BEATIFICATION OF ARCHBISHOP ROMERO,
MAY 23, 2015
|
||
|
|
||
In Chaucer’s
classic The Canterbury Tales, the
conversations of a group of pilgrims who travel together to venerate the relics
of the martyred St. Thomas Becket are the focus. Similarly, after a pilgrimage to the L.A. Cathedral to venerate the relics of three martyrs and a missionary saint, the conversations
shared with fellow pilgrims have warranted further reflection. Today, I want to write about one particular
conversation topic from the pilgrimage: Catholic on Catholic violence. And in the process, I want to express my
support for Pope Francis.
During the
homily for the presentations of the relics, L.A. Archbishop Jose H. Gomez
pointed out that all four saints—Sts. Thomas More, John Fisher, Junipero Serra
and Bl. Oscar Romero—all “had challenges
with the authorities where they lived.
All of them!” For the three
martyrs, the similarities went one step further. Not only did they have challenges with the
government authorities of their day, but those authorities were distinctly
Catholic.
In Romero’s
case, Pope Francis has recognized that “he was defamed, slandered, soiled, that is, his martyrdom continued
even by his brothers in the priesthood and in the episcopate.” Even on the eve of Romero’s beatification, a
Madrid cardinal lobbied the Spanish episcopate to boycott the ceremony. Indeed, the fact that Romero was assassinated
in a majority Catholic country, by baptized Catholics, was often portrayed as a
stumbling block for his beatification. “A martyr is killed by people who are not
Christian,” Bishop Gregorio Rosa Chavez, a Romero supporter, explained on
Salvadoran Catholic television. “But in this case, the murderers are baptized
persons, people who are supposed to pray and go to church. How do you explain
how there is a rejection of Christ and His doctrine?”
Contrary to
the common supposition, Romero is not unique amongst Christian martyrs in that
regard. Sts. Thomas More and John Fisher,
the English saints whose relics were exhibited alongside Romero, were put to
death by King Henry VIII after they refused to recognize the Church he
established in his break from Rome during the 16th Century. However, Henry’s break was due to a
disagreement over a divorce that the King wished to obtain and which the Pope
would not authorize. Henry was otherwise
a staunch Catholic, who had written a heartfelt retort to Martin Luther, and
thereby obtained the title of “Defender of the Faith” from Rome. Following his formal break with the Pope,
Henry’s Church retained its Catholic doctrine.
The
contradiction of how “hatred of the faith” (a martyrdom requirement that the
executions of Sts. Thomas and John were found to satisfy) could be exhibited by
one deemed to be a “Defender of the Faith” was a great topic of conversation
among our pilgrims. The seeming paradox
made me think of how many Catholics today stand ready to condemn other Catholics,
even repeating Henry’s pretension to second-guess the Pope. It made me think of dissidents who accuse
Pope Francis of spreading confusion and errors about the faith. It also reminded me that St. Thomas Aquinas
defined pride as “a species of contempt
of God and of those who bear his commission.”
We see many
Catholic voices so willing to denounce fellow Catholics, even bishops—even the
Pope!—as somehow deficient in their faith, yet these voices are not authorized;
it is not their competence to render such judgments. Pride can constitute a grave offense whenever
arrogance is the occasion of great harm to another by undertaking functions for
which the person lacks the requisite knowledge or authority. Romero warned against such overreaching. One can pray for errant clergymen, one can
raise points of dissent directly with them, or even report them to the
competent Church authorities. Beyond
that, you’re not the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. “No one
apart from the hierarchy has the right to say whether this priest preaches or
does not preach the Gospel,” Romero admonished (May 29, 1977 sermon).
Last month,
the traditionalist Society of St. Pius X issued a statement accusing Pope
Francis of spreading confusion and errors regarding the faith. “The
Society of St. Pius X prays and does penance for the pope, that he might have
the strength to proclaim Catholic faith and morals in their entirety,” the
statement read. The statement echoed,
and was cheered by conservative Catholic commentators. The blogging priest Rev. John Zuhlsdorf annotated the quote cited above with his own
comment: “Do I hear an ‘Amen!’?”
Happily,
there are also voices that are rising to defend and support the Pope. Recently, the “curas villeros” (slum priests) of Buenos Aires together with a lay
association called “Generacion Francisco,”
issued a statement defending Francis against a “brutal campaign against him with attacks of every kind.” Argentine Bishop Oscar Ojea also issued a
letter complaining of efforts to “darken
[the pope’s] evangelical and prophetic
message,” with “biased opinions,
assumptions, and unverified information.”
In light of
these developments, I will cast my lot firmly on the side of Communion with
Peter. I might add that this goes far
beyond some partisan loyalty to Pope Francis and extends to the Petrine
Ministry as properly understood within a framework of Christian fellowship.
Otherwise, as
long as we continue to give in to sinful pride, the danger of Catholics
martyred by fellow Catholics will remain an ever-present danger.
