts
that the opposition was “political”
and that “many in Rome, including
cardinals, did not want Romero to be beatified.”
If
we peer more deeply into the matter, the old opposition to Romero was
tantamount to opposition to Liberation Theology. According to Archbishop Paglia, those who
opposed Romero’s beatification “were
saying that he was killed for political reasons, not for religious reasons.”
An X-ray of that opposition reveals that it was driven by operatives of the
Salvadoran government who flooded the Vatican, including the offices of the
Roman Curia, with letters against the cause based on anti-communist arguments. Undoubtedly,
they found sympathetic clergymen, most prominently the Colombian Cardinal
Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, a hardline opponent of Liberation Theology. For opponents
outside the Church (Salvadoran diplomats) the motivation was anticommunism, and
for those within the Church, the obsession was Liberation Theology.
However,
this was a minority opposition all along, and it was left behind by the popular
acceptance of Romero, which increased over the years and spilled over from the
Catholic Church to the Anglican world, when the statue of Romero was installed
in Westminster Abbey, and of popular culture when the movie “Romero” spread the
story of the bishop who defended the poor all over the world. Finally, the
opposition to Romero was also left behind within the Catholic world, when Pope
John Paul II decided to visit the Tomb of Romero during his visits to El
Salvador and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, said he had no doubt that
Archbishop Romero personally deserved to be beatified.
So
much for the former, historical opposition to Romero’s canonization, but what
about the current level of acceptance for the canonization of the new saint?
An
antagonistic clip from
ultra-conservative GloriaTV tried to paint Archbishop Romero and the others
canonized alongside him as “saints without popular veneration” based on
attendance at the ceremony, even though thousands of Romero’s devotees traveled
10,000 km from a poor country to be in Rome, and that tens of thousands of others
spent the night in front of the San Salvador Cathedral to watch the event live.
The same report argued—falsely, as has been shown
in this blog—that Archbishop Romero lost adherents in his Church
during his archbishopric. To the contrary, while Catholicism lost ground
throughout Latin America, Romero dramatically reversed the downward trends in
his archdiocese. Romero routinely filled churches during his lifetime, and both
his funeral in 1980 and his beatification in 2015 broke attendance records for
religious events at the continental level.
It
suffices to say to disprove these arguments that, in general, after a
canonization, the Catholic faithful usually close ranks behind their saints,
following the tradition of Roma locuta,
causa finita (“Rome has spoken; case closed”). [More.] On the basis of this
principle alone, we can presume that the opposition to the canonization, which
was a minority view as it was, has diminished even further. We can also
catalog the signs of acceptance in various parts of the world to reach the same
conclusion: that the opposition is down considerably.
In
the final analysis, we can ascertain that what remains of the opposition to Romero is limited to three stubborn pockets of resistance: (1) the most fervent
supporters of the Salvadoran military officer accused of having given the order
to kill the archbishop; (2) the most adverse opponents of Pope Francis and the
reforms of the Second Vatican Council; and (3) the most powerful defenders of
unfettered capitalism. Very few of these fit within what can be properly understood as
the bosom of the Church.
Within this sad trifecta now reside the heirs of the opposition to St. Romero, and the
historical concerns of the opposition have also been transferred there. The
Liberation Theology foes who opposed canonizing Archbishop Romero feared that
the canonization would embolden communism and dilute Catholic doctrine and the
faith in the process. Now, Francis’ enemies fear that the Pope will promote “socialist”
values and also dilute the faith. In both cases, it can be argued that the fears
involved (Liberation Theology and Pope Francis) have little to do with the
merits of St. Romero, but these opponents will be there, and it will be
impossible to dissuade them from associating Romero from their favorite spooks.
For
Romero’s followers, some opposition
is to be expected. According to Cardinal Gregorio Rosa Chavez, former communications
director of the martyred bishop, Romero will always be “an uncomfortable saint.” And in the words of Romero himself: “Brothers and sisters, do you want to know whether
your Christianity is genuine? Here is the touchstone: Whom do you get along
with? Who are those who criticize you? Who are those who do not accept you?”
(November 13, 1977 Homily.)
While
Romero continues to be an irritant for the interests of the rich and cause for
celebration for defenders of the poor, we can rest assured his legacy is on the
right path.
