In his third pastoral letter, Archbishop Óscar A. Romero of El Salvador (1917-1980) sought to steer opposition groups seeking to free
his country from a military dictatorship toward a peaceful, democratic and—if
possible—Christian path to social
renewal. His goal was ambitious,
essentially seeking to redirect the tide of history, but it has been lost in
revisions that portray Romero as uncritical of the Left. In fact, Romero’s challenge to the opposition
called for more than a “reform of the reform”—it called for a revolution within
the revolution. As he would preach in a
subsequent sermon,
The first liberation to be
brought about by a political group that truly desires the liberation of the
people must be to liberate itself from its own sin. As long as it is a slave a
sin, of selfishness, violence, cruelty and hatred, it is not suited to struggle
for the people’s liberation. (3/2/1980.)
(This is a Year of Faith examination of the Servant of
God Óscar A. Romero’s preaching and theological orientation.) The title of Romero’s third pastoral letter,
“The Church and Popular Political Organizations,” suggests an alliance between the Church and the
opposition. But a simple read reveals
that such collaboration would not be without conditions. The Church and the new political action
groups seeking political reform and democratization could find themselves
together in the trenches advocating respect for human rights, freedom, and denouncing
repression. But, opposition groups,
Romero wrote, had to themselves renounce violence and should not expect the
Church to support any violent agenda. He
condemns leftist guerrilla violence as “terrorist”
and “seditious.” He insists the popular organizations have to
respect the Church and understand its essentially spiritual mission, and not
coopt it towards any ideological ends.
Clergy and the laity had to work under the supervision of the Church’s
hierarchy, and priests could not accept political posts unless exceptional
circumstances warranted it and, then, only through consultation with and approval
from their bishop. If conflicts arose
between loyalty to a political group and fidelity to the Gospel,
Christians—Romero insisted—were duty-bound to uphold first the Gospel. And Christians who organized had to respect
the opinions of Christians who preferred not to be involved in their activities.
Romero released his third pastoral letter in August 1978,
for the Feast of the Transfiguration—El Salvador’s national, Catholic
holiday. “The letters became addresses on the state of the nation's
transfiguration,” writes Tod Swanson: “Their
recurrence created the sense of a national journey.” [Swanson, “The Persuasive Moral Voice of Oscar Romero,”
The Journal of Religious Ethics, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Spring, 2001), pp.127-144.] In his letter, “Romero called upon Christians in political
organizations to make their faith their ultimate point of reference, professing
it openly and in solidarity with the Church, opening themselves to God through
the sacraments, prayer, and meditation on God's word.” [Brockman, “Pastoral Teaching of Archbishop Oscar Romero,” Spirituality
Today, Summer 1988, Vol.40 No. 2.]
In a sense, it was revolutionary for Romero simply to broach the
subject, but that was because of the novelty of the situation—the rise of
peasant workers unions and political organizations had previously been forbidden
and their development raised questions that Church groups had no answer for. Romero opens his letter by posing some of the
practical questions that he had been asked and inspired the letter:
Does being a Christian mean
one has to join some popular organization seeking radical changes in our
country? How can one be a Christian and accept the demands of the gospel and
yet join some organization that neither believes in nor has sympathy with the Gospel?
How ought a Christian to resolve the conflict between loyalty to the Gospel and
the demands of an organization when it may not be in accordance with the Gospel?
What is the relationship between the Church and these organizations?
Romero begins by defining the mission of the Church in
the world, as it was set out in the Second Vatican Council. He quotes «Gaudium et Spes»: “Christ ... gave his Church no proper mission
in the political, economic, or social order. The purpose which he set before it
is a religious one.” He quotes three
of the four Gospels (including Matthew 25, which Pope Francis recently called,
“An excellent program for our lives”),
the letters of St. Peter and St. Paul, and Genesis (the same passages that Pope
Francis quoted in his visit to Lampedusa).
Romero cites to Pope Paul VI heavily, citing his «Evangelii Nuntiandi»
ten times and claiming that it provides the “most authoritative and direct support” for his pastoral approach
(Pope Francis recently said that this encyclical is “to my mind the greatest pastoral document that has ever been written to
this day”). Romero cites to the 1968
Latin American Bishops’ conference and John XXIII, but his principal source is
Pope Paul. He cites Paul’s «Octogesima Adveniens» and lesser pronouncements, including his final «Angelus» message.
The Pope died on the day Romero’s letter was issued. “Today,
in this pastoral letter,” Romero says in an emotional ovation, “we are also fulfilling the final charge laid
upon us by Paul VI at the audience during our ad limina visit.” Romero had visited the Pope just two months
earlier. “We give thanks for the charismatic clarity of his teaching and for the
pastor's love he showed for us, the people of El Salvador,” writes
Romero. “He urged us to show pastoral
solidarity with our fellow Salvadorans. He spoke of their efforts to obtain
justice and charged us to guide them in the path of a just peace, and to help
them resist the easy temptation of violence and hatred.”
Now we must confront why Romero’s challenge in this
letter does not figure more prominently in discussions of his legacy. Consider
five potential reasons. First, we think
of the urgency of Portuguese Archbishop Jorge Ortiga’s words when he recently
said that the Church must “recover”
Romero. “The problem,” Pope Benedict pointed out in 2007, is “that a political party wrongly wished to use
him as their badge, as an emblematic figure.” Romero’s image has been coopted by the Left
and our challenge is: “How can we shed
light on his person in the right way and protect it from these attempts to
exploit it?” Hopefully, we can do it
by shedding light on his work. Second,
the idea that Romero would challenge the rebels runs against the
‘myth-conception’ of Romero as an all-purpose anti-establishment figure who
embodies only resistance to authority and subversion of order, even when it
becomes aberrant to what Romero actually stood for. Third, the prevailing Romero legend suits
both progressives and conservatives within the Church, who see Romero through a
“hermeneutic of rupture” that fits
their view of him. Fourth, the complexity of the historical situation and the
faith vs. politics conundrum that it produced can lead to honest confusion,
whereby Romero’s intentions are misunderstood even by good faith truth seekers. Fifth, and finally, Romero’s boldness and
frank language may itself feed the generalized impression that he was a
“radical.” (Although the challenge to
the Left was the letter’s central focus, it also denounced injustice caused by
the Right and it staunchly defended the right to organize.)
In the year following the letter’s publication, Romero
saw his work begin to bear many fruits of holiness and reconciliation. “I
bless the Lord for the good that that letter brought about,” he wrote one year later, noting that “some of our
Christian communities have taken it as an outline for reflection.” He thanked God for “the generous, enthusiastic welcome that communities, institutions, and
publications elsewhere on this continent and also in Europe have given it.” But Romero knew that his message might not
take root too readily: “there will be
those, even those of good will, who will not understand”—he predicted—because
the concerns of the poor are foreign to them, or have become acceptable. Others will turn a blind eye, and still
others will purposefully misinterpret his words and sow confusion. “However,
thank God, we are sure we can also count on some honest and brave souls who
will be ready to draw near to the light, who will not conform themselves to
this world, and who will cooperate in the birth pains of a new creation,”
wrote Romero, citing St. Paul (Romans 12:2 and 8:22).
Ultimately, Óscar Romero
would become the first, willing casualty of his own revolution.Previously in this Blog:
Archb. Romero's 1st Pastoral Letter
Archb. Romero's 2nd Pastoral Letter
Romero's 1st Episcopal Letter
