Google Translate:
A recent post by the noted canon law blogger Dr. Edward Peters ponders whether the
nine theologians who recently voted unanimously in favor of recognizing Archbishop
Oscar Romero as a martyr considered whether Romero voluntarily accepted death. The answer to Dr. Peters’ question is a categorical
YES.
“[T]raditionally,” Dr. Peters explains in
setting forth his question, “a martyr
makes a choice to accept death instead of renouncing the faith.” He elaborates: “The martyr knows that death is not an abstract possibility but that it
is facing him right here, right now, and that he can escape that death
by renouncing the Faith right here, right now. My question about
Romero’s murder, then, is whether his being ambushed at Mass satisfies that
criterion of martyrdom” (emphasis is Dr. Peter’s).
Dr.
Peters is an eminent authority in canon law.
He holds a J. D. from the Univ. of Missouri at Columbia (1982) and a J.
C. D. from the Catholic Univ. of America (1991). He has held the Edmund Cdl. Szoka Chair at
Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit since 2005 and he was appointed a
Referendary of the Apostolic Signatura by Pope Benedict XVI in 2010. In other words, he knows what he is talking about—and he is absolutely right that a martyr is
required to voluntarily accept death instead of renouncing the faith. The canon law elements for martyrdom are: (1)
a cruel or violent death; (2) that the victim freely accepts; (3) and is
imposed out of hatred of the faith («odium
fidei, uti fertur»). Woestman,
Canonization: Theology, History, Process
143 (St. Paul University, 2002).
In the Romero
case, the “violent death” is undisputed because Romero was shot to death by a
sniper with a high-velocity .22 caliber bullet.
(Dr. Peters does not dispute that there was a violent death.) Moreover, Dr. Peters readily admits that the
element most observers have identified as the sticking point—whether Romero’s
killers acted in hatred of the faith—has, in fact, been satisfied: “I have no doubt that he was murdered by
soldiers in retaliation against what he bravely stood for, namely, Christian
charity toward all.” As such, Dr. Peters
dismisses the argument that the existence of political motives for the murder
disqualifies Romero’s death from being a true martyrdom: “Murder can still be martyrdom if, among other things, it is done in
odium Fidei, regardless of whether other motives contributed to the deed. A
pontifical commission seems to have reached this conclusion, too. I think they
are, in that respect, correct.”
In short, Dr.
Peters’ trepidation boils down to the second element of the three listed above:
whether Romero voluntarily accepted death.
This is purely a factual question and not a question of law. This post is intended as a simple reply, not an argument or rebuttal. Dr. Peters is right to ask the question, but
there is an answer, and that answer is that the Church authorities absolutely did ask and they absolutely
received overwhelming evidence that
Archbishop Romero valiantly accepted death rather than to renounce the
Faith. The Salvadoran Church submitted
evidence to the Vatican that Romero’s fame for martyrdom was specifically enhanced
because it was known that he could have avoided death but opted not to, based
on his fidelity to Gospel. The Church
produced evidence that Romero’s collaborators knew that he understood the risk
to his life but decided to stay with his flock.
There was evidence that Romero received death threats and experienced great
anxiety as a result. Finally, there was
evidence from Romero himself in the form of notes from a spiritual retreat made
just weeks before he was killed, in which Romero explicitly acknowledges that
he is in danger of death, but firmly resolves to accept it based on his faith.
Basically,
everyone in El Salvador knew that Romero’s life was in danger. “All of us reporting there knew he would be
killed,” Christopher Dickey of Newsweek wrote:
“He knew he would be killed.” Each passing day, the noose tightened and the
danger became more explicit, as the Angel of Death drew nearer. Romero publicly acknowledged death threats in
November 1979, when he said, “if I am in danger, it could be from both
extremes to whom I am a nuisance, but I want to assure you and I ask your
prayers to be faithful to the promise that I will not abandon my people but
will share with them all the risks that my ministry demands of me.” Romero’s colleagues recall that he would be
startled into panic at night when avocados dropped from a tree onto
his bedroom’s roof, thinking the killers had arrived. Fear also gripped Romero’s relatives, whom he
told that if something should happen to him, he did not want their tears but
their prayers. [Interview with Zaida
Romero, his sister—in Spanish.]
In February 1980,
Romero told his flock that “Christ invites us not
to fear persecution,” even though “anyone
committed to the poor must suffer the same fate as the poor—and in El Salvador we know the fate of the
poor: to be taken away, to be tortured, to be jailed, to be found dead.” On February 24, exactly one month before his
assassination, Romero acknowledged fresh death threats. “Let
them not keep on killing those of us,” he said, who propose the social doctrine. He added, “I speak in the first person, because this week I received notice that I
am on the list of those who are to be eliminated next week.” On March 9, 1980, there was a dramatic
attempt to kill Romero, which failed. A
suitcase filled with seventy-two sticks of dynamite was placed at the pulpit
where Romero preached a homily. There
was enough explosive material to destroy not only the Basilica but the whole
block. Luckily, the explosives did not go off.
At his last
Lenten retreat just weeks before his death, Romero acknowledged the death
threats. “I am afraid of violence to myself,” he
wrote at the beginning of the retreat.
“I fear because of the weakness of
my flesh, but I pray the Lord to give me serenity and perseverance.” By the end of that retreat, Romero had found
spiritual solace, and he wrote in his notes when the retreat ended:
Thus
do I express my consecration to the Heart of Jesus, who was ever a source of
inspiration and joy in my life. Thus also I place under his loving providence
all my life, and I accept with faith in him my death, however hard it be. I do
not want to express an intention to him, such as that my death be for my
country's peace or our church's flourishing. Christ's heart will know how to
direct it to the purpose he wishes. For me to be happy and confident, it is
sufficient to know with assurance that in him is my life and my death, that in
spite of my sins I have placed my trust in him and I shall not be confounded,
and others will carry on with greater wisdom and holiness the works of the
church and the nation.
In one of his last interviews, Romero spoke to a Mexican reporter about facing death:
I have often been threatened with death. I have to say, as a Christian, that I don't believe in death without resurrection: if they kill me, I will rise again in the Salvadoran people. I tell you this without any boasting, with the greatest humility. As pastor, I am obliged, by divine command, to give my life for those I love, who are all Salvadorans, even for those who are going to assassinate me ... Martyrdom is a grace of God I don’t think I deserve. But if God accepts the sacrifice of my life, may my blood be the seed of liberty and the sign that hope will soon become reality ... You can say, if they come to kill me, that I forgive and bless those who do it. Hopefully they may realize that they will be wasting their time. A bishop will die, but the Church of God ... will never perish.
On Monday, March
24, 1980, Archbishop Romero was killed while saying a weekday Mass in San
Salvador. Earlier that day, Romero turned down the offer of another priest, worried for Romero, to say the Mass. At the moment of his
assassination, the Archbishop had a final opportunity to run away from
death. Because of the layout of the
chapel where he was killed (photo), and because the sniper shot from the open front
door of the chapel, Msgr. Ricardo Urioste, a Romero associate, believes that
the Archbishop saw his killers. This
fact is corroborated by evidence taken from Romero’s vestments: “these have prominent white salt stains
around the knees, which on close examination turned out to be sweat stains from
a sudden and profuse outpouring,” it is reported. “Having
seen his assassin, Monseñor Romero sweated as a natural reaction to the shock
and in anticipation of what was about to happen.”
Romero’s awareness
of his impending death makes his final words
about the Eucharist, spoken just seconds before the fatal shot thundered, much more poignant:
May
this Body immolated and this Blood sacrificed for Mankind nourish us also, so
that we may give our body and our blood to suffering and to pain like Christ,
not for self, but to bring about harvests of justice and peace for our people.
In sum, there
is ample, clear, and convincing evidence that Archbishop Romero made a choice
to accept death rather than to renounce the faith.
