SUPER MARTYRIO

«ROMERO FOR THE YEAR OF FAITH»

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

«ROMERO PARA EL AÑO DE LA FE»

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

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)]

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.

Friday, November 15, 2013

A los asaltantes de Pro-Búsqueda

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.

Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Defending Maradiaga

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.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Turning the tables on Wojtyla & Romero

Romero, Dziwisz and John Paul.

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

Romero, Dziwisz y Juan Pablo.

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.

Girando Wojtyla e Romero

[Indice (inglese)]

Romero, Dziwisz, e Giovanni Paolo.

English | español

Dopo di incontrare con Oscar A. Romero e sentire di prima mano la sua risposta alle accuse che l’arcivescovo salvadoregno era troppo politico e unilaterale, “Karol Wojtyla fu persuaso dagli argomenti di Romero, al punto che da quel momento l’avrebbe sempre difeso dalle bordate della curia romana”. Questo conto viene da uno che dovrebbe sapere—il Cardinale Stanislaw Dziwisz, che ora è l’arcivescovo di Cracovia, ed allora segretario personale di Papa Giovanni Paolo II in Vaticano. Il racconto appare nel nuovo libro di Cardinale Dziwisz “Ho vissuto con un Santo”. Gli stralci relativi a Romero, che sono stati pubblicizzati perché gettano luce su come Giovanni Paolo è stato a volte mal servito dai suoi consiglieri, appare anche a cambiare la narrazione sul rapporto tra Giovanni Paolo II e Romero.

La trama convenzionale ritrae un Giovanni Paolo scettic, perche il suo zelo anti-comunista lo porta a rimanere sospettoso di Romero fino a ben dopo che il prelato salvadoregno è stato assassinato da estremisti di destra, perché era stato accusato di simpatie marxiste. Secondo i conti precedenti, tra cui quella raccontata da Maria López Vigil, una attivista centro americana, presumibilmente sulla base di una propria versione di Romero, l’arcivescovo salvadoregno non è riuscito a convincere il Pontefice polacco al suo fianco durante il loro incontro faccia a faccia. Secondo López Vigil, il Papa si rifiutò di guardare i documenti Romero ha tentato di dare al Papa per difendersi. Il conto di López Vigil varia significativamente da descrizioni della riunione nei diari di Romero e nelle prediche e interviste in cui egli descrisse. La storia López Vigil differisce notevolmente da quello che dice il cardinale Dziwisz.

Secondo Dziwisz, “quando Romero venne a Roma, consegnò a Giovanni Paolo II le sue memorie”. L’arcivescovo salvadoregno gli disse: “Per favore, mi giudichi sulla base della mia testimonianza, non su ciò che le è stato detto su di me”. Dziwisz sembra essere d’accordo che i rapporti che si erano venuti a Roma via nunzi del Papa erano versioni ufficiali di eventi che riflettono il punto di vista del regime salvadoregno, che era ostile a Romero a causa delle sue critiche al governo per violazioni dei diritti umani. Il suggerimento di Cardinale Dziwisz che Giovanni Paolo è stato convinto dalle argomentazioni di Romero in sua difesa, sia durante la riunione o subito dopo, segnano una partenza drammatica dal punto di vista già prevalente, che ritrae un Papa che rimane freddo, o anche antagoniste. Altrettanto drammatica per i seguaci di Romero è il fatto che i difensori di Giovanni Paolo citano il caso Romero per sostenere il presto-a - essere- santo Pontefice. Fino a poco tempo fa, sarebbe stato i promotori di Romero che avrebbero cercato di collegare Romero a Giovanni Paolo per aiutare la causa Romero.

Monday, November 11, 2013

The ‘Frankies’

Super Martyrio is proud to support the 2013 Frankie Awards for excellence in Catholic spiritual writing. Named in honor of the great spiritual director and patron saint of journalists St. Francis de Sales, the Frankie Awards are sponsored by the Catholic Spirituality Blogs Network (“CSBN”), administered by Connie Rossini. Super Martyrio has joined CSBN, in an effort to become even more committed with the Catholic online community and more deeply identified with the efforts of Catholic bloggers to bring Catholic spirituality to the Internet. As part of its commitment, Super Martyrio will continue to occasionally post on topics of interest to Catholic spirituality, usually with at least some tie-in to Óscar Romero.

Super Martyrio has made significant inroads during this year to become more fully lodged in the on-line Catholic community. Throughout the year, Super Martyrio has promoted the «Year of Faith» declared by Pope Benedict XVI and continued by Pope Francis. Beginning on Pentecost Sunday, Super Martyrio has implemented a linguistic policy of publishing its posts in English, Italian, and Spanish, to make its message accessible to a majority of the world’s Catholics. Also this year, the blog’s posts have been carried by numerous aggregator sites, such as BigPulpit.com. Super Martyrio is listed in Top Catholic Blogs and Lista dei Siti Cattolici Italiani (for the Italian version of the Blog), among others. Super Martyrio has also extended bonds of friendship with spirituality blogs in the Spanish speaking world, such as Mera Defensa de la Fe (Opus Dei) and Acción Litúrgica (traditional liturgy site).

In pursuing this outreach, Super Martyrio is inspired by Óscar Romero, who said, “I have often imagined the Church as a large tree with one branch at one extreme and another branch at the other extreme.” The branches signify the Church’s diverse members: “How beautiful to think about the universality of the Church, her morality, her dogma, and know that wherever anyone professes this faith, these persons are our sisters and brothers.” Like the limbs of a tree, the members of the Church need to live in Communion, said Romero: “The branches do not know one another but are receiving sap from the same trunk and they share the same life.”

Catholic spirituality is the “sap” that feeds Super Martyrio and its kindred spirits on the Internet, including Catholic Spirituality Blogs Network and the Frankie Awards.

Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Quiz: Ratzinger or Romero?

Yes, Dear Reader, there will be a quiz! How much do you know about prominent figures in the faith, such as a recent pope and a soon-to-be-saint? Can you guess which of the following five statements was made by Pope Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger), and which was made by Archbishop Óscar A. Romero—“martyred” in El Salvador in 1980? It should not be hard to guess: Benedict is a widely read, highly influential “teaching Pope,” considered one of the brightest theologians of his generation, and usually ascribed a “conservative” bent. Romero was killed by rightwing paramilitaries for his advocacy on behalf of the poor, therefore popular in Latin America and in “progressive” circles. With that, would you care to hazard a guess as to which of these two influential Catholic figures made each of the following statements?

“Confronted with the abuse of economic power, with the cruelty of capitalism that degrades man into merchandise, we have begun to see more clearly the dangers of wealth and we understand in a new way what Jesus intended in warning us about wealth.”
“The primary and most important person who is present during the Mass is Christ on the altar ... [T]he people, either standing as a sign of respect or on knee as a sign of adoration, affirm that before their eyes, under the appearance of bread and wine is the body and the blood of Christ, truly, really and substantially present.”
“We see that the world of finance can dominate the human being, that possessions and appearance dominate the world and enslave it. The world of finance is no longer an instrument to foster well-being, to foster human life, but becomes a power that oppresses it.”
“This homily provides us with an opportunity to see the aberrations of those individuals who abuse sexual pleasure: those who avoid having children, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, abortion, prostitution, etc. All of these realities place the use of these bodily functions at the service of pleasure. Yet the sexual functions of our bodies have been given to us by God for much higher objectives.”
“In God's Name, I appeal to all those responsible for this spiral of violence on all sides to lay down their weapons immediately!”

So, how confident are you that you can correctly attribute these statements? Test your knowledge and take the quiz here, and see how you score on the automated Internet test program. After you get your score, be sure to come back and check your answers!

* * *

Answers: (1) Ratzinger, “Jesus of Nazareth;” (2) Romero, June 17, 1979 sermon; (3) Ratzinger, February 15, 2012; (4) Romero, November 6, 1977 sermon; (5) Ratzinger on Mid East violence, July 30, 2006.

Cuestionario: ¿Ratzinger o Romero?