POPE GREENLIGHTS ROMERO BEATIFICATION

[INDEX]

Google Translate

Español | Italiano

«ROMERO FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH»  

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, the cleric in charge of Óscar Romero’s sainthood cause, has announced that Pope Francis informed him during an audience on Saturday, April 20, that he was authorizing Archbishop Romero’s beatification process to advance. Paglia made the announcement at the end of a homily honoring the Italian bishop Antonio Bello, known as “Don Tonino,” who died in 1993. “This very day,” Paglia told the audience at the Cathedral of Molfetta (on Italy's Adriatic coast), “day of the death of Don Tonino, the beatification cause of Msgr. Romero has been unblocked.” In addition to being the postulator or principal clergyman in charge of Archbishop Romero’s canonization, Paglia is the President of the Pontifical Council for the Family, a major Vatican agency reporting to the Pope. His video-taped remarks, in Italian, are available on YouTube. No formal announcement has been made by the Vatican or by the San Salvador Archdiocese, though Salvadoran clerics have stated they believed Pope Francis would move swiftly to authorize resuming the process. Super Martyrio will monitor developments and report them here.

MONDAY UPDATE:

This news is being verified by John Allen, Catholic News Service, La Stampa, and ANSA; and confirmed by the Romero Trust.

ADDITIONAL UPDATES:

Reaction in El Salvador

The news was reported by international media, raising mostly supportive reactions.   In El Salvador, President Mauricio Funes said that “This news gives us immense joy—to the Salvadoran people and yours truly, as well—and our hope to see the figure of our martyr bishop who gave his life for the poor and destitute of El Salvador recognized has been renewed.”   The President announced that he would travel to Rome in May to thank the pope in person and also give an update on the efforts his government has pursued, sometimes in close collaboration with the Church, to achieve “pacification” within Salvadoran society.   “This recognition of the life and work of Archbishop Romero will be, without a doubt, a milestone in the path of peace and national reconciliation,” continues the president's statement,   “It is therefore important that no one try to politicize this decision of the Catholic Church. I ask, in this sense, the political class and leadership of the country to express their joy at this announcement and refrain from any political demonstration which obscures this historic event for the people of El Salvador.”

The political right in El Salvador has reacted with low-key pronouncements.   Donato Vaquerano, the head of the ARENA legislative faction, said he was pleased: “Welcome news,” was his comment to the local press.   Ever since a United Nations Truth Commission held the ARENA party founder, Major Roberto D'Aubuisson, responsible for masterminding the Romero assassination, the rightist group’s leaders prefer not to talk about the subject.   Vaquerano took the opportunity to accuse the party of the left for alleged manipulation of Archbishop Romero’s figure: “The most damage to the figure of Monsignor Romero has been done by the FMLN,” the far-right politician said.

Neither the Vatican nor the Archdiocese of San Salvador have issued a statement, but Msgr. Gregorio Rosa Chavez, the auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, and a former collaborator of Romero, has made ​​some comments.   “We’ve been surprised by how quickly the news came, but we expected it, because pope Francis always had great admiration for Romero and the complete conviction that he was a martyr and a saint,” said Bishop Rosa.   “Undoubtedly the Pope has heard many voices these days since he was elected, he would have consulted, and I said once that in Latin America there is an overwhelming majority of bishops who are in favor of canonization [for Romero], and he knows that that decision is a great joy for the whole Church, especially the Church in Latin America.”

Msgr. Dieudonné Datonou, charge d’affaires of the Apostolic Nunciature (the Vatican's diplomatic representation in El Salvador) stated that “this Nunciature has received no official communication at this time.” However, he added, “in the event that this news is confirmed, it would be a source of great satisfaction and joy for the local church and for all El Salvador, and not only for El Salvador, but for the whole Latin American and Universal Church.”

Msgr. Jesus Delgado, a senior Salvadoran cleric, sounded a slightly contrarian note. Delgado took issue with the notion that the process had ever been “blocked” (he preferred to think of it as “on standby” for the last few years), and took pains to note that its “unblocking” was not some formal, official act, but may have been Bishop Paglia's colorful embelishment of what the pope said. Additionally, Delgado warned that Salvadorans should not expect to see any beatification before the next election (El Salvador elects a new president next year).

Msgr. Ricardo Urioste, President of Fundación Romero, said that he believed the decision to “unblock” the cause would now permit its progress, because study of the cause had been “on hold, it was not being studied.”

Archbishop Romero had “lobbyists” before the new Pope

As Bishop Rosa points out, since coming to the throne of St. Peter, Pope Francis has heard several petitions for the beatification of Archbishop Romero.   The informal lobbying of the pontiff began the day of his installation.   Salvadoran First Lady Vanda Pignato greeted the Pope after his installation Mass on March 19.  Pignato wore a Romero pin when she approached the Pope in the receiving line and, “He told me that he hoped the canonization of Archbishop Romero would be as soon as possible. I showed him my Archbishop Romero picture, my pin, and I told him that I hoped it would be during his papacy, during his pontificate. He smiled at me and I took both his hands and asked him that it would be so.”

Two days later, the new pontiff met his compatriot, Adolfo Perez Esquivel, the 1980 Nobel Prize recipient, who was in Rome to give a speech during the Roman celebration of the 33rd anniversary of the assassination of Archbishop Romero.   The Nobel laureate addressed the Romero issue during his audience with the pope, and after the meeting, Perez Esquivel declared before the microphones of the Roman press that Romero had been a shepherd who heard the voices of his people.

Days after this meeting, President Funes of El Salvador, appealed to the Pope in a national radio and television address, that he should canonize the “the greatest, the best and the wisest” Salvadoran on the anniversary of his death.   “Today we renew our hope that the highest hierarchs of the Catholic Church recognize the greatest, the best and the wisest Salvadoran and canonize him,” Funes said.   The president also spoke of Archbishop Romero as “the kindest, most generous, the most pure, the most leading figure in El Salvador, who has transcended borders with his preaching and with the example of his life and his work.”   He finalized, stating that, “We honor his memory in this new time of hope, of change and reconciliation that we live in the country. We want no more hatred, no violence nor confrontations between brothers and sisters.”

A long quest for the first Salvadoran saint

The plans to seek the canonization of Archbishop Romero were first formally announced in San Salvador in 1990, as part of the commemoration of the tenth anniversary of his murder.   Three years later, Archbishop Arturo Rivera y Damas sent the necessary petition to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (CCS) in the Vatican, and the same year the CCS gave permission to start the investigation.   Since then, Romero has been a “servant of God”—a person in official evaluation of his holiness.   The first part of the investigation was the diocesan phase, in San Salvador.   It was completed in November 1996, and Archbishop Fernando Saenz Lacalle, who had succeeded Archbishop Rivera, approved the findings and sent them to the CCS.  (Filochowski, Romero Trust.)

In 1997, the Vatican accepted the documentation from the diocesan phase, regarding it as valid, and in 1998, all necessary records were sent to the Roman authorities.   Since then, the “Roman phase” of the process has been pending.   Bishop Vincenzo Paglia, a high ranking prelate, known for his diplomatic efforts and proximity to the Sant Egidio movement, was named the postulator of the cause by Pope John Paul II.   At that time, there was talk of a quick process to canonize Romero.   During the Millennium Jubilee in 2000, Archbishop Romero was honored during a ceremony commemorating the martyrs of the twentieth century in the Roman Coliseum, at the insistence of Pope John Paul.   A special prayer praised the “unforgettable Oscar Romero, murdered at the altar during the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice.”  

At the beginning of the new millennium, Super martyrio has learned that pursuant to an objection by Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, who expressed concerns about Romero’s association with Liberation Theology, Archbishop Romero's cause was investigated by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF).   At that time, the CDF was headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was later elected Pope Benedict XVI.   Between 2000 and 2005, the CDF studied the writings, sermons, and speeches of Archbishop Romero to ensure that they were free from doctrinal error.   In 2001, Bishop Paglia held a special congress in Italy, bringing together experts and theologians to try to relocate the figure of Archbishop Romero within the authorized teaching of the Church.   Thereafter, the CDF concluded that “Romero was not a revolutionary bishop, but a man of the Church, the Gospel and the poor.”

In 2005, during the twenty-fifth anniversary of the assassination, everything seemed to indicate that the cause of beatification was in its final stretch.   Bishop Paglia made ​​statements to that effect, and in March 2005, Romero's body was moved to a position of honor directly under the main altar of the San Salvador Metropolitan Cathedral—a sign that usually implies that a beatification is imminent.   However, the death of John Paul II interrupted the progress of the process.   Although Pope Benedict received the Salvadoran President Tony Saca in his first audience and talked about Romero's beatification, by October of that year, the process had been derailed.   Apparently, the same Latin American cardinals who had requested an audit of Romero’s theology now demanded a study of his concrete pastoral action.   By the next March, Archbishop Saenz admitted that the cause was moving “slowly”.

Between 2007 and 2008, Pope Benedict referred to Romero thrice within the period of one year, raising hopes that the process might be returning to a normal course.   However, after this period, there were no more statements, and the process stalled, apparently neglected by the competent authorities.   The Italian newspaper «La Stampa» came to call it “the lost cause.”

A change of fortunes

In 2007, then Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio told Msgr. Jesus Delgado of the Romero Foundation, “If I had been pope, the very first thing I would have done is order the beatification of Archbishop Romero” (Bergoglio had come in second in the 2005 conclave that elected Card. Ratzinger as successor of Peter).   Three years later, in 2010, Delgado reminded Bergoglio what he had said said three years earlier and Bergoglio responded: “I remember it, the problem is that I will never get to be pope.”

Surprisingly, Card. Bergoglio became pope unexpectedly after two developments that would have seemed unprecedented and almost unimaginable when he said he would never become Pope.   First, Pope Benedict XVI resigned his pontificate in February 2013, becoming the first pope to do so in nearly 800 years.   Second, Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected his successor in March, even though he did not appear on the various lists of “papabili” cardinals of the Vaticanistas.

The speculation that a new pope could breathe new life into the Romero beatification was heard even before the name of the new pope was known, as the very process of reviewing priorities a new papacy would entail could help dust off the cause.    In fact, it is being reported that the new momentum behind Romero’s beatification is not due exclusively to the new pope being Latin American, but also to developments in another beatification process that are advantageous for Romero.   Postulator Paglia gave interviews in February and March saying that the beatification of a “martyr of the mafia” in May, could help Romero’s cause.   “I believe that the beatification of Padre Puglisi as a 'martyr of the mafia' opens some interesting lines of reflection,” said Paglia.   The beatification of Father Giuseppe “Pino” Puglisi, an anti-mafia priest in Sicily, murdered in 1993 for reasons that arguably are not directly related to the hatred of the faith (organized crime), can move the Church to new ways of interpreting the doctrine of martyrdom and the hatred of the faith requirement.   In fact, the Italian press is reporting that the Puglisi case has opened an “expressway” to beatification for Archbishop Romero.

Next Steps

Julian Filochowski, of the UK-based Romero trust, stated that: “It is wonderful to learn that the Cause for Archbishop Romero’s beatification has been ‘unblocked’ by Pope Francis. This is a carefully chosen word and it means that the Cause will leave the siding where it has been parked for more than a decade, whilst accusations that Archbishop Romero’s homilies went beyond the bounds of orthodoxy were examined by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It will now be put back on the regular road to sainthood under the auspices of the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints - and in all probability it will be fast-tracked since the beatification of a martyr does not require a miracle.”  El Salvador's ambassador to the Holy See, Manuel Lopez, belongs to the Catholic Sovereign Order of Malta and also commented on the next steps.   “The postulator will present the positio to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, it will be analyzed first by a commission of theologians, and then by a commission of cardinals, and the two commissions will forward their recommendations to the Pope, who will make the final determination,” said Lopez .  

The ambassador spoke optimistically about the new reality: “We're definitely entering new ground that is very positive for the cause,” said the diplomat.   “I think at this point you have the best chance we have ever had to have the first Salvadoran saint.”  Filochowski concluded with an upbeat note, “Maybe 2014 will be Romero’s year - as Archbishop Paglia seems to anticipate; we can certainly now hope, and indeed expect, to celebrate the centenary of Archbishop Romero’s birth in 2017 with his sanctity formally recognised by the Church. Santo subito!”

MORE:

Analysis
Who was Romero, anyway?

MONS. ROMERO y la SUBSIDIARIEDAD

[Índice]

Google Translate
English | italiano

«ROMERO PARA EL AÑO DE LA FE» 

Mons. Romero jamás uso la palabra “subsidiariedad” durante su ministerio público como arzobispo de San Salvador, sin embargo confirmó inequívocamente el concepto, diciendo que “La Iglesia no quiere hacer libre al pobre haciéndolo que tenga sino haciéndolo que sea; que sea más, que se promueva”.  (Homilía del 19 de junio del 1977.)

Igual que otros principios mejor conocidos como “la opción preferencial por los pobres”, la subsidiariedad es parte de la doctrina social de la Iglesia.  En años recientes, el tema de la subsidiariedad se ha convertido en un punto favorito de la derecha política, porque implica que las intervenciones necesarias para mejorar las condiciones de vida de cualquier comunidad deben provenir de esta misma y no de otras instancias (por ejemplo, no de gobiernos centrales).  En su plenitud, el concepto fue explicado por el Papa Pío XI—a quien Mons. Romero se refirió como “el papa que más admiro”—en su carta encíclica «Quadragesimo Anno»: “como no se puede quitar a los individuos y dar a la comunidad lo que ellos pueden realizar con su propio esfuerzo e industria”—expuso el papa— “así tampoco es justo, constituyendo un grave perjuicio y perturbación del recto orden, quitar a las comunidades menores e inferiores lo que ellas pueden hacer y proporcionar y dárselo a una sociedad mayor y más elevada, ya que toda acción de la sociedad, por su propia fuerza y naturaleza, debe prestar ayuda a los miembros del cuerpo social, pero no destruirlos y absorberlos”.  (Q.A. 79)

De hecho, las ideas de la subsidiariedad anunciadas por Pío XI—el peligro de arrebatarles la auto-independencia a las comunidades locales y de negarles la habilidad de actuar por su propia fuerza e industria, aparecen en el discurso de Mons. Romero, aunque no dice la palabra “subsidiariedad”.  Esto probablemente obedece a tres explicaciones.  En primer lugar, en la situación salvadoreña, había una carencia de acción estatal en el tema social y quizá lo que hacía falta era más bien que la “comunidad mayor” tomara cartas en el asunto, no necesariamente que dejara de actuar.  En segundo lugar, existía una verdadera incertidumbre sobre la capacitación de los campesinos y otras comunidades (obreros, pobres, etc.) de poder defenderse, y esto imposibilitaba la subsidiariedad como una verdadera opción.  Y en tercer lugar, Mons. Romero no dice subsidiariedad, pero aplica sus conceptos.  Mons. Ricardo Urioste, un cercano colaborador de Romero asevera que, “Monseñor Romero estaba familiarizado con la sistematización de la doctrina social de la Iglesia, incluyendo encíclicas sociales como «Rerum Novarum» del Papa León XIII y «Quadragesimo Anno» del Papa Pío XI”.  (Discurso de Urioste, 2003.)  Por ende, Mons. Romero era conocedor de sus principios, incluyendo el principio de la subsidiariedad.

Mons. Romero salvaguarda el derecho a la auto-determinación: “uno de los signos de los tiempos actuales”—dice—“es este sentido de participación, ese derecho que cada hombre tiene a participar en la construcción de su propio bien común. Por eso, una de las conculcaciones más peligrosas de la hora actual es la represión, es el decir: sólo nosotros podemos gobernar, los otros no, hay que apartarlos”.  (Hom. 10 jul. 1977.)  Si bien cabía el principio de la subsidiariedad en la realidad salvadoreña, era en el sentido que el grupo de poder quería apachar la voluntad y los derechos de la mayoría, imponiendo sólo su propia voluntad.  Pero no era solo ese el peligro, y Mons. Romero llega a advertir de otra posibilidad—la imposición forzada de la voluntad de los grupos de insurrección: si un católico se une a un grupo de liberación, que “no diga que sus compañeros católicos tienen obligación de hacerse como él también miembros de esa organización. ¡De ninguna manera!, ¡eso es libre! Cada uno tiene que llevar fuera de la Iglesia la opción concreta que él quiera en conciencia seguir”.  (Hom. 2 apr. 1978.)  En su última carta pastoral, Mons. Romero advierte contra lo que él llama “la idolatría de la organización”, que toca efectivamente la inquietud de Pío XI en «Quadragesimo Anno»:  “Otro gran peligro de esta idolatría es cuando al subordinar todos los otros intereses del pueblo a sus ideales políticos, se desinteresa de lo que originariamente fue, tal vez, el anhelo de un pobre campesino, de un obrero: mejorar su situación; y se convierte ya en una campaña política que lo puede llevar a trágicas consecuencias”, advierte Mons. Romero.  (Hom. 4 nov. 1979.)

En definitivo, a Mons. Romero le preocupó mucho que, debido a las mismas condiciones de injusticia social que la adolecían, la población salvadoreña podría no ser capaz de llevar adelante sus propios intereses.  “Tiene que proponer la Iglesia, entonces, una educación que haga de los hombres sujetos de su propio desarrollo, protagonistas de la historia”, dice Mons. Romero, “No masa pasiva, conformista, sino hombres que sepan lucir su inteligencia, su creatividad, su voluntad para el servicio común de la patria. Quien tiene que ver que el desarrollo del hombre y de los pueblos es la promoción de cada hombre y de todos los hombres 'de condiciones menos humanas a condiciones más humanas',” (citando a Pío XII).  Mons. Romero deja claro que la meta que él está promoviendo es la misma de la subsidiariedad: la “perspectiva de un desarrollo en el cual él tiene que estar comprometido. No esperar que se lo hagan todo, sino ser él un protagonista, poner su granito de arena en esta transformación de América”.  (Hom. 22 ene. 1978.)  Mons. Romero entiende que a El Salvador le falta mucho para acercarse a esa meta, y por eso presenta una meta intermedia que falta lograr: “Que el niño desde pequeño comprenda que no es un juguete, una masa, que sepa distinguir su gran dignidad personal y que sepa conocer esa gran capacidad que Dios ha puesto en su alma para educar[se],” que significa “sacar de sí mismo todas las potencias, hacerlo artífice de su propio destino, constructor de su propia vocación”, de manera que conozca “el santo orgullo de ser un hijo de Dios creador, que [significa] más que [tener] cosas iguales, sino que en cada hombre realizar un poema distinto de la vida, de la dignidad, del derecho, de la libertad, de la justicia”.  (Hom. 22 jun. 1977.)

Esta insistencia de Mons. Romero de aspirar a la subsidiariedad no se desvanece con el pasar de los años, ni ante el espiral de violencia que se presenta en los últimos días de su arzobispado.  “Los pobres y los jóvenes constituyen la riqueza y la esperanza de la Iglesia en América Latina”, asevera monseñor, entrando a la recta final de su ministerio.  “Jóvenes y pobres van a reconstruir nuestra Patria, confiemos de verdad que así ha de ser si nos disponemos como pueblo pobre y como pueblo joven que lo es en su inmensa mayoría, a que la resurrección del Señor encuentre en esos dos grandes signos de El Salvador, pobres y jóvenes, los elementos capaces de reconstruir”.  (Hom. 17 feb. 1980.)

Robert M. Waldrop, operador del comedor de beneficencia “Oscar Romero” del Movimiento del Trabajador Católico de Kansas City, un escritor de Mons. Romero y la subsidiariedad, resume: “Las enseñanzas de la Iglesia sobre la subsidiariedad nos dicen que hay papeles apropiados para las acciones del gobierno nacional, provincial y local; la sociedad civil; la Iglesia; y la familia”.  La Iglesia predica que “tenemos el derecho—y el deber—de participar en nuestras propias vidas”, explica.  (Entrevista, 2009.)  “No debemos ser tan sólo autómatas sin mente, incapaces o no dispuestos a actuar por nuestra propia cuenta, simplemente esperando pasivamente a que algo nos suceda”, dice.  Este fue precisamente el mensaje de Mons. Romero.

ROMERO INTERNATIONALIS

[Index]

Google Translate
Español | italiano

«ROMERO FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH»

This year’s commemoration of the 33rd anniversary of the martyrdom of Archbishop Óscar Romero on March 24, 1980 had a distinctively international flair:

·         There was an official United Nations observance, punctuated with a statement from U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.  (“Monsignor Romero devoted his life to defending human rights and promoting human dignity,” the Secretary General said.)

·         There was a nationally-televised address by the President of El Salvador calling on Pope Francis and the Church’s top ranking hierarchy to canonize Romero.  (Archbishop Romero had been, “the greatest, the best and the wisest” Salvadoran, the President said.)

·         There was a meeting between Pope Francis and 1980 Nobel Peace Prize recipient Adolfo Pérez Esquivel in which the Pontiff and the Nobel laureate discussed Romero.  (Romero was a shepherd who heeded his people’s voices, the Nobel laureate told the Pope.)

·         There were major commemorations of Romero, including masses, vigils and conferences in San Salvador, Rome, London and Notre Dame University and, for the first time, Harvard University, in the U.S.

While those highlights are impressive and exciting, this is the more so because this was not a 25th or 50th anniversary celebration but, at 33 years since Romero’s assassination, it was in many ways “just another year.”  Yet, this is what the Romero anniversary has become: an international event.  It was, as it is every year, the worldwide Catholic observance of the Day of Prayer and Fasting for the Missionary Martyrs, which was purposefully set on the Romero anniversary day.  March 24 was also the closing day of the First International Meeting of Young Catholics for Social Justice, featuring a keynote address from Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez Maradiaga in Rome.

Romero’s name was “in the air” in significant and noteworthy ways.  Of course, Romero continues to have resonance in the Catholic world.  Some highlights: 

·         Cardinal Sean O’Malley, fresh from the conclave where he attracted significant buzz as a papabile, paid tribute to Romero in his Palm Sunday sermon back in Boston.

·         At the other side of the country, the retiring Archbishop of Portland, John Vlazny, dedicated his farewell address to the faithful to Archbishop Romero.   He prayed that his flock would “be strengthened and renewed in our commitment to embrace the full paschal mystery of suffering, dying and rising again like Archbishop Romero.”

·         In San Francisco, Archbishop Salvatore J. Cordileone celebrated a Mass and recognized Archbishop Romero’s work for justice, asking that his example of valor and love be followed.

·         The Auxiliary Bishop of Rome, Msgr. Matteo Maria Zuppi, told Vatican Radio that Romero’s death helps us remember all the other martyrs; is important for the Year of Faith because Romero’s passion for the poor stemmed from his faith; and highlights the Church in Latin America at a time of a when the Church has its first Latin American pope.

·         In southern Italy, Bishop Francescantonio Nolè invoked Romero’s memory and asked for prayers in his name at a Way of the Cross with Catholic youth.

·         In Argentina, Bishop Carlos Tissera issued a document in which he hoped that the memory of Romero’s martyrdom, “for the people of Latin America” would inspire the faithful to continue on the path they long to be on.

·         In Panama, Archbishop José Domingo Ulloa led the local commemorations.

In his own country, the dominant note in the commemorative activities for Archbishop Romero was the ubiquitous hope that the arrival of Pope Francis would usher in a faster canonization.  The sentiments were expressed by the President of El Salvador, and by the Archbishop of San Salvador, among others.  In one colorful side note, El Salvador’s First Lady audaciously brought up the subject when meeting Pope Francis in a receiving line after his Installation Mass.  She wore a Romero pin, hoping the Pontiff would bite.  He did—he told her that he hoped Romero’s canonization would happen “as soon as possible.”

As usual, Romero’s name also resonated beyond Catholic circles.  For example, the Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzón, the former magistrate of the Audiencia Nacional who issued an international warrant for the arrest of General Augusto Pinochet, issued a statement calling for the investigation and prosecution of Romero’s assassination in El Salvador, and for overturning that country’s amnesty law which has impeded justice with regard to the assassination (no one has ever been tried in El Salvador for the crime).

Romero supporters used to say “San Romero de América” (Saint Romero of the Americas), but that slogan may have to be modified to accommodate a Saint Romero of the world. 

UN HIMNO PARA MONS. ROMERO

[Índice]

Google Translate
English | italiano

El grupo musical “The Project” que sacó la canción “Romero” en su CD del año pasado y difundió un video acompañante por YouTube e Internet ahora ha publicado en su sitio web la partitura con acordes de guitarra y letra de la canción en español.  “Romero”, el homenaje a monseñor, fue el primer sencillo del álbum “Oraciones de los Mártires” del grupo, que rinde homenaje a los mártires antiguos y nuevos de diversas confesiones cristianas presentando oraciones originales de los mártires presentadas en arreglos musicales.

El sencillo “Romero” ha sido recibido de manera positiva, según lo cuenta Duane Arnold, uno de los miembros principales del grupo, que también incluye a Glenn Bell como principal cantante del tema “Romero”.  Arnold asevera que el video “Romero” ha tenido 12.000 vistas en el sitio web del grupo y ha sido publicitado en casi 90 blogs, más dos revistas impresas.  Ha sido bien recibido en el mundo católico, con una nota en el Catholic Register, el periódico católico oficial de Canadá, como también en medios no tradicionales como el podcast del obispo católico Christopher Coyne.  Super Martyrio está informado que al video lo ha visto el arzobispo Vincenzo Paglia, el postulador de la causa de canonización de Mons. Romero; ha sido visto en el Pontificio Colegio Norteamericano de Roma; en el Palacio de Lambeth en Londres por el arzobispo de Canterbury; y supuestamente hasta en el distrito italiano de Castel Gandolfo (donde está la residencia vacacional del papa).

Después del reciente aniversario del asesinato de Mons. Romero, el grupo ha querido avanzar a la promoción de su nuevo sencillo, “Becket”, un tributo al último arzobispo asesinado en el altar, el prelado inglés medieval, Sto. Tomás Becket.  Como un regalo de partida, el grupo ha dejado la música y la letra de “Romero” en español para alentar su uso en celebraciones litúrgicas y otras ocasiones de homenaje a Romero.  “Siempre la consideramos como una canción que la gente debe de cantar junta, especialmente el coro, en una congregación”, dice Arnold.

POPE FRANCIS & ÓSCAR ROMERO

[Index]

Newsflash: Pope greenlights Romero beatification

Google Translate
Español | italiano

«ROMERO FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH»

Pope Francis’ harshest critics on the Left look at his supposed silence during the Argentine “Dirty War” (when the Pope was a young cleric in his late 30s) and dismissively conclude that Bergoglio’s humble symbolism today is nice, but that he’s no Óscar Romero.  I disagree.  As a student and follower of Archbishop Romero, I see in Francis a definitive commitment to aligning the Church with the interests of the poor while maintaining an uncompromised fidelity to Catholic teachings on matters of sexual morality, abortion, marriage, contraception and traditional doctrine.  In short, I see a strong resemblance to Romero.

At this early stage of Francis’ papacy, the similarities in the way the two prelates come on the scene are striking—both make strong first impressions that seem to define their ministries.  In a pre-Conclave profile, the NCR’s John Allen described then-cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio as “basically conservative on many issues,” and representing a compromise choice: he “appeal[s] to conservatives in the College of Cardinals as a man who had held the line against liberalizing currents among the Jesuits, and to moderates as a symbol of the church's commitment to the developing world.”  Similarly, Romero’s succession as Archbishop of San Salvador was as a compromise choice, promoted by conservative business and government interests, but seen as pious and apolitical within the Church.  As was Bergoglio, Romero was a doctrinal conservative.  Both men had vague question marks surrounding their past: in Francis’ case, critics have questioned whether he was sufficiently vocal about human rights abuses during the Argentine “Dirty War” and, in Romero’s case, some have questioned the adequacy of his reaction to military abuses in his previous diocese.

Both Romero and Francis quickly dispel those questions or render them irrelevant by their first actions upon assuming their ministries—actions that are high on symbolism, but send powerful signals about where their commitments lie.   Both Romero and Francis appear to be transformed: Romero is described as changing from “timid and conventional” to “fearless and outspoken.” Francis is said to go from “stiff and reserved on the public stage” to powerfully charismatic: “it’s almost like he’s a different person. He seems ten years younger! It’s as if he’s received a force that he didn’t have before, something almost supernatural.”  Both lead personal lives that are characterized by austerity, humility, and simplicity.  Archbishop Romero moves out of the Archbishop’s residence and moves into a small shack in a Carmelite-run cancer hospital.  As we know, Pope Francis never even moved into the Papal Apartments, preferring to stay in the Vatican guest house where cardinals stayed during the Conclave.  Both men open their ministries with gestures of modesty, and openness.  Archbishop Romero reportedly opened every conversation with clerics he met when he arrived in San Salvador, with the word: “Ayudeme” (“help me”).  Pope Francis has repeatedly asked the faithful, “Pregate per me” (“pray for me”), including during his first appearance at the loggia of St. Peter’s, when he bowed his head in silence after asking the faithful for their prayers. 

Pope Francis declined to wear the shoulder cape (the mozzetta), or even to wear the red shoes of the papacy, and Archbishop Romero would certainly have approved.  When Albino Luciani was elected John Paul I in 1978, Romero lauded the new Pope’s modesty: “the Pope does not want to have this ceremony called a coronation—this is one of his beautiful characteristics,” Romero reported.  “He has broken centuries of tradition so that he can present himself humbly before the world,” he noted approvingly.  “There are many tiaras in the Vatican and there are also many sedia gestatoria but the Pope has said: ‘No! I will not use these. I will enter with the people, walking as a pilgrim on this earth and so we will not call this ceremony a coronation ceremony but rather the celebration of the Mass of the Bishop of the World’.” (September 3, 1978 Homily.)  Romero’s words recall Francis’ words during his first Chrism, warning clerics not to become “collectors of antiques or novelties, instead of being shepherds living with the odor of the sheep.”  (March 28, 2013 Chrismal Mass.)  When Karol Wojtyla ascended the throne of St. Peter as John Paul II later in 1978, Romero applauded the continuing signs of clerical simplicity: “Thanks be to God the modern Popes have renounced the tiara, the long capes and many other pompous customs that created so much vanity and evil among ecclesiastics.” (Nov. 5, 1978 Hom.)

Both Francis and Romero have a flair for the grand gesture, speaking through signs as much as through words.  When the new archbishop, Romero, held a funeral mass for his slain brother in the priesthood, Fr. Rutilio Grande, Romero wanted to show Salvadorans the gravity of losing a priest.  So, he cancelled all masses in the archdiocese, holding a “Single Mass,” in the Cathedral, which was broadcast by radio, where he could preach to the entire archdiocese about what the Church was trying to do and to attempt to unite his flock under his magisterium.   When Francis wanted to preach the world and the Church a lesson about servant leadership and humility, he moved the Holy Thursday Mass from St. Peter’s Basilica to a jail for juveniles, and instead of washing the feet of priests and deacons during the highlight of the ceremony, he washed the feet of twelve inmates in the jail, including Muslims and women.  “Let us never forget,” Pope Francis said during his Inaugural Homily, “that authentic power is service, and that the Pope too, when exercising power, must enter ever more fully into that service.”  Romero certainly would have agreed with that: “When we speak of a hierarchical priesthood we are not speaking about a greater power but a power that is characterized by service,” Romero tells us.  (Apr. 12, 1979 Hom.)

Nowhere does Francis’ seem more like Romero at this early stage of his pontificate than in his pronouncements in favor of the poor.  He has said that he chose the name “Francis,” in honor of St. Francis of Assisi, because of the beloved saint’s association with the poor and the environment.  “How I would like a Church which is poor and for the poor!,” he declared within days of being elected. (March 16, 2013 Audience with Journalists.)  Romero is best recalled as a champion of the poor, who sought to be the voice of the voiceless: “We are never ashamed to say the Church of the poor,” he declares. (Dec. 24, 1978 Hom.)  At the same time, both men have warned against godless pity, emphasizing the need for a charity that is not merely centered on God, but is, in fact, radically centered on the salvific death and resurrection of Christ.  “When we journey without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly: we may be bishops, priests, cardinals, popes, but not disciples of the Lord,” Francis preached to the cardinals who elected him: “When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil.”  (March 14, 2003 Papal Mass.)  Romero issues a similar warning: “Those who do not carry the Cross and want to eliminate the Cross will fall into the temptations of the devil.”  Instead, Christians should “Cling to and lovingly embrace the Cross: that is God’s plan,” Romero admonishes (Feb. 24, 1980 Hom.)

Tellingly—and, perhaps, inevitably—both Romero and Francis ruffle some feathers, inviting a furious response in some quarters.  Many of the reactions are personal and petty.  Some traditionalists have accused Pope Francis of personal vanity, saying that he has made these gestures for personal aggrandizement.  Similarly, some clerics accused Romero of defending the poor because it won him praise and flattery from progressives.  Both men have been targeted for vicious campaigns of rumor and innuendo by partisans seeking to misinterpret and sow confusion about the intended message.  Shortly after Francis’ election, “urban myths” appeared regarding alleged disrespect and rudeness by the new Pope toward established rituals and those promoting their practice.  In Romero’s case, there have been attempts to alienate Romero from the Church by exaggerating conflicts with John Paul II.  Indeed, detractors have not stopped at personal critiques, going further to question the orthodoxy of both men.  Romero’s critics went much further than Francis’ detractors have gone so far, but the fact that people are willing to go as far as to question the Pope should shed a lot of light on how Romero has been treated, and put the criticisms in perspective.

Yes, Francis is like Romero.  But not because he is some radical who will destroy the Church’s precious, cherished traditions.  Instead, Pope Francis is like Archbishop Romero because he is seeking to pull back some of the garish trimmings that conceal the full radiant majesty of the Church’s treasure.

See also:

Romero and the Popes (Spanish language index of bilingual posts in English and Spanish)
Romero and Catholicism's Mavericks (Spanish language index of bilingual posts in English and Spanish)

EL POSTULADOR

[Índice]

Google Translate

English | italiano

El vaticanista John Allen ha entrevistado al Arzobispo Vincenzo Paglia, postulador de la causa de canonización de Mons. Romero.  “Paglia cree que el impulso hacia la beatificación de Romero puede estar tomando fuerza”, reporta Allen, “especialmente dado que un "mártir de la mafia" será beatificado en mayo”.

Según el informe publicado en el National Catholic Reporter, la entrevista con Paglia se llevó a cabo entre el 9 de febrero y el 21 de marzo—y no se sabe si la parte de la entrevista sobre Mons. Romero se dio antes o después de la elección del Papa Francisco, pero parece no tomar en cuenta algunas declaraciones a favor que se atribuyen al pontífice.  El enfoque de la entrevista es el trabajo de Paglia como Presidente del Pontificio Consejo para las Familias, que ha desempeñado desde el junio pasado.  Allen cuestiona si Paglia continuará sirviendo como el postulador de la causa de canonización de Mons. Romero, a la luz de sus nuevas responsabilidades y Paglia responde de manera inequívoca: “Sin duda, y con gran entusiasmo”.

Finalmente, Allen pregunta sobre el estado de la causa.  “Creo que la beatificación del Padre Puglisi como un 'mártir de la mafia' abre algunas líneas interesantes de reflexión”, dice el arzobispo.  Esto es una aparente referencia a una posibilidad de desestancar el debate adentro de la Iglesia sobre el martirio de Mons. Romero, si existen motivos ulteriores (políticos) para su asesinato que no son estrictamente en odio de la fe.  Lo mismo se podría decir sobre el asesinato del P. Giuseppe "Pino" Puglisi, un sacerdote anti-mafia en Sicilia, asesinado en 1993 por motivos que se pueden fácilmente argumentar fueron ajenos al odio de la fe (en ese caso, razones del crimen organizado), sin embargo el sacerdote está ya en agenda para ser beatificado el 25 de mayo.  Esto puede dar a entender que la Iglesia no debe ser tan estricta al interpretar la doctrina del martirio y el requisito odio de la fe.

El postulador confirma que de eso se trata cuando sigue diciendo, “Juan Pablo II dijo una vez: "Romero es de la Iglesia". Romero es un ejemplo de un pastor que dio su vida por los demás. Más allá de los problemas canónicos en términos de si su muerte fue directamente in odium fidei ["odio a la fe"], Romero sigue siendo un punto de referencia para millones y millones de personas, creyentes y no creyentes por igual”.   Esta declaración de Paglia deja entender que “los problemas canónicos en términos de si su muerte fue directamente in odium fidei” siguen siendo un tema de debate dentro del proceso de la Iglesia, así como lo indicó el entonces Prefecto de la Congregación para las Causas de los Santos, el Card. José Saraiva Martins en octubre del 2005. 

Concluye Paglia, insistiendo en la universalidad de Romero como referente: “Me conmovió, e hizo una profunda impresión en mí, cuando un presidente de los Estados Unidos, en este caso Obama, se puso delante de la tumba de Oscar Romero, hizo la seña de la cruz y se inclinó. Hizo bien, porque ese simbolismo era más poderoso que cualquier discurso”.

ROMERO AND THE EXTREME LEFT

[Index]

Google Translate
Español | italiano

The respected Romero writer, Roberto Valencia, author of the book “Hablan de Monseñor Romero” [Speaking of Archbishop Romero] has posted about an anonymous manuscript given to the Romero Foundation in which a self-claimed former guerrilla alleges that his old insurgency outfit carried out the Romero assassination.  Valencia concludes that, although he remains convinced that Romero was killed by the ultra-right at the direction of Roberto D’Aubuisson (the universally accepted view), the “manuscript feeds my suspicion that D’Aubuisson and his followers may not have been the only ones planning the murder of Archbishop Romero at the time.”

The manuscript in question is a two-page, hand-written note which begins, “Let’s tell the people of El Salvador and the world over the truth about who murdered Archbishop Romero.”  The note goes on to matter-of-factly describe a conversation supposedly overheard by the anonymous writer, while he was a member of the People’s Revolutionary Army (ERP, for its Spanish name) on Monday, March 24, 1980—the date Romero was killed.  The writer claims that at 2 p.m. that day, he was at a meeting in a San Salvador neighborhood, in which a Nicaraguan urban combat specialist called Fran[k] and his Salvadoran brother-in-arms named Willia[m] discussed the Romero assassination.  What they discussed is not made explicitly clear, but the note alleges that the ERP were the real killers of Archbishop Romero: “Members of the ERP or People's Revolutionary Army, using a commando from Nicaragua, murdered [Romero] solely and exclusively to arouse the populace so that they would take up arms, because days before his death they circulated the order that the time for taking up arms was near.”

The thought that the extreme Left would kill Romero to instigate an uprising is not implausible.  Romero himself considered as much in his diary on Monday, November 5, 1979, when he writes about receiving word of a death-threat against him, presumably from the ERP, the most radical of the various guerrilla groups at the time.  “I received a letter from the [papal] Nuncio to Costa Rica, brought here by a Salesian nun, in which [the Nuncio] confidentially communicates that the Vatican Secretariat of State has begged him to warn me that they have received—from a trustworthy source—news of a threat against my life from the extreme Left,” Romero writes.  “This possible threat,” he continues, “which could have some grounding in reality, seeks to create problems for the new ruling junta and sow confusion among the populace.”  Thus, the new manuscript, if it proves to be authentic, may not contain much that is new, as there was already evidence that the ERP considered assassinating Romero to ignite an uprising.

Additionally, the manuscript does not provide very much detail or verifiable background information to establish its authenticity.  With respect to the overheard conversation, the anonymous writer states that “William” asked who would be blamed for the assassination and that “Frank” responded with the name of “Roberto,” who we are to assume is a reference to Roberto D’Aubuisson, the paramilitary death squad leader from the extreme right.  The purported exchange raises multiple questionsk including: whether extreme-leftists would be referring to D’Aubuisson by first name—or whether “Roberto” is a reference to D’Aubuisson, at all (Roberto is a very popular Spanish name); whether it is feasible that the Romero assassination was hatched by “Frank” and “William” late in the afternoon of the day on which it took place; whether “Frank” and “William” acted alone; if not, who else was involved; who the shooter was; who owned the infamous red VW seen by the witnesses, etc.  In short, there are no operational details revealed in the manuscript that attribute specific responsibility to the Left or—more importantly—that clear specific individual members of the D’Aubuisson gang of such responsibility where other investigations have assigned it to them.  For example, other investigations have accounted for who drove the getaway car, who purchased the weapons, who paid the shooter, etc.  Here, we have nothing to offset that specific information with.

The anonymous note does provide a number of details that are intended to give assurance of authenticity, but they tend to either be common knowledge that does not show information only the real killers would know, or in other cases the information in the manuscript is simply to vague to verify.  For example, the manuscript states that “Frank” (the Nicaraguan urban combat expert) has a cousin nicknamed “El Chocho,” who was in command of the Salvadoran town of Perquín for a long time.  That description appears to refer to Rolando Cáceres who had that nickname, fits the description during the war as Perquín commander for the rebels, and is Nicaraguan, to boot.  But, the information is common knowledge, as Cáceres runs a famous guerrilla exhibit called the Museum of the Revolution, which attracts many tourists and visitors to Perquín.  (Though it would be interesting to ask Cáceres if he had a cousin named “Frank” who came to El Salvador to give urban combat training, and whether he ever heard “Frank” talk about killing Romero.)  Other verifying details are almost useless: the manuscript says that “Frank” died in combat in the province of Usulután, that “William” had a brother who died in combat in the town of Zacamil; and that “William” eventually fell in Usulután, also.  Given that “Frank” and “William” are likely nicknames, such vague references would be difficult to verify, and even if they were confirmed, they would simply establish that such people existed—not that they were involved in the alleged plot.

Finally, a number of prior accusations that the Left was behind Romero’s murder have turned out to be frauds—usually sponsored by the Right, which seeks to rehabilitate D’Aubuisson.  For example, in the mid-80s, there were sensational hoaxes designed to shift blame across the political spectrum, including a faked videotape confession by Adalberto Salazar, who it was later shown was behind bars at the time of the assassination, and was apparently coerced to make his video-taped confession by unnamed people in the military-police apparatus.  The tape was widely discredited.  Similarly, the anti-Romero Salvadoran cleric, Msgr. Freddy Delgado, also conjectured (without even the pretense of having any proof of it!) that Romero had been assassinated by the Left because they were angry that he was beginning to heed Vatican admonitions to distance himself from them.  Accordingly, we must take all earth-shaking revelations in this area with a healthy grain of salt.

In its ambivalent plausibility, the anonymous manuscript is a useful reminder that Romero was targeted for assassination by both the Left and the Right; and that it has only been in the subsequent years that the idea of Romero as a darling of the Left and the bane of the Right has become an idée fixe in the public imagination.

The Anonymous Manuscript.  Roberto Valencia Photo.