Óscar Romero statue unveiled in L.A.

[Index]

 

Español | Italiano

Los Angeles Archbishop José H. Gómez and L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti were among the dignitaries on hand for the unveiling of a statue of the slain Archbishop Óscar A. Romero of El Salvador in L.A.’s McCarthur Park on Saturday, November 23, 2013.  “I’m blessing a new memorial to the great martyr, Archbishop Óscar Romero,” Gómez had tweeted to 10,000 followers before the ceremony.  In the culminating moment of the unveiling, which featured speeches from local pols, Archbishop Gómez sprinkled holy water on the two meter bronze statue of a praying Romero before a large Saturday morning crowd (photo).  Mayor Garcetti told the crowd, “This is more than a monument of a man.  This is a monument that salutes courage.”

Gómez said in a statement that “Archbishop Romero filled the hearts of Salvadorans with faith and strength.  He reminded us that real peace is based on justice.  More than 30 years later, his testimony inspires all of us to build a better world, a world that promotes human dignity and the common good for the human family.”  As the leader of the most populous diocese in the United States, Archbishop Gómez is a leading figure of the U.S. Church and the most prominent Latino in the U.S. hierarchy.  He was ordained as a priest in Opus Dei.

Carlos Vaquerano, a leader of the local Salvadoran community responsible for erecting the monument told the Spanish language newspaper La Opinión that Archbishop Romero’s beatification process “exemplifies his work.  He was a man of faith, he was not a politician,” said Vaquerano.

 

Archbishop Romero is also being memorialized in his native country, where Salvadoran President Mauricio Funes announced that he will rename the state room in the presidential manor to honor Romero.  The designation would be the latest in a string of honors for Romero launched by the Funes government, the most prominent of which have been the naming of a central highway artery after Romero, the creation of a “Romero tour,” and the dedication of a mural of Romero at the international airport.

There are also efforts underway to erect a Romero statue in a park in Rome.

 

 

Estatua de Mons. Romero en Los Ángeles

[Índice]

 

English | Italiano

El arzobispo de Los Ángeles José H. Gómez y el alcalde Eric Garcetti estaban entre los dignatarios presentes para la inauguración de una estatua del asesinado arzobispo Óscar A. Romero de El Salvador en el Parque McCarthur de Los Ángeles el sábado 23 de noviembre del 2013. “Estoy bendiciendo un nuevo monumento al gran mártir, Mons. Óscar Romero”,  había twitteado Gómez a sus 10.000 seguidores antes de la ceremonia. En el momento culminante de la inauguración, que contó con discursos de políticos locales, el Arzobispo Gómez roció agua bendita sobre la estatua de bronce de dos metros de altura, de Romero rezando ante una gran multitud la mañana del sábado (foto). El alcalde Garcetti dijo a la multitud: “Esto es más que un monumento de un hombre. Este es un monumento que rinde homenaje a la valentía”.

Gómez dijo en un comunicado que “Monseñor Romero llenó los corazones del pueblo salvadoreño con esperanza y fortaleza.  Él nos recordó que la verdadera paz está basada en la justicia. Más de 30 años después, su testimonio nos inspira a todos nosotros a construir un mundo mejor, un mundo que promueva la dignidad humana y el bien común de la familia humana”.  Como líder de la diócesis más numerosa de los Estados Unidos, el arzobispo Gómez es una figura destacada de la Iglesia de EE.UU. y el más prominente hispano en la jerarquía norteamericana. Fue ordenado como sacerdote en el Opus Dei.

Carlos Vaquerano, un líder de la comunidad salvadoreña local responsable de erigir el monumento dijo al diario en lengua española La Opinión que proceso de beatificación de monseñor Romero “ejemplifica lo que él ha hecho. Él fue un hombre de fe, no fue un político”, dijo Vaquerano.

 

Monseñor Romero también está siendo conmemorado en su país natal, donde el presidente salvadoreño Mauricio Funes anunció que va a cambiar el nombre del salón de honor en la mansión presidencial en honor a Romero. La designación sería la última en una serie de honores para Romero lanzados por el gobierno de Funes, los más prominentes de los cuales han sido el nombramiento de una arteria de tránsito en honor a Romero, la creación de un “City Tour Romero”, y la dedicación de un mural de Romero en el aeropuerto internacional.

También hay esfuerzos en marcha para erigir una estatua de Mons. Romero en un parque de Roma.

 

Statua di Mons. Romero a Los Angeles, California

[Indice (inglese)]

 

English | Español

L’arcivescovo di Los Angeles Mons. José H. Gómez e il sindaco Eric Garcetti sono stati tra i dignitari presenti per l’inaugurazione di una statua degli uccisi Mons. Oscar A. Romero di El Salvador in McCarthur Park di Los Angeles il Sabato, 23 Novembre 2013. “Io benedirò un nuovo monumento al grande martire, monsignor Óscar Romero”, aveva twittato Gómez a suoi 10.000 follower prima della cerimonia. Nel momento culminante della inaugurazione che ha stato caratterizzata di discorsi da politici locali, l’arcivescovo Gómez spruzzato acqua santa sulla statua di bronzo di due metro di Romero in preghiera davanti a una grande folla Sabato mattina. Il sindaco Garcetti ha detto alla folla: “Questo è più di un monumento di un uomo. Si tratta di un monumento che saluta il coraggio”.

Mons. Gómez ha detto in una dichiarazione che “Mons. Romero ha riempito i cuori di salvadoregni con la fede e la forza. Ci ha ricordato che la vera pace si fonda sulla giustizia. Più di 30 anni dopo, la sua testimonianza ispira tutti noi per costruire un mondo migliore, un mondo che promuove la dignità umana e il bene comune della famiglia umana”.  Come leader della diocesi più popolosa degli Stati Uniti, l’arcivescovo Gómez è una figura di spicco della Chiesa degli Stati Uniti e il più importante Latino Americano nella gerarchia USA. E ‘stato ordinato sacerdote dell’Opus Dei.

Carlos Vaquerano, un leader della comunità salvadoregna locale competente per erigere il monumento ha detto al quotidiano in lingua spagnola La Opinión quel processo di beatificazione di Mons. Romero “esemplifica il suo lavoro. Era un uomo di fede, non era un politico”, ha detto Vaquerano.

 

Mons. Romero viene anche commemorato nel suo paese natale, dove il presidente salvadoregno Mauricio Funes ha annunciato che rinominara la stanza dello Stato nel maniero presidenziale per onorare Romero. La designazione sarebbe l’ ultima di una serie di riconoscimenti per Romero lanciati dal governo Funes, i più importante dei quali sono stati la intitolazione di una strada principale in nome di Romero, la creazione di un “City Tour Romero”, e la dedicazione di un murale di Romero presso l’aeroporto internazionale.

Ci sono anche gli sforzi in corso per erigere una statua di Mons. Romero in un parco di Roma.

 

Clear path for Archbishop Romero at the CCS

[Index]
 

Español | italiano

The cleric who heads the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (“CCS”)—the Catholic Church’s authority in charge of recognizing new saints—has reportedly said that nothing now stands in the way of the beatification of Archbishop Óscar A. Romero of El Salvador.  That statement was attributed to Card. Angelo Amato, the Prefect of the CCS (pictured), by another top cleric, Card. Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, the Archbishop of Tegucigalpa, who heads the global council of eight cardinals advising Pope Francis on reforms for the Church.  Card. Rodríguez was in Verona, leading an Italian seminar on the social doctrine of the Church when he told journalists: “I asked Cardinal Amato … if there are obstacles for the beatification of Archbishop Romero and he told me no,” according to an Italian press report.  “I maintain therefore that this process must go forward,” the Cardinal reportedly added.

The news is important for three reasons.  First, it is the first and highest-sourced indication of a favorable outlook at the CCS.  Earlier, in April of this year, it was widely reported that the new pope was eager to get the process moving and had lifted a hold order imposed at an unspecified earlier time.  Later, in July, it was reported that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in charge of safeguarding Catholic orthodoxy, had signed off on proceeding to beatify Romero.  The suggestion that the CCS, too, has given a green light is new, but it does not tell us how close we are to the end.  For example, to say that there are “no obstacles” is not to say that there are no procedural “hurdles” or formal steps that still need to be taken—most significantly, the review and approval of commissions of cardinals and theologians, who would then send Pope Francis a decree recognizing Romero’s martyrdom, for the Pope to sign.

Second, Card. Rodríguez’s statement is very revealing about the inner workings of the Roman curia in handling the canonization cause.  The fact that Card. Rodríguez, who is sometimes referred to as the “Vice-Pope” because of his role on the reform council, has asked the Prefect of the CCS for a status report suggests a push to keep the process moving forward.  It would be hard to conceive that such an inquiry would be brushed aside by the CCS, given Card. Rodríguez’s known closeness to his fellow Latin American, Pope Francis, and given Card. Rodríguez’s status as a moral voice on social justice and as a representative of Latin America (Card. Rodríguez’s country, Honduras, is next door to Archbishop Romero’s El Salvador; and Rodríguez met Romero and is an avowed Romero devotee).

Finally, Card. Rodríguez’s focus on the lack of “obstacles” signals that, even in the absence of an actual beatification announcement, the faithful should have confidence that beatification is on the horizon.  The lack of an announcement so far may be related to politics.  According to Msgr. Jesús Delgado, a senior Salvadoran cleric who was close to Romero, it could be unwise for the Church to act before the February 2, 2014 presidential elections in El Salvador (the outcome may not be determined until a runoff, which would take place on March 9).  Holding off till after the elections would not be unprecedented: the Church did the same with respect to the beatification of Cristero martyr Miguel Pro, waiting until after presidential elections in Mexico in 1987, even though that year was the 60th anniversary of Pro’s martyrdom.  The “no obstacles” announcement may give the Salvadoran political system an early warning of what is to come.

Paso seguro para Monseñor Romero en la CCS

[Índice]

 

 

English | italiano

El clérigo que dirige la Congregación para las Causas de los Santos (“CCS”)—la autoridad de la Iglesia Católica a cargo de reconocer nuevos santos—habría dicho que ya nada obstruye el camino a la beatificación de Mons. Óscar A. Romero de El Salvador. Esa declaración fue atribuida al Cardenal Angelo Amato, Prefecto de la CCS (en la foto), por otro gran clérigo, el Card. Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga, arzobispo de Tegucigalpa, que dirige el consejo mundial de ocho cardenales que asesoran al Papa Francisco sobre la reforma de la Iglesia. El Card. Rodríguez estaba en Verona, presentando un seminario italiano sobre la doctrina social de la Iglesia cuando comentó ante los periodistas que “Le pregunté al Cardenal Amato... si hay obstáculos para la beatificación de Mons. Romero y él me dijo que no”, de acuerdo con un informe de la prensa italiana.  “Así pues, sostengo que este proceso debe seguir adelante”, agregó el Cardenal según los informes.

La noticia es importante por tres razones. En primer lugar, es la primera y más alta en su origen—en indicar perspectivas favorables en la CCS. Anteriormente, en abril de este año, se informó ampliamente que el nuevo Papa estaba ansioso por estimular el proceso y levantó una orden de retención impuesta en un momento anterior no especificado. Después, en julio, se informó de que la Congregación para la Doctrina de la Fe, encargada de velar por la ortodoxia católica, había dado el visto bueno a reanudar la beatificación de Romero. La noticia de que la CCS, también, ha dado su luz verde es nueva, pero no nos dice qué tan cerca estamos del fin. Por ejemplo, decir que no hay “obstáculos” no es lo mismo que decir que no hay “baches” o “barreras” de procedimiento: pasos formales que aún deben tomarse—lo más importante, sería la revisión y aprobación de las comisiones de cardenales y teólogos, que enviarían un decreto al Papa Francisco, reconociendo el martirio de Romero, para que el papa lo firme.

En segundo lugar, la declaración del Card. Rodríguez es muy reveladora sobre el funcionamiento interno de la curia romana en el manejo de la causa de canonización. El hecho de que el Card. Rodríguez, a quien a veces se refiere como el “vice-Papa” debido a su papel en el consejo de reforma, haya pedido al Prefecto de la CCS un informe de situación parece un impulso para mantener el proceso en marcha. Sería difícil concebir que tal interrogatoria sería dejada de lado por la CCS, dado la conocida cercanía del Card. Rodríguez con su compañero latinoamericano, el Papa Francisco, y el imponente perfil del Card. Rodríguez como una voz moral sobre la justicia social, y como representante de América Latina (el país del Card. Rodríguez, Honduras, está al lado del país de Mons. Romero, El Salvador; y Rodríguez conoció a Romero y es un devoto confeso de Monseñor).

Por último, el enfoque del Card. Rodríguez sobre la falta de “obstáculos” señala que, a pesar de no haber un anuncio de beatificación, los fieles deben tener confianza de que ya viene la beatificación. La falta de un anuncio hasta ahora puede estar relacionado con la política. Según Mons. Jesús Delgado, un clérigo salvadoreño de alto rango cercano a Romero, podría ser imprudente que la Iglesia actúe antes de las elecciones presidenciales del 2 de febrero de 2014 en El Salvador (cuyo resultado podría no quedar determinado hasta una segunda vuelta, el 9 de marzo). Esperar hasta después de las elecciones no vendría sin precedentes: la Iglesia hizo lo mismo con respecto a la beatificación del mártir cristero Miguel Pro, esperando hasta después de las elecciones presidenciales de México en 1987, a pesar de que ese año era el 60° aniversario del martirio de Pro. El anuncio de “ningún obstáculo” podría estar dando una alerta temprana al sistema político salvadoreño de lo que está por venir.

Passaggio sicuro per Mons. Romero alla CCS

[Indice (inglese)]

 

English | español

Il chierico che dirige la Congregazione per le Cause dei Santi (“CCS”), l’autorità della Chiesa cattolica incaricata di riconoscere nuovi santi—ha detto che nulla si trova ora nel percorso di beatificazione di Mons. Oscar A. Romero di El Salvador. Tale dichiarazione è stata attribuita al card. Angelo Amato (foto), Prefetto della CCS, da un altro grande chierico, card. Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga, arcivescovo di Tegucigalpa, che dirige il Global Council of otto cardinali consulenza Papa Francesco sulle riforme per la Chiesa. Scheda. Rodriguez è stato a Verona, presentando un seminario sulla dottrina sociale della Chiesa, quando ha detto ai giornalisti: “Ho chiesto al cardinale Amato ... se ci sono ostacoli per la beatificazione dell'arcivescovo Romero e questi mi ha detto di no”, secondo un articolo di notizie italiano. “Ritengo pertanto che si deve continuare con questo progetto”, ha concluso il Cardinale.

La notizia è importante per tre ragioni. In primo luogo, è la prima indicazione e quella di più alta source su prospettive favorevoli nella CCS. In precedenza, nel mese di aprile dell’anno, è stato ampiamente riportato che il nuovo papa era desideroso di ottenere lo spostamento del processo e aveva sollevato un ordine di attesa imposto in un momento precedente non specificato. Dopo, nel mese di luglio, è stato riferito che la Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, incaricata di salvaguardare l’ortodossia cattolica, aveva accettato di procedere alla beatificazione. La notizia che la CCS, troppo, ha dato una luce verde è nuova, ma non ci dice quanto siamo vicini alla fine. Ad esempio, per dire che non ci sono “ostacoli” non vuol dire che non ci sono “posti di controllo” procedurali o passaggi formali che devono ancora essere prese, più significativo di questi, l’esame e l’approvazione delle commissioni di cardinali e teologi, che avrebbe quindi inviare Papa Francesco, un decreto che riconosce il martirio di Romero, per il Papa di firmare.

In secondo luogo, L’affermazione del card. Rodriguez è molto rivelatrice sul funzionamento interno della curia romana nella gestione della causa di canonizzazione. Il fatto che il card. Rodriguez, che a volte viene indicato come il “vice Papa” a causa del suo ruolo nel consiglio di riforma, ha chiesto al Prefetto del CCS per un rapporto sullo stato suggerisce una spinta per portare il processo avanti. Sarebbe difficile immaginare che una tale richiesta sarebbe stata messa da parte dai CCS, dato la vicinanza del card.Rodriguez al suo compagno latino-americano, Papa Francesco, e dato il profilo del card. Rodriguez come una voce morale sulla giustizia sociale e come rappresentante dell’America Latina (paese del Card. Rodriguez, Honduras, è accanto al paese di Mons. Romero, El Salvador; Rodriguez ha incontrato Romero ed è un noto discepolo di Romero).

Infine, l’attenzione del card. Rodriguez sulla mancanza di “ostacoli” indica che, anche in assenza di un annuncio di beatificazione, i fedeli devono avere fiducia che la beatificazione è all’orizzonte. La mancanza di un annuncio finora può essere correlato alla politica. Secondo mons. Jesús Delgado, un chierico salvadoregno che era vicino a Romero, potrebbe essere imprudente per la Chiesa di agire prima delli elezioni presidenziali in El Salvador nel 2 febbraio 2014 (l’esito non può essere determinato fino al ballottaggio, che si terrà il 9 marzo). Una attesa fino a dopo le elezioni non sarebbe senza precedenti: la Chiesa ha fatto lo stesso per quanto riguarda la beatificazione del martire cristero Miguel Pro, attesa fino a dopo le elezioni presidenziali in Messico nel 1987, anche se questo anno è stato il 60 ° anniversario del martirio di Pro. L’annuncio sul “non ostacoli” può dare al sistema politico salvadoregno un avvertimento di quello che verrà.

Targeting the Faith

[Index]

 

«ROMERO FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH»  

Español | italiano

If you knew nothing about the assassination of Archbishop Óscar A. Romero of El Salvador, you should know this: it was done by someone who hated the Faith.  At the conclusion of this Year of Faith, at a time when threats to the Faith have become more subtle and purposefully evasive, Romero’s assassination three decades ago offers us insights on how to unmask modern persecution of the faith.  Although designed to elude definition as outward contempt toward Christianity or Catholicism, Romero’s assassination reflects hatred toward three important aspects of the Christian faith: (i) our love of the poor, (ii) the sanctity of the liturgy, and (iii) the Kingship of Christ.

Disdain for Romero’s love of the poor.  Perhaps the easiest hatred to recognize is the fact that Romero’s killers hated his work in defense of the poor.  Sometimes, we forget that odium fidei—a canonical requirement for martyrdom—can be hatred of the faith or for one particular virtue (for example, social justice).  Christian regard for the poor is no small consideration.  Pope Benedict said that the Church sees Christ reflected in the poor, “and she constantly hears echoing in her heart the command of the Prince of Peace to his Apostles: «Vos date illis manducare» – "Give them something to eat yourselves" (Lk 9:13).”  This “command” from Christ is not optional, but obligatory.  Therefore, violence against the Church’s work of charity and social justice presents us with a shocking and appalling example of hatred of the faith.

Contempt for the altar and the liturgy.  Less obvious, but more easily recognizable after the teachings of Pope Benedict XVI about the dignity and sacredness of the liturgy, Romero’s assassination at the altar is an abomination of the celebration of the Mass.  To a believer, it is Christ who is present at the altar: not just metaphorically, not just symbolically, but “really, truly, and substantially present.”  Tellingly, the type of ritual abuse inherent in Romero’s assassination had become commonplace during the persecution of the Salvadoran church: altars were defiled, Church facades were shot up with bullets, and in one particular town the tabernacle containing the consecrated communion hosts was hacked open with machete strikes.  The choice to assassinate the archbishop in the act of celebrating Mass is terribly revealing about his killers motives, and similar reports of ritual abuse today (for example, news about the desecration of altars in places where Christians are persecuted) should give us pause.

Scorn for the Kingship of Christ.  Most analysts have concluded that Archbishop Romero was killed on Monday, March 24, 1980 because the previous day, Sunday, March 23, he gave a sermon in which he called on Salvadoran soldiers to disobey any order to kill innocent civilians.  Under a cynical legalism, such a call by Romero was viewed as an act of insubordination, a challenge to military order and the chain of command.  But under Romero’s criteria—and ours—it was the soldiers who had inverted the order of principles and Romero was only setting things right.  The Feast of Christ the King this Sunday teaches us the primacy of Christ’s law, and of his kingship over any temporal, worldly, political considerations.  Romero’s killers could not handle that truth, and their violent reaction to his asserting the Kingship of Christ reflects their contempt for the faith.

For thirty three years, the Church has proceeded cautiously in any beatification of Archbishop Romero because his killers were presumably fellow Christians and because their motives likely included political motives, as well (in his defense of the poor, he challenged the political status quo).  The Church always proceeds judiciously in these matters.  But we ought not to mistake prudence for doubt.  There is no doubt that Romero was killed in hatred of the faith.  It is therefore providential that Pope Francis ordered that Romero’s cause be allowed to proceed as one of his first acts after becoming Pope during this Year of the Faith.  In addition to the positive examples posited by the Church about the Faith, we can also learn from this example by contrast, of those who act in hatred of the Faith.

La fe en el blanco

[Índice]

 

 

«ROMERO PARA EL AÑO DE LA FE»

English | italiano

Si no sabía nada sobre el asesinato de Monseñor Oscar A. Romero de El Salvador, aún sabría esto: fue hecho por alguien que odiaba la fe. A la conclusión de este Año de la Fe, en un momento en que las amenazas a la fe se han vuelto más sutiles y evasivas por diseño, el asesinato de Romero hace tres décadas nos presenta conceptos para poder desenmascarar la persecución moderna de la fe. Aunque estuvo diseñado para eludir ser definido como desprecio abierto, hacia el cristianismo o el catolicismo, el asesinato de Mons. Romero exhibe odio hacia tres aspectos importantes de la fe cristiana: (i) el amor a los pobres, (ii) el carácter sagrado de la liturgia, y (iii) la Realeza de Cristo.

El desprecio por el amor a los pobres de Romero. Tal vez el odio más fácil de reconocer es el hecho de que los asesinos de Romero odiaban su trabajo en defensa de los pobres. A veces, nos olvidamos de que el odium fidei—un requisito canónico para el martirio—puede ser odio a la fe o por una virtud particular (por ejemplo, la justicia social). La aptitud de un cristiano hacia los pobres no es cualquier cosa. El Papa Benedicto XVI dijo que la Iglesia ve a Cristo reflejado en los pobres “sintiendo cómo resuena en su corazón el mandato del Príncipe de la paz a los Apóstoles: «Vos date illis manducare» – "dadles vosotros de comer" (Lc 9,13)”.  Este “mandato” de Cristo es obligatorio, no opcional. Por lo tanto, la violencia contra la obra de la Iglesia en la caridad y la justicia social nos presenta un ejemplo chocante y terrible del odio a la fe.

Desprecio al altar y la liturgia. Menos obvio, pero más fácil de reconocer después de las enseñanzas del Papa Benedicto XVI sobre la dignidad y el carácter sagrado de la liturgia, el asesinato de Mons. Romero en el altar es una abominación en contra la celebración de la Misa. Para un creyente, es Cristo quien está presente en el altar, no sólo metafóricamente, no sólo simbólicamente, sino que “verdaderamente, realmente, y substancialmente presente”. Es revelador que el tipo de abuso ritual visto en el asesinato de Romero se había convertido en algo común durante la persecución de la iglesia salvadoreña: altares profanados, fachadas de iglesias acribilladas a balas, y en una ciudad particular el tabernáculo que contenía las hostias consagradas fue abierto a machetazos. La decisión de asesinar al arzobispo en el acto de la celebración de la Misa es muy reveladora sobre los motivos de sus asesinos, y reportes similares de abusos rituales en la actualidad (por ejemplo, noticias sobre la profanación de altares en lugares donde los cristianos son perseguidos) nos debe hacer reflexionar.

Desprecio por la Realeza de Cristo. La mayoría de los analistas han concluido que Mons. Romero fue asesinado el lunes, 24 de marzo de 1980 porque el día anterior, el domingo, 23 de marzo, pronunció un sermón en el que pidió a los soldados salvadoreños a desobedecer cualquier orden de matar a civiles inocentes. A base de un legalismo cínico, este llamado de Romero estuvo considerado como un acto ilegal de insubordinación, un desafío a la orden militar y a la cadena de mando. Sin embargo, bajo los criterios de Romero—y los nuestros—eran los soldados los que habían invertido el orden de las cosas y Romero sólo estaba poniendo bien las cosas. La fiesta de Cristo Rey de este domingo nos enseña la primacía de la ley de Cristo y de su reino sobre las consideraciones políticas, temporales, y mundanas. Los asesinos de Romero no podían aceptar esa verdad, y su reacción violenta a la afirmación de la Realeza de Cristo por parte de Mons. Romero, es un acto de desprecio por la fe.

Durante treinta tres años, la Iglesia ha procedido con cautela en una beatificación de monseñor Romero ya que sus asesinos eran supuestamente cristianos y porque sus motivos probables incluyeron motivos de carácter político (ya que, en su defensa de los pobres, desafió el status quo). La Iglesia siempre procede con prudencia en estos asuntos. Pero no debemos confundir la reserva por duda. No hay duda de que Romero fue asesinado por odio a la fe. Por tanto, es providencial que el Papa Francisco haya ordenado que la causa de Romero se deje avanzar como uno de sus primeros actos después de llegar a ser Papa en este Año de la Fe. Además de los ejemplos positivos planteados por la Iglesia sobre la fe, también podemos aprender de este ejemplo, al sentido contrario, de los que actúan por odio a la fe. 

Targeting della Fede

[Indice (inglese)]

 

«ROMERO PER L'ANNO DELLA FEDE (in inglese)»

English | español

Se non sapete nulla dell’assassinio di Mons. Oscar A. Romero di El Salvador, si dovrebbe sapere questo: è stato fatto da qualcuno che odiava la Fede. A conclusione di questo Anno della Fede, in un momento in cui le minacce alla fede sono diventati più sottili e volutamente evasive, l’assassinio di Romero trent’anni fa ci offre spunti su come smascherare la persecuzione moderna della fede. Anche se ha stato disegnato per evitare di essere definito come disprezzo aperto verso il cristianesimo o il cattolicesimo, l’assassinio di Romero riflette odio verso tre aspetti importanti della fede cristiana: (i) il nostro amore per i poveri, (ii) la sacralità della liturgia, e (iii) la regalità di Cristo.

Disprezzo per amore di Romero dei poveri. Forse l’ odio più facile da riconoscere è il fatto che gli assassini di Romero odiato il suo lavoro in difesa dei poveri. A volte, ci dimentichiamo che odium fidei—un obbligo canonico per il martirio—può essere odio alla fede o per una virtù particolare (ad esempio, la giustizia sociale). Il riguardo cristiano per i poveri non è una piccola considerazione. Papa Benedetto XVI ha detto che la Chiesa vede Cristo nei poveri “sentendo risuonare costantemente nel suo cuore il mandato del Principe della pace agli Apostoli: «Vos date illis manducare» – "date loro voi stessi da mangiare " (Lc 9, 13)”. Questo “mandato” da Cristo è obbligatorio, non facoltativo. Pertanto, la violenza contro il lavoro della Chiesa della carità e della giustizia sociale ci presenta un esempio scioccante e terribile di odio alla fede.

Disprezzo per l’altare e la liturgia. Meno evidente, ma più facilmente riconoscibile, dopo gli insegnamenti di Papa Benedetto XVI per la dignità e la sacralità della liturgia, l’assassinio di Romero sull’altare è un abominio della celebrazione della Messa. Per un credente, è Cristo che è presente al altare: non solo metaforicamente, non solo simbolicamente, ma “veramente, realmente e sostanzialmente presente”. Significativamente, il tipo di abuso rituale inerente nel’assassinio di Romero era diventato comune durante la persecuzione della Chiesa salvadoregna: altari si sono profanate, facciate della Chiesa erano sparato con proiettili, e in una città particolare il tabernacolo è stato aperto con colpi di machete. La scelta di assassinare l’arcivescovo nell’atto di celebrare la Messa è terribilmente rivelante circa i motivazioni di suoi assassini, e rapporti simili di abuso rituale oggi (ad esempio, notizie sulla profanazione di altari in luoghi dove cristiani sono perseguitati) dovrebbe farci riflettere.

Disprezzo per la Regalità di Cristo. Molti analisti hanno concluso che Mons. Romero fu ucciso il Lunedi, 24 marzo, 1980 perché il giorno precedente, Domenica 23 marzo, ha dato un sermone in cui ha invitato i soldati salvadoregni a disubbidire qualsiasi ordine di uccidere civili innocenti. Sotto un legalismo cinico, tale chiamata di Romero era un atto illegale di insubordinazione, una sfida per ordine militare e la catena di comando. Ma sotto i criteri di Romero—e gli nostri—erano i soldati che avevano invertito l’ordine dei principi e Romero stava impostando solo le cose a posto. La festa di Cristo Re, questa Domenica ci insegna il primato della legge di Cristo e della sua regalità su tutti considerazioni politiche temporali mondani. Gli assassini di Romero non poteva accettare questa verità, e la loro reazione violenta all’affermazione di Romero della regalità di Cristo, riflette il loro disprezzo per la fede.

Per 33 anni, la Chiesa ha proceduto con cautela in ogni beatificazione di Mons. Romero, perché i suoi assassini erano presumibilmente fratelli cristiani e perché le loro motivazioni probabilmente inclusi motivi politici (in sua difesa dei poveri, ha sfidato lo status quo politico). La Chiesa procede sempre con giudizio in queste materie. Ma non confondere prudenza con il dubbio. Non vi è dubbio che Romero è stato ucciso in odio alla fede. Quindi è provvidenziale che Papa Francesco ordinò che la causa di Romero andare avanti come uno dei suoi primi atti dopo essere diventato Papa nel corso di questo Anno della Fede. A parte gli esempi positivi postulati dalla Chiesa circa la fede, possiamo anche imparare da questo esempio per contrasto, da parte di coloro che agiscono in odio alla fede.

A los asaltantes de Pro-Búsqueda

[Índice]

 

English | italiano

La noticia del ataque, invasión y destrucción de archivos en la oficina de Asociación Pro-Búsqueda, que tutela por el paradero de los huérfanos de la guerra, ha recorrido por el mundo, y se ha oído por doquiera que hay salvadoreños o personas interesadas en la verdad y la justicia.  Si el objetivo de los asaltantes era frenar los procesos o impedir la justicia, que sepan que ahora ya no es como antes.  Existe una vigilancia internacional solidaria que jamás permitirá que se obstruya la justicia y que respaldará a Pro-Búsqueda, defenderá los archivos de la ex-Tutela Legal, y hará frente a cualquier intento de encubrir la verdad o de obstruir la justicia.

Defending Maradiaga

[Index]

 

Español | italiano

My guess is that Cardinal Óscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga (pictured, sharing confidences with Pope Benedict) is used to criticism.  The late Venezuelan president Hugo Chávez once denounced him as an “imperialist clown” during a public row between the Leftist strongman and the Cardinal.  And, Honduran leftists were so angry with the churchman over his support of the removal of a pro-Chávez populist president in Honduras that anonymous protesters fired shots at the Cardinal’s office in Tegucigalpa.  (Inset: graffiti demonizing the cardinal as a “golpista” or coup promoter.)  Now, Cardinal Rodríguez* has attracted the ire of the Catholic Right with an address setting forth his vision for the Church in Dallas, last month.  Although it’s unlikely they will want to kidnap him—as Chávez allegedly did—their criticisms are worth responding to because they come from within the Church.  The critiques are also worth addressing because they may presage a sign of things to come in Francis’ reform efforts.

In his speech, Cardinal Rodríguez casts the New Evangelization in the context of Vatican II, and he reads Francis’ call for a Church of the Poor in the context of the New Evangelization.  The address set off alarm bells among some conservatives who were quick to see in the Cardinal’s vision a modernist plot to redefine the mission of the Church in do-gooder secularist terms, bereft of any sign of liturgical renewal or spiritual salvation.  The alarmist conclusions appear to stem from unfamiliarity and suspicion, and a closer analysis reveals that the Cardinal’s proposals simply restate Pope Francis’ agenda.  In a scathing critique, John Zmirak suggested that the Cardinal’s tough words about U.S. capitalism means he wants “governments to seize wealth from some people, skim its own share off the top, and distribute that wealth to others. Those ‘others’ will doubtless be grateful, as Hugo Chavez’s supporters were in Venezuela…”  Anyone familiar with the Cardinal’s history with Hugo Chávez would find the suggestion that Rodríguez would go along with a Chavista scheme risible.  In fact, the Cardinal was critical of Honduran leader Manuel Zelaya because of his attempts to create a carbon copy of the Chávez plan in Honduras.  “Zelaya had advisers in Venezuela,” Card. Rodríguez said, “and stirring up class hatred was the strategy.”  Clearly, not a strategy that Card. Rodríguez was comfortable with. So, any fear that Card. Rodríguez will want to emulate Hugo Chávez must be tempered by this history.

Similarly, Kevin Tierney at Common Sense Catholicism questioned whether Card. Rodríguez’ approach was simplistic and missing essential components.  “State corruption is just as much a problem as global finance,” Mr. Tierney writes, “but we never hear His Eminence lay out a plan for how to reform political processes to weaken corrupt politicians.”  Maybe Mr. Tierney has never heard His Eminence lay out a plan for how to reform political processes, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.  Card. Rodríguez was president of Transparency Honduras, and he laid out a thoughtful plan in his opening address to the Forum on Strategic Commitments to Combat Corruption by Fomenting Transparency and Good Government in August 2006.  In fact, Card. Rodriguez has a long history of fighting corruption in his native country, heading a commission that restored civilian control over the Honduran police force.  Card. Rodriguez has even taken on the notorious criminal gangs that terrorize his country.  “Rodriguez Maradiaga has been such an outspoken opponent of the drug trade in Central America,” writes John Allen, “that he’s had to move around with a military escort, given how often narco-terrorists have threatened his life.”  Given this background, the concern that Card. Rodríguez is missing the big picture really does not pan out.

Tierney’s critique points out a prevalent theme in the backlash to the Cardinal’s speech, which is that because the speech represents the first and most significant (and—one suspects—only) exposure by the critics to the Cardinal’s thought, the speech is mistaken to represent the entirety of the Cardinal’s worldview.  Mr. Tierney concludes that because the Cardinal did not address state corruption in his speech, then the Cardinal must not believe that state corruption is a problem worth addressing.  That’s a misreading of the speech and of the Cardinal.  But there are other misreadings.  Sometimes, the Cardinal’s critics glaringly seem to ignore what he says, pretending that he either does not say it, or that he says something else.  Fr. Dwight Longenecker complains of an overly secular bent, saying that, “in his talk on the New Evangelization the Cardinal does not mention the salvation of souls or the spiritual work of the church or the sacraments at all.” (All bolded emphases mine.)  But, that’s not true.  The Cardinal prefaces his discussion of the New Evangelization by saying that, “There is no possible reform of the Church without a return to Jesus.”  He says that, “If the Church seeks to follow Jesus, all she has to do is to continue telling the world what happened to Jesus, proclaiming His teachings and His life.”  The Cardinal’s focus on social justice and good works is premised on the salvation of souls: “If the Church wants to stay faithful, she must also continue purifying herself through the martyrdom and the sanctity of the faithful.”  And he explicitly states that a priest’s mission is primarily spiritual, being, “above all, a ‘minister of the Word,’ who must communicate to all the life that emanates from Christ, and for that reason devotes himself primarily to the altar and to the celebration of the sacraments.”

So, what gives? Some of the misunderstanding can be chalked up to lack of clarity in the language.  Some of the ecclesial talk in the Cardinal’s speech is dense, and he never clearly articulates a thesis for his speech, so there is some inherent ambiguity about the intended reach of the message.  But one also suspects that the Cardinal’s critics have a built-in bias, because they belong to a conservative sector of the Church and they (correctly) identify the Cardinal as belonging to the progressive current, and therefore read him with innate suspicion. Mr. Tierney associates the Cardinal’s views with Liberation Theology and appears to dismiss them, at least in part, for that reason: “His Eminence presents a liberation theology that attempts to be faithful to the Magesterium.  While I think it more or less succeeds, it still doesn't work for the same reason that Liberation Theology as a whole is a failure.”  But, as the Washington Post has pointed out, “Although he has spoken out against free-market policies and in defense of millions living in abject poverty in Central America, Rodriguez Maradiaga is an opponent of the ‘liberation theology’ that once supported leftist rebellions and sought to bend the rules of orthodoxy to bring the Church closer to Indian groups and the poor.” The Cardinal himself has said that he associates Liberation Theology with painful memories: “Here in Central America, the memory of the seventies and eighties is still very much alive: civil wars, guerrilla fighting, hundreds of thousands of deaths ...  These times may not come back.”  The Cardinal’s critics may be suspicious because he is a Latin American.  They might be surprised to learn that he is considered, “a moderate in a region of radicals.”  Finally, as the earlier points showed, some of the suspicion is compounded by ignorance about the Cardinal’s actual record.  Mr. Zmirak writes that the Cardinal’s promotion of social justice as a way to renew the Church is undercut by “the experience of the Church in Latin America, where large swaths of his flock have fled to Pentecostalism.”  In fact, Cardinal Rodríguez is considered “an adroit leader of the local church,” with burgeoning seminary enrollment (at “an all-time high” under his watch) and, according to the CIA World Factbook, 97% of Honduras is Catholic and only 3% Protestant.

The liberal NCR correspondent Michael Sean Winters argues that the criticisms of Card. Rodriguez are really attacks on Pope Francis: “The conservatives do not want to attack the pope directly, so they are attacking his most prominent advisor. It is an old tactic.”  I would not go that far, but I will say that there is certainly the danger of creating that impression.  Card. Rodríguez’ critics would be hard pressed to draw clear distinctions between what he said in Dallas and what Pope Francis said in his Civiltà Cattolica interview, for instance.  As Samuel Gregg wrote in the National Review, “if you want to get a sense of where Francis may take the Catholic Church regarding social and economic issues,” the best source would be the Final Document of the Latin American Bishops’ Conference at Aparecida.  Francis has referred to this document repeatedly during his young pontificate.  It was drafted by Cardinals Bergoglio and Rodríguez Maradiaga.  The Cardinal’s speech in Dallas is clearly an attempt to memorialize the various directives Pope Francis has given and begin to give them a programmatic structure.  I posit that this is the best reading of the Cardinal’s talk in Dallas.

* Although I refer to the Cardinal as "Maradiaga" for ease of identification in the title of this post, in the rest of the entry I refer to him as Card. Rodríguez, consistent with conventions for Latin American names.

Turning the tables on Wojtyla & Romero

[Index]

Romero, Dziwisz and John Paul.

 Español | italiano

 

After meeting Oscar A. Romero and hearing first-hand his response to accusations that the Salvadoran archbishop was too political and one-sided, “John Paul II was so convinced of Romero’s arguments that he always defended him within the ranks of the Curia.” That account comes from one who should know—Cardinal Stanislaw Dziwisz, who is now the Archbishop of Krakow, and was then Bl. Pope John Paul’s personal secretary in the Vatican.  The account appears in Cardinal Dziwisz new book “Ho vissuto con un Santo” (“I Have Lived with a Saint”).  The excerpts relating to Romero, which have been publicized because they shed light on how John Paul was sometimes ill-served by his advisors, also appears to change the known narrative about John Paul’s relationship with Romero.

The conventional storyline usually portrays a skeptical John Paul, whose anti-Communist zeal leads him to remain suspicious of Romero until well-after the Salvadoran prelate was assassinated by rightwing extremists, because he had been accused of Marxist leanings.  According to previous accounts, including one told by Maria López Vigil, a Central American activist—supposedly based on Romero’s own version of events—Romero was unable to win the Polish Pontiff to his side during their face-to-face encounter.  According to López Vigil, the Pope refused to look at documents Romero attempted to give the Pope to defend himself.  López Vigil’s account varies significantly from descriptions of the meeting in Romero’s diaries and in sermons and interviews in which he described it.  The López Vigil story also differs dramatically from what Cardinal Dziwisz says.

According to the Dziwisz telling of the story, “when Romero came to Rome and met John Paul II, he carried with him his memoirs.”  Romero reportedly told the Pope, “Please, judge me on the basis of my testimony, and not on what is told you about me.”  Dziwisz seems to agree that the reports that had come to Rome via the Pope’s nuncios were official versions of events that reflected the views of the Salvadoran regime, which was hostile to Romero because of his criticisms of the government’s human rights abuses.  Cardinal Dziwisz’ suggestion that John Paul was persuaded by Romero’s arguments in his own defense, either during the meeting or soon thereafter, mark a dramatic departure from the formerly prevailing view, which portrays a Pope who remains cold, or even antagonistic.  Equally dramatic to Romero’s followers is the fact that John Paul’s defenders should be citing the Romero case to bolster the soon-to-to-be-sainted Pope’s standing.  Until recently, it would have been Romero’s promoters who would have sought to link Romero to John Paul to boost Romero’s cause for the sainthood.

Dándole vueltas a Wojtyla y Romero

[Índice] 

Romero, Dziwisz y Juan Pablo.

 

English | italiano

Después de conocer a Oscar A. Romero y escuchar de primera mano su respuesta a las acusaciones de que el obispo salvadoreño era político y parcializado, “Juan Pablo II estaba tan convencido de los argumentos de Romero que siempre lo defendió en las filas de la Curia”. Ese relato viene de alguien que debería saberlo—el Cardenal Stanislaw Dziwisz, actual arzobispo de Cracovia, y anteriormente el secretario personal del B. Papa Juan Pablo II en el Vaticano. El relato aparece en el nuevo libro del cardenal Dziwisz, “Ho vissuto con un Santo” (“He vivido con un Santo”). Los extractos relacionados con Romero, difundidos por echar luz sobre cómo Juan Pablo II fue a veces mal servido por sus asesores, también parecen cambiar la narrativa sobre la relación entre Juan Pablo y Romero.

La historia convencional generalmente pinta a un Juan Pablo escéptico, cuyo celo anticomunista le lleva a permanecer sospechoso sobre Romero hasta mucho después de que el prelado salvadoreño fuera asesinado por extremistas de derecha, porque se le había acusado de tener inclinaciones marxistas. Según las versiones anteriores, incluyendo una de María López Vigil, una activista centroamericana, supuestamente basada en la versión del mismo arzobispo, Romero no pudo ganar el pontífice polaco a su lado durante su encuentro cara a cara. Según López Vigil, el Papa se negó a ver los documentos que Romero trató de entregar al Papa para defenderse. El relato de López Vigil varía significativamente de las descripciones de la reunión en los diarios de Romero y en los sermones y entrevistas en las que la describe. La historia de López Vigil también difiere radicalmente de lo que dice el Cardenal Dziwisz.

Según la narración Dziwisz, “cuando Romero llegó a Roma y se reunió con Juan Pablo II, llevaba consigo sus diarios”. Romero le dijo al Papa: "Por favor, júzgueme a base de mi testimonio, y no a base de lo que se dice acerca de mí”. Dziwisz parece estar de acuerdo en que los informes que habían llegado a Roma a través de los nuncios del Papa eran versiones oficiales de los acontecimientos que reflejaban las opiniones del régimen salvadoreño, que era hostil a Romero por sus críticas al gobierno sobre sus abusos contra los derechos humanos. La sugerencia del Cardenal Dziwisz que Juan Pablo fue convencido por lo dicho por Romero en su propia defensa, ya sea durante la sesión, o poco después de esta, marca una vira dramática de la opinión anteriormente vigente, de un Papa que se mantiene frío, o incluso antagónico. Igualmente dramático para los seguidores de Romero sería el hecho de que los defensores de Juan Pablo II estén citando el caso Romero para reforzar al que pronto será el Papa santo. Hasta hace poco, habría sido los promotores de Romero que buscarían vincular a Juan Pablo con Romero para impulsar la causa de Romero.