THE TRANSFIGURATION OF ÓSCAR ROMERO

[Index]

In his last seven sermons, we accompany Archbishop Romero as he follows Jesus on the road to Jerusalem and to Calvary. We must, the soon-to-be martyr tell us in his March 2, 1980 sermon, accept and embrace the Cross of Jesus. This is, he preaches, the “Theology of Transfiguration,” which accepts the path of suffering as the route to victory and redemption, as Jesus did when he revealed both his divinity and his impending immolation to his disciples at Mt. Tabor.

(This is the second part of a series on the final seven homilies of Archbishop Romero started last year. To read the text of this homily in English, click here. For the original text in Spanish, click here. And, to hear the audio of Msgr. Romero delivering the homily, click here.)

In addition to telling us what his theology is, Romero also tells us what it is not. It is not an incitement to violence: “Those who have interpreted my words that way simply slander me,” he tells us. To the contrary, he is “asking those responsible for this repressive wave to put an end to the use of violence,” and also asking the poor “not to lose their moral sensitivity and critical conscience.” It is not a flirtation with Marxism: To the contrary, Romero sees himself as “a Christian who attempts to defend the Gospel from ideologies that could make our people lose their grace.” And he is not stepping away from the authorized doctrine of the Church: “For me ... communion with the Pope is the secret of the truth and gives efficacy to my preaching,” he clarifies. Remarkably, in carving out these three particular disclaimers, Romero steers clear of the major criticisms that Cardinal Ratzinger made of Liberation Theology four years later, specifically along the same lines. («Libertatis Nuntius,» Aug. 8, 1984.)

Ratzinger also echoes Romero today, when, as Pope, he preaches that Christians are called to “accept every difficulty, affliction and trial with patience and with faith … by following [Jesus] along the way of the Cross.” (Ash Wednesday Catechesis, Feb. 22, 2012.) Romero preaches in March 1980 that, “The Theology of the Transfiguration is telling us that the path of redemption must first pass through the Cross and Calvary.” When Romero preached this, the message was authenticated by Romero’s personal acceptance of his own fate, at a private spiritual retreat the week before. He had been informed of imminent threats to his life. At the end of the retreat, “Romero, the pilgrim (that is what his name means),” his biographer tells us, “had found his way through the darkness and stress of his ‘harsh and grim disposition,’ through his scrupulous perfectionism, to being happy and confident in the assurance that in Jesus was his life and his death.” (Brockman, The Spiritual Journey of Oscar Romero, Spirituality Today, Winter 1990.)

Now, Romero encourages us to likewise trust our fate to Jesus. “My sisters and brothers,” he invites, “let us endeavor to make Christ a part our popular process.” He continues, “What is most important for us at this time in our history is to understand that Christ is the glory of God, the power of God,” he says, “and the scandal and the suffering of the cross should not make us flee from Christ or make us attempt to eliminate suffering but rather we must embrace both suffering and Christ.” Romero’s message—that El Salvador’s reformers had to accept suffering in the immediate term, and seek liberation through a profound spiritual reformation (and not by violence, Marxism, or unauthorized doctrines)—has been largely lost in the narrative of Romero’s and El Salvador’s story, but Romero fleshed out this overarching criticism with more specific critiques.

“This is the hour of political programs for El Salvador,” Romero observes, “but those political plans are worthless unless they attempt to reflect God’s plan.” God’s plan, Romero says, is characterized by two litmus prongs: it seeks “to free from something in order to promote toward something”—to free us from sin in order to promote us toward a transcendent aspiration. In essence, Romero tells us that the Left’s program is failing on both fronts. “Sin is the cause of all the injustices that occur in our history,” he prefaces. “The first liberation to be proposed by a political group that truly desires the liberation of people should be to free people from sin.” In fact, all would-be liberators have to first liberate themselves from sin: “As long as one is a slave of sin, of selfishness, violence, cruelty and hatred then such a person is not suited to struggle for people’s liberation,” he warns.

After freeing us from sin, true liberation promotes us toward salvation, he says: “let us not lose sight of the transcendence of the Christian message, no matter how great our concerns or our responsibilities in the struggles of [the] people.” We must “not be content with immanent energy but let us also realize the need for transcendence,” he preaches. Therefore, “The Church will continue to demand of all liberators that if they want to be strong and effective then they must place their trust in the great liberator Jesus Christ,” he says. Then, he cautions, “Be very careful of robbing the people of those Christian sentiments that make our people so noble and vigorous!”

Romero also criticizes, once again, specific abuses, including hostage taking (“enough time has passed and these persons should be given their freedom”), occupations of churches (“an abuse of the sentiments of the Christian people”), false accusations of the clergy (“our pastors who are ministering on behalf of the people are slandered by organized groups who have taken over the parish church”), provocations that endanger civilians (“the terror that the campesinos experience is provoked at times by the popular organizations”), and even imprudent advertising expenses by one opposition group (“could not something more beneficial for people be done with this money?”).

But the heart of his criticism is spiritual. Insisting on transcendence, he insists, will yield practical results: “No one works on this earth and on behalf of the political liberation of people with more enthusiasm,” he says, “than those who hope that the liberating struggles of history become incorporated into the great liberation of Christ.” In fact, he adds, “No one has the power of a Christian who has faith in Christ who lives and is the power of God.” And ultimately, no human leader could ever inspire the devoted following of Jesus, because no human leader could offer resurrection and afterlife, in addition to a better life here, he points out.

In the final analysis, Romero returns to an argument he had been making for years—that only faithful Christians could liberate El Salvador. “We as Christian are called to offer to the history of the Latin American Continent the new people” necessary to operate new structures that might otherwise become corrupt like the old structures, Romero declares. “The new women and men,” he says, “are those who with faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ embrace as their own the great theology of the transfiguration.” People who are willing to suffer the consequences of making Christian choices aimed at ultimate salvation, as Romero was.

Art: Laura Sofía, “El Santo de mi Pueblo,” acrylic, color pencil and ink on canvas. Colectiva Abierta exhibition, March 2011 catalog, San Salvador.

Next: The Church, called to repentance, called to prophecy

Post Datum:

A nice contrast to Romero’s warning to “not lose sight of the transcendence of the Christian message” is presented in an op ed that ran in yesterday’s Co Latino, El Salvador’s leftist paper. In it, a progressive commentator with an affinity for Liberation Theology writes: “To fix one’s gaze and hope in the hereafter ... can be the mortal sin that thousands upon thousands have fallen into when they trust their leaders, who have made them inhuman, because they discriminate against worldly things, marginalizing themselves from the reality that afflicts them, bites them and destroys them in the here and now, as it does all worldly creatures.” Compare Romero who argues that, “as we talk about heaven we are not speaking of some form of alienation,” but of an even deeper, more meaningful commitment to justice by those who ‘fix their gaze and hope in the hereafter.’

LA TENTACIÓN DE LAS PIEDRAS

[Índice]

El proyecto de liberación de Cristo consiste en cambiar a fondo el corazón de cada hombre y cualquier proyecto de soluciones “inmediatistas” que busca solventar los problemas de este mundo “de un golpe” se asimila a las tentaciones que el demonio hizo a Cristo, advirtió Mons. Romero en su primera homilía de su última Cuaresma, pronunciada exactamente un mes antes de su martirio, el 24 de febrero de 1980.

[Esta es la segunda parte de una serie sobre las últimas siete homilías de Monseñor Romero comenzada el año pasado. Para leer el texto original de esta homilía en español, pulse aquí. Para el texto en inglés, pulse acá. Y, para escuchar el audio de Mons. Romero pronunciando la homilía, pulse acá.]

“La justicia social no es tanto una ley que ordene distribuir”, predicó el arzobispo, sino que: “es una actitud interna como la de Cristo, que siendo rico, se hace pobre para poder compartir con los pobres su amor”. Por eso, “a la Iglesia no le importa que haya sólo una distribución más equitativa de las riquezas: le interesa que se dé esa distribución porque existe realmente en todos los hombres una actitud de querer compartir no sólo los bienes, sino la misma vida”, con los pobres. “No busquemos soluciones inmediatas”, insistió Mons. Romero: “no queramos organizar de un golpe una sociedad tan injustamente organizada durante tanto tiempo”. Aunque pueda ser fácil decretar a la fuerza una mejor distribución, explicó Monseñor, “no compondríamos el mundo: el rico seguiría siendo egoísta, el hombre no se convertiría”. La justicia de Dios no se alcanza a través de una insurrección marxista: “no por apariencias de salvación sino por la fuerza verdadera que solamente dimana de la cruz y el sacrificio”, dijo.

Aunque presentada como una crítica amiga, la denuncia de Mons. Romero a la izquierda fue contundente. “No sería completo mi llamamiento de Cuaresma para la conversión de los diversos sectores salvadoreños”, comenzó, “si no dijera también una palabra cariñosa de pastor a las fuerzas populares”. Y paso a cuestionar fuertemente las tácticas subversivas:

—¿Es con violencia terrorista proletaria como puede y debe combatirse la violencia represiva millonaria?
—¿Es con bombas, incendios, tomas, secuestros y hasta asesinatos como se podrá por fin instaurar el Reino de Dios y su justicia?
—¿Creen ustedes que el Espíritu Santo y no el demonio el que inspira esos actos vandálicos, subversivos, más de la moral cristiana que de la vida y haciendas de los oligarcas?

No criticar los abusos de la izquierda violenta les restaría eficacia a los reformistas para acabar con los abusos de la extrema derecha, dijo: “Defender o apañar, en vez de condenar con la misma energía la violencia subversiva, es, a mi juicio, provocar más la insolencia represiva”— razonaba—“pues ya estamos viendo por todos lados, cómo reaccionan los sanguinarios cuerpos de represión contra el ataque de los grupos de subversión”.

Aquel primer domingo de Cuaresma de 1980 se había leído el Evangelio en que Satán le dice a Jesús en ayunas que debería convertir unas piedras a pan para aliviarse del hambre, y el Divino Maestro le contesta: “No sólo de pan vive el hombre, sino que de toda palabra que sale de la boca de Dios”. (Lucas 4, 1-4.) Aún los hombres que contemplan el ayuno de todo un pueblo deben de ser comprensivos con el programa de Dios para aliviar ese sufrimiento, y no querer quitarlo de un golpe, dijo monseñor. “El proyecto de Dios quiere darle un sentido al ayuno, quiere darle un sentido a la cruz, al desierto, al sacrificio”, aseveró. “Ya vendrá el pan. La palabra de Dios es justicia, y el pan no solamente se hace de las piedras”. Tener fe: “Que sepan unos y otros vivir la austeridad del desierto, que sepan saborear la redención fuerte de la cruz”.

El mensaje de monseñor no se debe confundir con el argumento paternalista que se usaba en otras épocas para decir que los pobres tendrán en el cielo su recompensa. No es precisamente el conformismo lo que monseñor estaba recomendando: “los que sufren perennemente el hambre, la privación”—es decir, los pobres—deben “darle un sentido penitencial a su situación y no adormecerse en esa situación sino trabajar por una justicia social que impere en el país”. Aunque reservó sus palabras más duras para la extrema derecha, los cuerpos de seguridad que cometían graves abusos a los derechos humanos, y los oligarcas que dirigían la ola de represión, recordó que todos tenemos nuestras propias debilidades, con cuales el diablo puede tentarnos: “Unos por el orgullo, otros por la codicia, otros por la vanidad, otros por los triunfos fáciles” y advirtió: “Mucho cuidado, hermanos”.

Su pretensión, había dicho Mons. Romero al principio de su homilía, era “ofrecer a la Patria un pueblo renovado, una Iglesia palpitante con Cristo resucitado, aferrada a la cruz del Señor y dándonos el verdadero proyecto de Dios para salvar a nuestro país”. Al finalizar la homilía, era evidente cual era “el verdadero proyecto de Dios”: “Tengamos fe, creamos de verdad y desde nuestra fe, iluminemos nuestra política, trabajemos nuestra historia, seamos artífices del destino de nuestro pueblo pero no haciendo un proyecto únicamente humano y, mucho menos, inspirado por el diablo”. Contrario a la violencia y el odio que se estaba desatando, la meta señalada por Mons. Romero era, “Un proyecto que lo inspire Dios y que me lleve a creer en Cristo”, dijo, “y que me haga sentir la historia de mi Patria como una historia de salvación, porque Cristo está bien entrañado en mi familia, en las leyes de mi tierra, en mi Gobierno, en todo aquello que es mi patria; Cristo sea la luz que ilumine todo”.

Haciendo esto, “la patria se convierte en una antesala [del] Reino de Dios”. Con esta frase, Mons. Romero distinguía entre las limitaciones de la “liberación” izquierdista y la trascendencia de la liberación integral que es la salvación celestial, y aunque la política tiene que acercarse a la voluntad de Dios, siempre existe un cierto distanciamiento: “el trabajo de la Iglesia es muy distinto del trabajo del gobierno político”, pues, “Nuestro trabajo de Iglesia tiene que ser específicamente de Iglesia”. La voluntad de Dios ejerce una primacía sobre ambos proyectos, que “deben de converger hacia adorar al único Dios”.

Al final, Mons. Romero regresa a la figura de Cristo resistiendo a Satanás: “Les suplico, como Jesús en el desierto, reflexionar, sobre todo, cuál es el proyecto de Dios” y ante las tentaciones de cambiar piedras por pan, “Buscar ante todo la voluntad del Señor y no los caprichos de los hombres”.

Arte: “Monseñor Romero, el Cadejo y yo”, Elena Rendón; yeso, pastel y acuarela sobre papel. Muestra Colectiva Abierta, Catálogo Marzo 2011, San Salvador.

Sigue: El Salvador del Mundo

Post Datum:

En su reflexión cuaresmal durante su audiencia general, las palabras del Papa Benedicto XVI asimilaron la prédica de Mons. Romero sobre las tentaciones. En el desierto, dijo el papa, “Jesús está expuesto al peligro y se ve asaltado por la tentación y la seducción del Maligno, que le ofrece otro camino mesiánico, lejos del plan de Dios, por que pasa a través del poder, el éxito, el dominio y no a través de la entrega total en la Cruz”. Ahora esa tentación, dijo el Santo Padre, toma otras formas: “el secularismo y la cultura materialista, que encierran a la persona en el horizonte mundano del existir, sustrayéndole toda referencia a la trascendencia”. Sólo siendo “fieles a Jesús y siguiéndolo por el camino de la cruz, el mundo luminoso de Dios, el mundo de la luz, de la verdad y de la alegría se nos devolverá”, dijo el Pontífice.

«THE THEME OF THE POOR OF YAHWEH»

[Index]

Archbishop Oscar Romero’s February 17, 1980 sermon on the Beatitudes, the first of his last seven sermons before his martyrdom, was three sermons in one: The first part of it recapped a powerful exegesis on the political dimension of the Faith, which he had delivered at Leuven University in Belgium, earlier that month. The second part was a full-throated denunciation of social injustice, which included a recitation of his letter to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, requesting the cancellation of military aid to El Salvador. And the third part—which we will focus on here—was his message to the poor and to the advocates of the poor.

[This is the second part of a series on the final seven homilies of Archbishop Romero started last year. To read the text of this homily in English, click here. For the original text in Spanish, click here. And, to hear the audio of Msgr. Romero delivering the homily, click here.]

Romero began by expounding on Jesus’ message, “Blessed are you who are poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.” (Luke 6:20.) He cited the Latin American Bishop’s post-Conciliar pronouncement at Medellin, Colombia, in which they described poverty as an accusation, a spirit and a commitment. The Gospel itself supported the view that poverty is an accusation, Romero said, when Jesus also says, “woe to you who are rich, for you are receiving your comfort in full.” (Luke 6:24.) He explained poverty as a spirit by recounting the historical context and sufferings of Israel as a continually exploited and downtrodden people, and he spoke of poverty as a commitment by highlighting the persecution that the allies and defenders of the poor are exposed to—including, in El Salvador.

Most people who have heard anything about this sermon have probably only heard about Romero’s letter to Pres. Carter—which he read aloud—asking the U.S. to withhold military aid to El Salvador. Romero said that modest aid given that year had already led to a steep spike in repression, which he detailed. He warned against plans for U.S. military advisors to train three Salvadoran battalions. Those battalions would have to be dismantled a decade later, due to their notorious human rights records (See, El Mozote massacre). And he denounced a failed attempt against the Jesuits—whose eventual assassination hastened the end of the war a decade later.

Overlooked by Romero students is the fact that a large part of this sermon, as others, is aimed at the popular organizations of the Left. “One of the most urgent needs of the pastoral ministry of the Archdiocese is a pastoral of accompaniment” of the opposition, he said, “so that they can mature in the faith and from the perspective of the faith live out their political commitment,” and stay “rooted in the eternal resurrection of the Lord and in the redemption of the human person from sin.” Then, turning to the groups directly, he said, “Hopefully you will not look down upon the Church when, from the perspective of faith, She speaks out against your imperfections, your abuses, your strategies, and the limitations of your political groups.”

Romero’s critique of the Left began with the analysis of the Gospel message. “The poverty that Jesus Christ here sanctifies,” he said, “is not simply a material poverty.” But rather, “It is a poverty that awakens consciousness, a poverty that accepts the cross and sacrifice” (See, Romero’s Transfiguration Theology). “Therefore we become holy according to the degree to which ... we hand ourselves over to the Lord and show our openness to God,” he argued. “Jesus’ redemption points out,” he said, “that all earthly liberators are lacking—that is, they are incomplete as long as they do not free sinners from sin.” Then, offering a new take on the Sermon on the Mount, Romero proclaimed, “Blessed are they who struggle to achieve the political liberation of the world and who are also mindful of redemption that saves people from sin and death.” Putting politics in a transcendent context, he said that, “The great liberation is that of Christ and those who incorporate the struggle for the liberation of people into their faith ... are guaranteed an integral, complete and immortal liberation.” But those who “only struggle for temporal realities, for better wages, for lower prices, for a change of government, for a change of structures that tomorrow will be old structures,” he said, they will attain a liberation that is incomplete.

Christians working in political organizations striving to liberate the poor are obligated to live the “spiritual poverty [which] is the theme of the poor of Yahweh,” and requires abiding by godly values. “Thanks to God, there are many people who are doing this,” he said. “[T]hose who are members of popular political organizations,” and “who participate in the Christian community in order to nourish their struggle with faith ... are on the right path.” But, others, he warned, “have lost their faith and, as a consequence, have mutilated that which is primary.” He encouraged those who kept the faith, but he scolded those who strayed: “I want to say that we defend the right of people to organize and we esteem your effort for unity and openness,” he said, “but we repudiate the tactics of certain grassroots groups who appear to act without consulting with their leaders.”

Ab. Romero then listed specific practices of the Left that he decried, such as taking hostages. “What right do you have to deprive another human being of freedom?,” he demanded. “I have witnessed the suffering of many hostages and their families, especially when some of these hostages are ill and need to be cared for.” He lamented the kidnapping of an Argentine citizen and noted the offer of another conational to take his place: “All this would be unnecessary if the protagonists in these actions had human feelings,” he denounced. Then he called for “popular military organizations ... to return to the respectable paths of rationality, of human dignity,” and desist from “abductions, threats and exacting of vengeance.” The Pope, he reminded them, had preached against the use of violence, “even on those whom someone judges blameworthy.”

He also disapproved of the practice of taking over buildings—especially, churches: “In the name of the religious sentiments of my people,” he said, with obvious frustration, “for the good of the poor and of my people, I beg the directors of the organizations that today are occupying church buildings to come by to dialogue with me or with those responsible for the buildings.” As far as churches are concerned, he said, “These buildings are temples of prayer for our people, whose Christian sentiments deserve at least as much consideration as the objectives of those occupying the buildings.” He also noted that the various groups often act at cross purposes with one another, and often thwart the Church’s particular efforts, thus their actions, in addition to demonstrating political immaturity, were also harmful to the cause of the poor.

“I want you to see,” he said, “that my denunciations have only one purpose: we want to be a holy people, we want a government that truly understands people who are poor; we want a political system that acts on behalf of the well being of our people and those who are poor.” He concluded, “In this way we can repeat with Jesus: ‘Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God’.”

Art: Raúl Alfaro, “San Romero de América,” oil on canvas. Colectiva Abierta exhibition, March 2011 catalog, San Salvador.

Next: Christ vs. Satan

«SIETE» II

[Índice]

El año pasado reflexionamos sobre las últimas siete homilías de Mons. Romero en una serie de ponencias titulada “Siete Sermones a los Pobres”. Este año queremos profundizar sobre el mensaje que Mons. Romero quiso lanzar en sus últimas homilías revisando el contenido que direccionó específicamente a los pobres, y a las organizaciones populares que deberían llevar el interés de los pobres en su accionar.

Tomamos como punto de partida el lema del XXXII aniversario del martirio de Monseñor, el cual la Fundación Romero ha establecido como, “Ya basta de sufrimientos para el pueblo”, una frase de una homilía de Mons. Romero. Es indiscutible que Mons. Romero se guió por el bien común del pueblo, especialmente del pueblo sufrido y pobre. Una dimensión importante de su línea pastoral fue el mensaje que él tuvo para el mismo pueblo y los pobres, ya que su proyecto de liberación para los pobres requería que el mismo pueblo se preparara y se levantara para empezar a definir su propio destino. O sea, una parte de su mensaje era la admonición a los ricos, la denuncia de las injusticias, pero otra parte, de igual importancia, era su mensaje de liberación para los pobres, y este no ha sido reconocido debidamente en las conmemoraciones que se hacen sobre la prédica de Mons. Romero.

De hecho, existe la impresión, ampliamente aceptada, de que el mensaje de Romero era desequilibrado, o sea, casi exclusivamente enfocado en una crítica de la oligarquía y de las instituciones de derecha que defendían los intereses de los ricos. Muchas veces, parece que Mons. Romero adopta el mismo lenguaje de una dialéctica izquierdista para describir, y criticar la realidad social de su entorno, lo que hace pensar que Mons. Romero había adoptado ese mismo punto de vista. Al revisar lo que Monseñor decía en sus sermones, podremos ver que, en realidad, estaba usando el lenguaje de su audiencia porque quería hacerse entender con un segmento específico cuya atención había capturado—el segmento de las organizaciones populares, cuyo afán por organizarse era un esfuerzo que Mons. Romero quería acompañar.

Allí tenemos las cartas pastorales de Mons. Romero, en las que él mismo nos hace saber su estrategia. En su tercera carta pastoral, “La Iglesia y las organizaciones políticas y populares” (1978), Mons. Romero dijo que, “La Iglesia ... alienta y fomenta los anhelos justos de organización y apoya, en lo que tienen de justo, sus reivindicaciones”, añadiendo, “Pero no estaría completo el servicio de la Iglesia a estos esfuerzos legítimos de liberación si no los iluminara con la luz de su fe y de su esperanza cristiana, enmarcándolos en el designio global de la salvación operada por el Redentor Jesucristo”.

Desde esta óptica prestada por el mismo Mons. Romero, veremos que la idea que solo criticaba a la derecha es un mito, y que su prédica estaba realmente centrada sobre los pobres. Con ellos dialogaba, elogiando sus aspiraciones cuando estas eran nobles, pero también denunciando sus malas prácticas y excesos, porque estos también sustraían de su marcha hacia la dignidad y la liberación de tantas marginalizaciones. O sea, al decir “Ya basta de sufrimientos para el pueblo”, también estaba pidiendo que las fuerzas liberadoras fueran un verdadero servicio para el pueblo, y que no distrajeran de la meta.

Arte: “Monseñor Romero amigo”, Ángel Portillo, acrílico sobre lienzo. Muestra Colectiva Abierta, Catálogo Marzo 2011, San Salvador.

Siete Sermones a los Pobres:


I.) 17 de febrero de 1980 (Las Bienaventuranzas—inglés)

II.) 24 de febrero de 1980 (Cristo tentado por el Diablo)

III.) 2 de marzo de 1980 (La Transfiguración del Señor—inglés)

IV.) 9 de marzo de 1980 ("Si no os convertís, pereceréis")

V.) 16 de marzo de 1980 (La Reconciliación—inglés)

VI.) 23 de marzo de 1980 (La Ley para el Hombre)

VII.) 24 de marzo de 1980 (El grano de trigo—inglés)

TRUTH COMMISSIONERS “WITHOUT A DOUBT”

OF D’AUBUISSON’S ROLE IN ROMERO ASSASSINATION

[Index]

An American lawyer who contributed to the U.N. Truth Commission report about war crimes during the Salvadoran Civil War told a Salvadoran newspaper that he is confident that the Commission’s finding that Roberto d’Aubuisson was the intellectual author of the Romero assassination would hold up in court.

EL FARO newsmagazine interviewed Douglass Cassel, a Notre Dame University Law School Professor and former American Bar Association President who served as an advisor to Thomas Buergenthal, one of the three commissioners charged with resolving several high profile human rights cases and making overall recommendations to foster post-war reforms and reconciliation after the Salvadoran Civil War (1980—1992). Buergenthal is a former magistrate of the International Court of Justice; the two other commissioners were Belisario Betancur, the former president of Colombia, and Reinaldo Figueredo, the former foreign minister of Venezuela. EL FARO questioned Prof. Cassel about the integrity of the Commission’s report, and Cassel noted that no one has ever been able to mount a credible challenge to any of the Commission’s findings. Cassel was emphatic with regards to the Commission’s findings relating to Archbishop Romero’s assassination:

Q. Would you, as a lawyer, be in a position to maintain before a judge—to cite what might be the most famous case—that Roberto d’Aubuisson is responsible for the death of Oscar Arnulfo Romero?

A. Yes, without a doubt.

Q. Would you have been able to so maintain in a trial, had the report been binding? Do you believe that the information gathered by the Commission, set forth in the report, would be enough to convict Roberto d’Aubuisson?

A. If it had been possible to bring him into court, I think that it would have led to a conviction. None of the commissioners and none of the three advisers had the least doubt in this case, because we interviewed key witnesses, who knew what happened. But in a criminal case the question is whether these witnesses would have come forth voluntarily, and the answer, at least at that time was "no." They feared for their lives. It was in fact very difficult to convince them to give evidence to the Commission, even knowing that we would not disclose their identities.

Cassel cited revelations in historic U.S. diplomatic cables recently published in the Salvadoran press, which report that d’Aubuisson aides had hatched a plot to assassinate Salvadoran President Alfredo Cristiani and that the Air Force revolted against Cristiani’s plans to sign the Salvadoran peace accords, to explain why Cristiani did not promote the Commission’s report as the definitive explanation of the Romero assassination and other crimes.

«PARA ESTÍMULO DE LA CARIDAD Y LAS BUENAS OBRAS»

[Índice]

Mons. Romero y el Papa Benedicto XVI coinciden desde los lemas elegidos por la Fundación Romero para el XXXII aniversario del martirio de Mons. Romero y por el Santo Padre para la Cuaresma del 2012. El pontífice anuncio un texto bíblico tomado de la Carta a los Hebreos: “Fijémonos los unos en los otros para estímulo de la caridad y las buenas obras” (10,24) como el foco de reflexión para la Cuaresma, mientras que la Fundación tomó una cita de una homilía de Mons. Romero como el lema de la conmemoración de su aniversario, en que monseñor exhortaba, “Ya basta de sufrimientos para el pueblo” (Homilía 23 de septiembre de 1979).

La armonía entre los dos mensajes se pondrá en evidencia el 24 de marzo, cuando el papa se encontrará por primera vez en tierras latinoamericanas durante un aniversario del martirio de Mons. Romero: el papá llegará a León, Guanajuato (México) el 23 de marzo y permanecerá hasta el 26. Tanto la presencia cuaresmal del Papa en México como la conmemoración del XXXII aniversario de Mons. Romero tendrán como marco un espiral de violencia delictiva que azota la zona, y Mons. Ricardo Urioste, presidente de la Fundación Romero, explica que en este aniversario, el “grito de Monseñor por el dolor del pueblo, hoy sería más angustioso”. (Reflexión de Mons. Ricardo Urioste.) “El sufrimiento del pueblo continúa con más intensidad que entonces”, explica el clérigo. “Y él hablaba de la violencia que está a la base de todas las violencias: la injusticia social y el no participar los ciudadanos en la gestión pública del país”. (Ibid.) Al confirmar su visita durante una misa en honor a la Virgen de Guadalupe en la Basílica de San Pedro, el Papa esmeró a los países de la región a que “continúen avanzando sin desfallecer en la construcción de una sociedad cimentada en el desarrollo del bien, el triunfo del amor y la difusión de la justicia”. (Santa Misa por América Latina, 12 de diciembre del 2011.)

Explicando el sentido profético del lema cuaresmal del papa, el Cardenal Robert Sarah (Guinea) explicó que “la Iglesia se hace profeta en este mundo de hoy por denunciar en concreto la falta de Dios. Esta es la verdadera raíz de las injusticias que nos rodean”. (Conferencia de Prensa, 7 de febrero del 2012.) Pero, el papa lamenta—dijo el Cardenal Sarah—que, “se está realizando una trasferencia semántica, según la cual en nuestro momento histórico la presencia profética de la Iglesia en el mundo comporta la denuncia social de situaciones injusticia y de pobreza” (Ibid.), olvidándose de la denuncia más profunda que es la falta de Dios. Sin embargo, la misión de la Iglesia no se cumpliría si “se limitara a estos fenómenos externos, sin ir a las raíces morales de estas injusticias”. (Ibid.) La misma observación hizo Mons. Romero en su última homilía: “¡Qué fácil es denunciar la injusticia estructural, la violencia institucionalizada, el pecado social!” (Hom. 23 de marzo de 1980.)  Como el papa, Mons. Romero insiste que debemos ir a las causas raíces:  “¿dónde están las fuentes de ese pecado social?: En el corazón de cada hombre ... Por eso, la salvación comienza desde el ... arrancar del pecado a cada hombre”. (Ibid.) 

El mensaje de Mons. Romero encaja con el lema del papa, cuando Mons. Romero nos dice que basta con sufrimientos para el pueblo, y el Santo Padre nos exhorta a emprender buenas obras de caridad, que aseguran el triunfo del amor y la difusión de la justicia—lo que se consigue desde una apertura interior a Dios.

«BUILDING ON THE GOSPEL, IN PEACE OR PERSECUTION»

[Index]

In El Salvador, the Romero Foundation has chosen a passage from a 1979 homily as the theme for this year’s commemoration of the 32nd anniversary of Archbishop Romero’s martyrdom. “Our people have suffered enough!,” Romero said then. “I do not tire of pointing out the fact that if we want to effectively end the violence then we have to eliminate the root of this violence, namely, structural violence, social injustice, the inability of citizens to participate in the public life of the nation.” (September 23, 1979 Sermon.)

Mgr. Ricardo Urioste, president of the Romero Foundation, explains that the quote from the pre-civil war history of El Salvador has resonance in today’s post-civil war reality: If anything, “Monsignor’s cry for the people’s suffering would be more distressed today than it was then,” he argues. “The people suffer more intensely today than they did then.” Romero “spoke of the violence that lies at the root of all violence: social injustice and the lack of participation by ordinary citizens in the governance of the country,” Urioste explains. “The people are the first to suffer and the last to be taken into account.”

Remarkably, in the very 1979 sermon in question, Romero himself had pondered the applicability of his preaching to a peacetime context. “I am asked: And when tomorrow things have been settled, what will the Church do?,” he recounted. “I reply: It will keep on being the same.” He added, “It will feel fortunate if tomorrow in a more just order it need not speak about so many injustices, but it will always have the task of building itself on the foundation of the Gospel. We will have that work to do in times of peace or persecution.” Those words about building the Church the same way regardless of the circumstance might as well be the motto for commemorating Romero any year, as they speak to the timelessness of his message better than anything we might add to that reflection.

As it does every year, this year the Foundation’s commemorations center in San Salvador, where pilgrims visiting the city for the occasion would be offered visits to the Crypt in the San Salvador Cathedral where Archbishop Romero is buried, 8 am – 4:45 pm (with an 11:45 am – 2 pm recess Mon. – Sat.). The Divine Providence Hospital Chapel where Romero was gunned down on March 24, 1980 also is opening its door to visitors, Mon. – Sat., 9 am – 4 pm (with a 12 pm – 2 pm lunch break). The so-called “Little Holy Week” will take place Mon., March 19 to Sat., March 24 (the “Great Day”). All week, the Cathedral crypt will be showcasing a photographic exhibit featuring murals from San Salvador that honor Ab. Romero. There will be daily presentations in the Crypt at 4 in the afternoon on weekdays, featuring such notable speakers as Mgr. Miguel Angel Morán, the Bishop of San Miguel; José Jorge Simán, a businessman and friend of Romero; Carlos Ayala, the director of Catholic radio in San Salvador; Edín Martínez from the Romero foundation (who will speak about, “Our people have suffered enough!,” this year’s theme for the celebrations), and speakers from various religions united for peace.

The “Great Day” will feature the now traditional candlelit procession from the Divine Savior monument to the Cathedral steps, where Mgr. Elías Bolaños, the Bishop of Zacatecoluca, will say Mass at 7:30 pm, followed by the also customary all-night vigil and fireworks. If you plan to be in San Salvador, you should contact the Foundation and tell them Super Martyrio sent you!

Art: Álvaro Gutiérrez, San Romero de América, acrllic on canvass (inset); Fernando Llort, La Armonía de mi Pueblo, border.

ANÁLISIS: CAUSA ROMERO CON CELERIDAD MODERADA

[Índice]

El estudio del progreso de la causa de beatificación de Mons. Romero publicado en este blog nos hace pensar que la idea de una obstrucción al proceso es una impresión falsa: 97.5% de los procesos de canonización iniciados desde 1980 no han culminado, solo el 1.5% de las beatificaciones del Papa Benedicto han sido casos posteriores al año 80 y la duración promedia de estos procesos ha sido de 94.30 años—una espera tres veces más larga de lo que hemos esperado en el caso Romero. Más esperó el Papa Juan XXIII para ser beatificado, a pesar de la pretensión de varios cardenales de beatificarlo por “aclamación” al final del Concilio Vaticano II. En el análisis que publicamos aquí, analizamos casos abiertos desde el 80, las canonizaciones y beatificaciones completadas por el papa actual, y cinco casos sobresalientes.

Si bien el caso de Mons. Romero es insólito, no es del todo inédito. Los seguidores de Mons. Romero son los primeros en recordar que el ejemplo más parecido es el del mismo Jesucristo: de un magnicidio producido por motivos de índole religioso o teológico, mezclado con motivaciones netamente políticas. Pero, para traer el asunto al ámbito humano, de los mortales, debemos hablar de un martirio que se da dentro de una convulsión política, en medio de la “neblina de la guerra”. Y estos casos no son raros. Tenemos tres grandes ejemplos de la historia reciente: 1. los mártires “cristeros” de México (de los 1920s), 2. los mártires de la guerra civil de España (de los 1930s), y 3. los mártires del fascismo de la II Guerra Mundial (de los 1940s). Las víctimas de los nazis fueron beatificados en promedios de 45 años, los españoles en 50 años y los cristeros en 60 años. En cada uno de estos casos, fue necesario que las autoridades eclesiales estudiaran los entornos históricos de estas situaciones para poder discernir las vicisitudes políticas del momento y luego poderlas separar de las actuaciones cristianas de los mártires, y anti-cristianas de sus perseguidores. Ha sido necesario contar con expertos historiadores que elaboren informes y que estos pasen por un proceso de escrutinio pericial antes de ser aceptados al expediente y ser tomados en cuenta por teólogos que opinan sobre los aspectos religiosos del caso. Esto es lo que está sucediendo con el caso Romero.

Uno de los puntos más contundentes del estudio surge de la comparación del caso Romero a los procesos del Beato Juan Pablo II, la Beata Madre Teresa, San Josemaría Escrivá, San Pío de Pietrelcina, y el Beato Juan XXIII. Lo que vale la pena resaltar es la celeridad con cual el caso Romero arrancó en su inicio—cuando muchos aseveran que hubo bloqueo o desinterés del Vaticano de admitir su beatificación. En realidad, el tiempo que corrió desde la muerte de Mons. Romero hasta el decreto Vaticano aceptando el informe de la investigación diocesana sobre su martirio—17 años—se compara favorablemente con los otros casos. Por ejemplo, el caso del estigmatizado Padre Pío corrió esa misma trayectoria en 22 años, un plazo que supera la extensión de tiempo en el caso Romero. Otro ejemplo: en la causa del Papa Juan XXIII, ese tramo duró 25 años—¡más todavía! La pronta aceptación del caso Romero es aún más impresionante teniendo en cuenta el contexto histórico del suceso. En 1992 se pactó el final de la guerra civil salvadoreña. En marzo del 93 se publicó el informe de la Comisión de la Verdad de la ONU, responsabilizando a Roberto D’Aubuisson por la autoría intelectual del crimen y en septiembre del mismo año el Vaticano otorgó el «Nihil Obstat» autorizando la incepción de la causa. La investigación diocesana en el caso Romero se hizo a la velocidad de la luz. El proceso local duró un poco más de dos años y medio (compárese cinco años y medio para San Josemaría Escrivá, siete años para el Padre Pío y siete años para Juan XXIII). Desde todo esto podemos desprender sin lugar a duda que el caso de Mons. Romero despegó como rayo al empezar.

Con este discernimiento podemos apreciar que es en la segunda fase—en la investigación romana—donde la causa de Mons. Romero ha encontrado una demora apreciable. La siguiente tabla ilustra esto. En este cuadro se nota que la primera fase del caso Romero fue apreciablemente más corta que algunos de los otros casos que han concluido con más celeridad (el azul); mientras que la fase romana en el caso Romero ha sido hasta la fecha un poco más larga que la más larga de las demás (en rojo).

El análisis practicado no nos dice cuánto durará el proceso, pero de sus lineamientos se desprende que la trayectoria que lleva hasta la fecha está dentro de lo normal para casos “fast track” que se han extendido hasta entre 31 (Padre Pío) y 37 (Juan XXIII) años, y de los mártires de los conflictos históricos del siglo XX cuyos procesos han durado hasta medio siglo antes de ser beatificados.

Ver también:

Cronología del proceso
Perspectivas 2006 (inglés)
Perspectivas 2007 (inglés)
Perspectivas 2008
Perspectivas 2011 (inglés)
Perspectivas 2012
Estudio comparativo (inglés)

EXCLUSIVE—SUPER MARTYRIO STUDY:

ROMERO, A PILGRIM’S PROGRESS*

[Index]

Neither progressives who complain that Archbishop Romero’s canonization cause has moved too slowly—or not at all—nor traditionalists who respond that these things take hundreds and hundreds of years are entirely confirmed in their views by a study of the Vatican’s beatification files. An analysis of the causes of saints submitted 1980 and thereafter, as well as an assessment of the beatifications and canonizations under Pope Benedict’s pontificate and a targeted review of five high-profile causes, show that Archbishop Romero’s cause has progressed substantially ahead of most others, but lags behind a privileged group of candidates for the sainthood.

I. INTAKE

The study examined and cross-referenced information available online from the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (CCS) and the Index ac Status Causarum, as reflected in the Hagiography Circle and Giga-Catholic Information web sites, to glean the broadest possible window into the internal workings of the Church’s “saint making” function. The analysis identified 372 canonization causes for would-be saints who died 1980 and after—including, Archbishop Romero. Among those proposed candidates for the sainthood, the great majority have not advanced as far as Archbishop Romero’s cause, which has completed the first phase of study in the local church and been passed on to Rome for final examination. 262 of the causes started since 1980 have not yet moved to the second, Vatican phase of the process, according to the information. Only 72 of these causes have received a Vatican decree certifying the validity of the Phase I inquiry. Archbishop Romero’s is one of them. The number of causes that has gone on to the next step after that is even smaller: only 38 of the 372—just about 10% of them—have had a Positio or final report accepted by the CCS in Rome. And a rather miniscule selection—ten causes, representing about 2.5% of the causes submitted since 1980—have gone on to the beatification of the candidate proposed for the sainthood. (See, Fig. 1.)

Archbishop Romero places in the top 30th percentile of the causes started since 1980, in terms of the level of advancement achieved within the bureaucratic and legal process by which the Church names its saints. This is hardly evidence of “foot dragging” or of a “blocked” path to the sainthood, as some characterize it. But the fact that 10 people who have died after Ab. Romero have been beatified ahead of Ab. Romero certainly suggests that his cause has not advanced at the highest rate of progress of which the CCS is capable. The faster progress by other candidates raises eyebrows because Ab. Romero is proposed as a martyr, a type of beatification process designed to be shorter and swifter (requiring no miracle for beatification). None of the ten candidates who were beatified ahead Ab. Romero were martyrs. For example, Blessed Chiara Badano, who died in 1990 at age 18, was beatified by Pope Benedict on September 25, 2010. María Isabel Salvat Romero, who died in 1998, was beatified a few days earlier, on September 18, 2010. But these cases are anomalous and, as noted earlier, represent 2.5% of these causes. More typical is the case of Cosme Spezzotto, killed in 1980 in El Salvador, still pending acceptance of the Positio, or Dorothy Day, who also died 1980 and is still awaiting her Phase I investigation.

II. OUTPUT

Looking at the causes submitted after 1980 allows us to look at the intake side of the sainthood “pipeline,” but another useful perspective is the output end of the process, for which we look to the canonizations and beatifications approved during the last seven years—Pope Benedict XVI’s pontificate, to date. The current pope has approved 839 beatifications and, as noted above, 10 of those were candidates who died after Ab. Romero. Stated mathematically, beatifications of candidates who died after Ab. Romero represent 1.2% of the blesseds approved under the current pontificate. Therefore the percentage of beatifications who “cut ahead” of Romero is small. While it has been 31+ years since Ab. Romero was killed, the 839 persons beatified by Pope Benedict had to wait an average of 94.3 years for their turn. (See, Fig. 2.) But one dramatic disparity in these results is the disproportionate number of Europeans canonized and beatified under Pope Benedict (118) versus the Latin Americans (19).

Some blesseds beatified by Benedict had inordinately long waits: Bb. Petrus Kibe Kasui and his 187 martyred companions from Japan had to wait 369 years before being recognized as “blesseds.” Spain’s Bd. Juan de Palafox Mendoza was beatified after 351 years. It was 306 years for Bd. Stanislaw Papczynski of Poland. But the notion that beatifications take hundreds and hundreds of years to process is the exception rather than the rule. Besides, the long drawn-out cases are cancelled out by the fast-track prodigies: Bd. Lindalva Justo de Oliveira was beatified 2007, in fifteen years; Bd. María de la Purísima Salvat Romero was beatified 2010, in eleven years; and—of course—Bd. John Paul II was beatified 2011, in just six years. The truly lengthy processes were not beatifications (the first step in the path to sainthood), but canonizations (the final step). St. Bernardo Tolomei was canonized by Pope Benedict in 2009, after 660 years. Under that standard, we would not expect to see Ab. Romero canonized until the year 2640!

III. “SUPERSAINTS”

Finally, after looking at the intake end and the output end of the canonization process, it is useful to look at the in-between, and for that purpose, we examine five exemplary cases: (1) Pope John Paul II, (2) Mother Theresa, (3) Opus Dei founder Josemaría Escrivá de Balaguer, (4) popular stigmatist Padre Pio and (5) Pope John XXIII. All have been beatified; and nos. 3 & 4 have completed the process in its entirety, having been declared saints of the Universal Church. Fig. 3 below tracks the amount of time each cause took to move through various steps of the process, compared to Ab. Romero, and the chart shows that Romero actually out-performed all of these “fast-track” saints during the Phase I investigation, taking merely 1 year to complete this early part of the process (compare 6 years for Msgr. Escrivá and 8 years for Padre Pio). The chart also shows that Ab. Romero encountered delay in the Roman phase (everything from Positio). It is in comparison to the superstars that Ab. Romero’s disadvantage is revealed: each of them was beatified in an average 19.4 years, while Ab. Romero is going on 32 years, still awaiting beatification.

In sum, all three measures demonstrate that Ab. Romero’s process does not reflect the same kind of celerity as the topper-most performers among the newly minted saints and blesseds. However, looking at the new causes introduced in the time of Romero, as well as the causes completed under the current pontificate, we see that Romero has moved along faster than the great majority of them. A targeted review of “super-saints” also reveals that, at specific moments in the process—especially at the starting gate—Romero’s progress was even better than the other superstars. One hopes that this kind of celerity will return when the current impasse is cleared.

* “Romero” translates as “pilgrim” in Spanish.

See Also:

Beatification Chronology (Spanish)
2006 General Status Report
2007 Beatification outlook
2008 Beatification outlook (Spanish)
2011 beatification outlook
2012 beatification outlook (Spanish)

LA HISTORIA DE RUTILIO GRANDE

[Índice]

Este año marca el 35° aniversario del martirio del Padre Rutilio Grande, amigo entrañable de Mons. Romero, cuyo asesinato marcó el camino del arzobispo, quien posteriormente se comprometió de manera decisiva con la causa de los pobres y los oprimidos. Algunos hasta han supuesto que el padre Rutilio era como un seña que nos ayuda a ubicar a Mons. Romero con relación a Cristo—el padre Tilo era un “Juan el Bautista,” cuyas denuncias serían mal entendidas, pero cuya muerte nos señalaría la llegada de un profeta aún mayor a este.

Su mensaje más recordado es el “Sermón de Apopa”. He aquí unos fragmentos:

Mucho me temo, mis queridos hermanos y amigos, que muy pronto la Biblia y el Evangelio no podrán entrar por nuestras fronteras. Nos llegarán las pastas nada más, porque todas sus páginas son subversivas. ¡Subversivas contra el pecado, naturalmente! Me llama la atención la avalancha de sectas importadas y de slogans de libertad de culto, en este contexto, que se andan pregronando por allí. ¡Libertad de culto, libertad de culto! ¡Libertad de culto para que nos traigan un dios falso! Libertad de culto para que nos traigan un dios que está en las nubes, sentado en una hamaca. Libertad de culto para que nos presenten a un Cristo que no es el verdadero Cristo. ¡Es falso y es grave!

Mucho me temo, hermanos, que si Jesús de Nazaret volviera, como en aquel tiempo, bajando de Galilea a Judea, es decir desde Chalatenango a San Salvador, yo me atrevo a decir que no llegaría con sus prédicas y acciones, en este momento, hasta Apopa .... Allí por Apopa lo detendrían. Quién sabe si llegara a Apopa, ¿verdad? Mejor dicho, por Guazapa, ¡duro con él! Se lo llevarían a muchas Juntas Supremas por incostitucional y subversivo. Al hombre-Dios, al prototipo de hombre, lo acusarían de revoltoso, de judío extranjero, de enredador con ideas exóticas y extrañas, contrarias a la ‘democracia’, es decir, contrarias a la minoría .... Sin duda, hermanos, lo volverían a crucificar.

(Homilía del Padre Rutilio Grande, 13 de febrero de 1977.)

El siguiente video en tres partes nos relata la historia de este sacerdote.

Primera Parte

Segunda Parte

Tercera Parte

ARCHBISHOP ROMERO & THE NEOCATECHUMENAL WAY

[Index]

In November of 1979, as the political situation in El Salvador deteriorated dramatically after an ill fated military coup d’état, Archbishop Romero retreated to a spiritual center in the hills above San Salvador with followers of the Neocatechumenal Way, a Church movement started in Spain in 1964, focusing on adult Christian formation, which has been promoted as a path for wayward Catholics to return to the Church, but which has been controversial because of its nonconventional celebrations—particularly, its Saturday night communal Masses in which adherents sit around a banquet style table and share unleavened bread (not the wheaten Host), and take turns expounding on the Gospel. In January 2012, Pope Benedict XVI definitively endorsed the movement, delivering three key messages to its adherents:

1. “The Church has recognized in the Neocatechumenal Way a particular gift aroused by the Holy Spirit.”
2. The Neocatechumenal Way should “contribute, with new impetus and ardor, to the radical and joyful rediscovery of the gift of baptism and to offer your original contribution to the cause of the New Evangelization.”
3. The Neocatechumenal Way should “seek always a profound communion with the pastors and with all the components of the particular Churches and the very different ecclesial contexts in which you are called to operate.”

(Pope Benedict’s Jan. 17, 2012 Address.)

Benedict’s themes correspond dramatically with the message Romero gave the Neocatechumenal communities of San Salvador and Santiago de María three decades earlier. Like the Pope, Romero recognized the movement as an expression of the Holy Spirit, saying, “I am happy that in our country, but more specifically in these two dioceses, the movement of the Holy Spirit is flourishing.” (November 22, 1979 Sermon.) Romero also recognized “The Way” as “an institution that is intimately linked to our evangelization” (Pope Benedict, in fact, announced several new evangelization projects entrusted to the movement), and which nourishes the sacrament of Baptism: “For so many people the sacrament of Baptism is nothing more than a social ceremony in which godparents have to be found and a fiesta prepared, but so few are aware of the fact that Baptism signifies the incorporation of their child into the life of Christ, into the death and resurrection of Christ.” (Romero’s Sermon, ibid.)

Importantly, Romero, like the Pope, also encouraged the followers of The Way, not to be a separate, insular institution, but to steer catechumens (i.e., the baptized) back to the sacramental and community life of the Church. “I assure you and with all my heart I ask you as Pastor,” Romero said, “there wherever you go, in whatever parishes you are living, please be concerned about making the catechumenate a part of the Christian life of the people of that area.” He went on, “This catechumenate should consist of Biblical reflection, a sense of the sacraments, a Christian commitment to build community, but not a community that is closed in upon itself or comfortable with its own life,” he warned, “but rather a community that is Church and that leads people to Jesus Christ.” He concluded, “A catechumenate should never be far from the sacramental life, from that encounter with Christ in the Eucharist or Reconciliation or from all of the other holy sacraments.”

As his Church found itself in an hour of crisis, followers of the The Way, Romero suggested, should join in solidarity with the situation of the church, and be with that Church, “a community that exists to serve the world, a community that enlightens itself with the light of Christ in order to share this same light with the surrounding community, a community that is each day more committed to Christ, more committed to the redemption of Christ that becomes present in the midst of people and the world.”

In this sense, Romero reflected, the Way, which harkens back to the worship of the early Church, provided an important infusion and renewal to a Church seeking to be more authentic and radical in its commitment. “The Church,” he said, “must continue to be faithful to the apostles who spoke about carrying this treasure in fragile vessels and extending this treasure through creating new communities and by living together in community.”

More on Romero's Sermons in our Homiliarium

PLAZA ROMERO EN LOS ÁNGELES

[Índice]

El concejo municipal de Los Ángeles aprobó nombrar una intersección de un vecindario mayoritariamente centroamericano de esa ciudad en honor a Mons. Romero, según reportaron los periódicos angelinos L.A. TIMES y LA OPINIÓN. La esquina de South Vermont Avenue y West Pico Boulevard, dos calles principales del sector informalmente conocido como la “Pequeña América Central” ahora será llamada “Plaza Mons. Óscar A. Romero” (foto de Google EarthView).

El concejal Ed Reyes, quien presentó la propuesta de nombrar la plaza en honor a Mons. Romero le dijo al L.A. TIMES que, “Esta es una manera de reforzar la historia y celebrarlo a él, dada su estatura heroica en su país y en la comunidad”. La nota en LA OPINIÓN señala que el consejo aprobó la propuesta, “Con una votación unánime”, y que “Una escuela intermedia de Los Ángeles en esa zona ya lleva su nombre”. El L.A. TIMES agregó que, “Una clínica de la zona también lleva su nombre”. En años recientes, el concejo angelino ha aprobado el reconocimiento del 24 de marzo como un día para conmemorar a Mons. Romero.

En El Salvador, el nombramiento de la plaza hizo noticia en los medios locales. Mientras tanto, el recuerdo de Mons. Romero estuvo en las palabras de la premio nobel por la paz 1992 Rigoberta Menchú, de Guatemala, de visita en el país. Según una nota de prensa, “Menchú aseguró que los años de guerra han dejado duras lecciones al país, como el dolor, y resaltó la figura de monseñor Óscar Arnulfo Romero, asesinado durante el conflicto armado en El Salvador”.

POLYCLINIC PIETÀ

[Index]

Click HERE for video.

The scene was Policlínica Salvadoreña on Monday, March 24, 1980.  While a “pieta” in Western art is a reverent scene of the soon-to-be-resurrected Christ, attended by the Virgin or by holy women and angels, in martyrdom of the 20th century, the reality is grittier.  Archbishop Romero is surrounded by mourners, journalists and on-lookers.


In this clip, the young doctor on duty at Policlínica matter-of-factly answers a journalist’s questions and sets forth the base facts of the raw reality that night.  (Super Martyrio Translation.)

DOCTOR:

And see, Mgr. Romero came in with a bullet wound—fatal, you know? Lodged in the left, fourth interspace of the thorax. It penetrated into his heart and that was the cause of death.

REPORTER:

Was he alive when he arrived at the hospital?

DOCTOR:

No. No. Um, we did everything that humanly could be done—medically—but Monsignor arrived, well, dead, almost, one might say, you see. But all that was done—medically, the correct things were done—but nevertheless he could not recover.

REPORTER:

Was that the only wound he had?

DOCTOR:

Yes, only wound, only wound.

REPORTER:

What time was Mgr. Romero admitted to the Polyclinic?

DOCTOR:

He entered the Polyclinic at six-thirty in the evening.

REPORTER:

Great.

«SE COMPROMETIÓ EN FAVOR DE LA PAZ»

[Índice]

Aunque Mons. Romero no vivió los tiempos de los Acuerdos de Paz de El Salvador, sí está muy ligado con el proceso de la paz: se dice que su asesinato el 24 de marzo de 1980 hizo estallar la guerra civil salvadoreña, y de manera simbólica al declararse la paz, el pueblo se aglutinó masivamente enfrente de la Catedral Metropolitana de San Salvador adornada con la imagen de Romero (foto). Como que si la ausencia de Mons. Romero—desde su asesinato hasta su reaparición en aquel estandarte en Catedral—coincidía con la ausencia de la paz. De hecho, Mons. Romero—en las palabras del Papa Benedicto XVI—“se comprometió en favor de la paz” (Conferencia de prensa, 7 de mayo del 2007).

La paz salvadoreña encontrada aquel enero de 1992 nos hace pensar la exhortación de Mons. Romero en enero de 1980, el domingo de la Epifanía: “ábranle el campo a Jesucristo, dejen que entre el Rey de la Paz, sometan ante él, con la humildad de los magos, el corazón humilde buscándolo, y encontraremos de verdad la solución de nuestro país”. (Homilía del 6 de enero de 1980.) Pero seguramente, las palabras más alusivas de Mons. Romero por la paz se habían dado el Domingo de la Epifanía de 1978, cuando dijo que:

la paz no es el producto del terror ni del miedo, la paz no es el silencio de los cementerios, la paz no es producto de una violencia y de una represión que calla. La Paz es la aportación generosa, tranquila, de todos para el bien de todos; la paz es dinamismo, la paz es generosidad, es derecho y es deber en que cada uno se sienta en su puesto en esta hermosa familia que la Epifanía nos ilumina con la luz de Dios.

(Hom. 8 de enero de 1978.)

Mons. Romero predicó la paz, y sobre todas las calumnias de la derecha y las tergiversaciones de la izquierda se deben imponer los tres extremos de la formula que Mons. Romero nos dejó para lograr la paz:

• En primer lugar, Mons. Romero rechazó la violencia: “La violencia no es cristiana, la violencia no es humana, nada violento puede durar ... No es contestando violentamente a la violencia como se va a arreglar la paz del mundo”. (Hom. 11 de mayo 1977.)

• En segundo lugar, Mons. Romero rechazó el odio y el rencor, haciendo “un llamamiento a la reconciliación con Dios y con los hermanos [que] nos deje en todos los corazones la satisfacción de que somos cristianos y que no quedan huellas de odio y de rencor en el alma. Que seremos firmes sí en defender nuestros derechos, pero con un gran amor en el corazón.” (Hom. 19 de junio 1977.)

• Y en tercer lugar, Mons. Romero insistió en hacer justicia, precisamente porque es el cimiento más seguro sobre cual se puede establecer la paz: “Sólo la justicia puede ser la raíz de la paz”. (Hom. 27 de agosto 1978.)

Muchos se han preguntado qué diría Mons. Romero sobre una situación u otra, incluyendo las vicisitudes de la vida política de El Salvador, ya sea la situación social en general, o alguna parte de esta, incluyendo los altos niveles de violencia en la actualidad. No nos gusta especular o sacar a Mons. Romero de su cauce histórico para desplazarlo a nuestro capricho para pretender que se pronuncia sobre una realidad que no fue la que él vivió, pero sí dijo algunas palabras cuya relevancia parece ser aplicable a primera cara. “La paz no es ausencia de guerra”, advirtió: “Tampoco es paz el equilibrio de dos fuerzas adversas”—como quien dice ARENA y el FMLN. (Hom. 3 de julio 1977.) Sólo hay paz, “cuando todos los hombres pueden disfrutar sus derechos legítimos, cuando hay libertad, cuando no hay miedo, cuando no hay pueblos sofocados por las armas”, y en El Salvador se puede argumentar que esas condiciones no existen cuando la ciudadanía no ejerce la plenitud de sus derechos porque vive sofocada por miedo a la delincuencia y las armas de la criminalidad.

Pero no es necesario del todo especular, porque Mons. Romero habló sobre el futuro—lo que ahora es el presente de nuestra realidad. Gaspar Romero, el hermano de Monseñor, recuerda que el arzobispo predijo, “mirá, la guerra no la detienen ya ... lo que viene va [a] ser terrible, pero lo más terrible es lo que vendrá después de la guerra”. (Valencia y Arias, EL FARO.) En el registro público, Mons. Romero expandió: “Las violencias seguirán cambiando de nombre, pero habrá siempre violencia, mientras no se cambie la raíz de donde están brotando, como de una fuente fecunda, todas estas cosas tan horrorosas de nuestro ambiente”. (Hom. 25 de septiembre de 1977.)

Y la solución para la violencia—sea cual sea su nombre—siempre es la misma fórmula de la paz que predicó monseñor.

Post Datum:

El Papa Benedicto XVI habló sobre la justicia y la paz a los dirigentes y al personal del Inspectorado de la seguridad pública del Vaticano el 13 de enero del 2012.  El Santo Padre hizo como eco de Mons. Romero diciendo que la paz no es sólo la ausencia de guerra o “el resultado de la acción de los hombres para evitarla”, sino sobre todo “un don de Dios que hay que pedir con fe y que en Jesucristo encuentra la vía para alcanzarla ... La paz verdadera, pues, es una obra por construir cotidianamente con el aporte de la compasión, la solidaridad, la fraternidad y con la colaboración de cada uno”.  Agregó, adhiriéndose aún más a Mons. Romero: “Está profundamente relacionada con la justicia”, y advirtió que no puede haber justicia “cuando, en nombre de una presunta justicia, dominan los criterios de la ganancia, del provecho y del tener, [y] se puede incluso pisotear el valor y la dignidad de la persona humana”.

URIOSTE'S PRAYER

[Index]

On the night of March 24, 1980, Msgr. Ricardo Urioste entered the Divine Providence Hospital Chapel in San Salvador, and stood before the altar where Archbishop Romero had been assassinated earlier that evening and, after receiving an update from the nuns that run the hospice, he led an impromptu prayer of the mourners at the chapel.  The whole scene is captured in this remarkable video (in Spanish):

Msgr. Urioste, who had served as Archbishop Romero's vicar general, fought back tears to compose the following prayer (presented as the answer to a reporter's question) as mourners spontaneously gathered around him (Super Martyrio translation):

Well, I think all the people of El Salvador are in mourning. I mean, all the good people, because there are people who are not good, part of our Salvadoran family who is not so, unfortunately.

And I think our first thought is a thought of giving thanks to the Lord for having given us an archbishop of such great worth. For letting us have him for three years. For his having been so profoundly Christian, so profoundly a priest, such a lover of justice and peace. And that's the reason for his murder—having loved righteousness and wished for peace.

So I repeat that all the good people of El Salvador are in mourning. Some are not, some are rejoicing. That is a dark grace. That is the greatest sin that has been committed in this country.

With him, we think of so many Salvadorans who have been killed, who are being killed, and we think this magnicide of our archbishop who was so dear, who was so much admired, who was such a man of faith, who was such a man of prayer ... Something I wish to say at this juncture is this: no one prayed as he did, in this country. With what simplicity he prayed his Rosary! With what simplicity he knelt before the Blessed Sacrament! With what fervor he prayed his Breviary!

There was a man of prayer, there was a man beloved by all, whom we will not be able to replace. But the Church wants everyone to know this clearly: the Church does not depend upon one man. The Church will move forward. She knows what her mission is, because it is not the mission of a single man. It is the mission of all of us in the Church. And this Church led by her Pontiffs, driven above all by the Gospel, is, thus, directed, and it will always continue to concentrate on God, on man, and on that very same Church.

I would invite the whole country at this time ... This is the saddest death that has occurred in the country. All deaths are sad, all deaths are painful. I know there are many who stand with the Church at this time, because many have suffered martyrdom in their loved ones. Those who have suffered martyrdom in their loved ones know what the Church is now suffering. But we always remember the Gospel. The gates of hell shall not prevail against her. 

I would conclude by inviting everyone to a prayer—a prayer for him, who, like all human beings, needs our prayers. We know he stands already before God, that he has appeared before Him and declared, “Mission accomplished, my Lord. Here I am. Like You on the Cross, here I am, too, after completing my mission as You asked me to do, and as You wanted.” I would like for everyone, then, to say a prayer—a prayer for him and a prayer for the country. A prayer for the just men of this country and a prayer for the wicked men of this country.

Msgr. Ricardo Urioste was schooled at San José de la Montaña Seminary in San Salvador and at Comillas University in Spain.  He felt called to the priesthood at age 22, and he studied canon law in Rome, where he was ordained.  Early in his career, he was the pastor at St. Francis parish.  Starting during Archbishop Romero's years, he served as the archdiocese's vicar general.  Later, he was Pastor of the Christ the Redeemer Parish in upscale Colonia Escalón, where he worked to generate solidarity of the wealthy parishioners for the poor.  After the 2001 earthquakes, he raised funds to rebuild 126 homes of the poorer residents.  He set up clinics where the indigent can see a doctor for $3 and receive free medicine.  He also set up a co-op to allow parishioners to buy discounted food, and a credit union that provides micro loans.  In 2002, Msgr. Urioste received a doctorate, honoris causa, from Central American University.  He retired from active ministry in 2010 at age 85.  He continues to be president of Fundación Monseñor Óscar Arnulfo Romero.

See Also:

Msgr. Urioste’s 2007 reflection on Archbishop Romero.