More On Romero

Talking with people in the last couple of days I see some are not happy with the decision to declare Archbishop Oscar Romero a martyr. I think many people in the Church are uneasy and have some doubts as to whether Romero should be advanced towards beatification. Some see this as another ideological decision by Pope Francis. We have all become familiar with the belief that Romero supported Liberation Theology and was killed for his leftist position.

Personally I still need to do some more reading on Romero by someone I would trust, but I am sure now that Romero was not what many in the left have been promoting since the day he was killed. The familiar narrative of Pope St John Paul and Pope Benedict blocking the Cause and Pope Francis lifting all restrictions is not actually accurate. First of all the previous two Popes would not have needed to block a Cause, if they harboured the antagonism they are said to have had there would have been no Cause at all: they would not have allowed it be opened. St John Paul defended Romero, and visited the slain Archbishop's tomb during his trip to El Salvador. Pope Benedict, as acknowledged by Romero's postulator a day or two ago, advanced the Cause, "unblocking" it - the "block" being concerns (prudently arising) that accompanied the Cause thanks to Romero's being adopted as the poster boy of Marxists in Central America. Pope Francis just finds himself issuing the decree of martyrdom after the work mostly carried out under his two predecessors has been completed.

Fr Dwight Longenecker has an interesting article dealing with this and the real Romero which I would encourage you to read. After his investigations he has concluded that the Archbishop was orthodox, one who sought to defend the poor from their oppressors, indeed a man who chose an Opus Dei priest as his spiritual director - hardly leftist.  He did not accept the Marxist narrative that informs, to various degrees, aspects of Liberation Theology, nor did he see violence and revolution as the solutions to the problems his people were facing. He was as critical of the left as he was of the far right. He was also a pious man who sought holiness and knew that it could only be found in his relationship with Christ.

For further reading on this, see Filip Mazurzcak's piece in First Things, hardly a liberal publication. I note with confidence a quotation from Romero quoted by Mazurczak concerning Marxism: "Since Marxist materialism destroys the Church’s transcendent meaning, a Marxist church would be not only self-destructive but senseless." Such a belief would be anathema to Liberation Theologians who see Marx as a new Aristotle to advance the Church's social teaching, as noted by Mazurczak.

The left have hijacked him: does that mean the Church has to relinquish him to an ideology the man himself did not support? The answer I heard from one person recently seemed to suggest we do.  if such is the case, then Pope Benedict made a serious mistake in canonising Hildegarde von Bingen and then declaring her a Doctor of the Church. She had been hijacked by radical feminists, new age practitioners and all sorts of heretical thinkers who have published countless books interpreting her visions and writings in a manner far from orthodox Christianity. However Benedict realised that the Church had to reclaim a woman who had nothing to do with the unorthodox notions that have grown up around her and her works. Her visions are complex, strange even, but she lived in the heart of the Church and her works are not only orthodox and beautiful, but such a marvellous expression of the Church's faith and thought that she is formally acknowledged to be among that elite group of teachers who deserve the title Doctor of the Church. 

Should we not seek to do the same with Archbishop Romero? Present the man as he was and "rehabilitate" him in the minds of those who are suspicious of him? As we do so we have to remind ourselves that it is not just left-wing regimes that are oppressive, right-wing regimes can be just as terrible and godless, and Romero saw that every day in El Salvador. In the Church there should not be left or right, just right or wrong, what is orthodox and true and what is not. In times of great confusion and conflict people can get lost, and I think with the struggle in El Salvador after his martyrdom the real Oscar Romero, the faithful son of the Church, was lost in the haze ideology can produce.  He became for those who wanted to right wrongs by revolution, reinterpreting the Gospel to support their Marxist faith, a handy vehicle to promote their cause and attract more followers. 

Now there has to be clarity. The theologians in the Congregation for the Causes of Saints have spent thirty years investigating this Cause and they have concluded that the poster boy was no Marxist lackey, but a follower of Christ, an orthodox Catholic, a devoted pastor who sought to do what Christ tells us to do: to look after the poor and speak up for those who have no voice, the little ones who are suffering. He was killed because, in the name of Jesus Christ, in persona Christi, he stood up for these little ones: killed in odium fidei - that is martyrdom.

By the way when I speak of reclaiming Archbishop Romero I do not mean that we render his ministry and sacrifice meaningless, neutralise him, make him "safe" so we can swallow him and put his image on a pedestal to catch dust. He is a prophetic figure in the Church, one who challenges us - that is what the Saints are supposed to do; so we are to listen to his voice and learn from his example. In a sense we should always be at least a little uneasy when we encounter the Saints, if we are not then we may well have become complacent and miss the point of their lives and their heroic virtue.

The Venerable Oscar has a message for us today, tomorrow, until the day the Lord comes again. We would do well to take heed of it. May he intercede for all of us and obtain from the Lord the graces we need to live upright and holy lives, serving God and our brothers and sisters, most especially those are most in need. That may require a martyrdom within our hearts: if so, may it happen.

For your reading the CDF's Instruction on Certain Aspects of the Theology of Liberation, written by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and approved by Pope St John Paul II. Note that Ratzinger points out that "theologies of liberation" would be more correct since there are a number of them, some which are orthodox expressions of the Church's ministry to the poor and others which are not, but rather an expression of Marxist ideology.

He Is A Martyr

It has been announced that the Holy Father has signed a Decree of Martyrdom recognizing that Archbishop Oscar Romero's murder was in odium fidei, in hatred of the faith, thus clearing the way for his beatification. As you know Archbishop Romero's Cause has been a source of controversy for many years given the difficulties in separating religion from politics not only in the motivation for his killing, but also in his ministry. He has been connected with Liberation Theology, a particular form of social justice which has, in part, dabbled in Marxism and even Pelagianism, and has been a thorn in the side of the Church for many years. 

Oscar Romero's concern for the poor, emerging from his Christian faith, cannot be doubt, the problem was to discern whether he embraced the radical forms of Liberation Theology and if he was killed for his politics rather than for his Catholic faith manifested in his defence of the poor and vulnerable. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints and the Holy Father, after many years of study, have concluded that he was killed out of hatred for his Catholic faith and the position of the Catholic Church, which he emulated, to protect and work for the poor. He has become a poster boy for Liberation Theology, including those elements which have more in common with Marx than Christ, but the Archbishop cannot be blamed for that - the investigation into his life had to look at the man and his killers, not those who seek to use him to promote their political agenda.

The Archbishop will be beatified now without the need for a miracle. However, for his canonisation, a miracle would be required and I believe, for the sake of prudence and to ease the anxieties of some, the Holy Father, or his successor, should allow the process to proceed normally: God should be allowed speak. Until he is beatified the Archbishop now holds the title "Venerable".

The body of the Venerable Archbishop Romero moments after this martyrdom

The Venerable Oscar's Cause is not the first to be immersed in politics, many others had to go through a process of careful sifting and intensive study. Though an easier case to examine, the Cause of Blessed Jerzy Popieluszko was one - was he killed out of hatred for the faith or because of his work with Solidarity? After careful study, like Romero, it was because of his Catholic faith and his defence of the rights of men and women which is central to the Church's social teaching. But there are others who Causes should be examined, among them two women who suffered during the Reformation in England - one killed, the other dying in virtual imprisonment after many years of long suffering. I am of course speaking of Mary, Queen of Scots and Katherine of Aragon.

Mary, Queen of Scots: a possible martyr too? 

Mary, Queen of Scots's life is mired in politics, but she was imprisoned by Elizabeth I, not really because she was the Tutor Queen's next heir and caused a problem for her, but rather because Mary was a Catholic and had become a rallying call for suffering Catholics in England. In the end Elizabeth had to have her killed so she could no longer be a threat to her throne. If Mary had been a Protestant she would not have been such a serious threat to the Protestant Queen. I think the Bishops of Scotland should examine the possibility of opening a Cause of martyrdom for Mary. She herself was convince she was dying for her faith, she came to her execution on the 24th July 1567, she wore a red pettycoat as a symbol - those responsible for her death got the message and were none too pleased. Some may cite some irresponsible acts earlier in her life as too serious a barrier to considering a Cause - if that is the case then we had better take St Augustine off the calendar, and whole host of other Saints and martyrs, prominent among them St Andrew Wouters.  

Similarly Katherine of Aragon's Cause should also be considered: her piety cannot be dismissed nor the patience and heroic virtue she seemed have demonstrated in her years of long-suffering at the hands of her unfaithful husband, Henry VIII. As she died she forgave her husband and prayed for him, revealing true, heroic charity. In a sense Oscar Romero's case may well give us the nudge to examine cases we may have put aside because they seemed too complicated to tackle.

Romero Cause "Unblocked"?

 

Over the past few weeks we have been hearing in the news that the Cause of Archbishop Oscar Romero has been unblocked and his beatification is expected soon.   The reports, however, do not indicate as to how it was blocked in the first place - as far as we know, and as Pope Benedict indicated during his reign, work on the Cause is proceeding.  There may be difficulties and issues, the major being whether Archbishop Romero had links to, or supported, extreme Marxist Liberation Theology, but I did not hear of any attempt by Benedict or Blessed John Paul before him to block the Cause.  It is usual for problems and issues to emerge in a Cause, and most of them are ironed out as the investigation proceeds.    Some working on the Cause believe the Congregation for the Causes of Saints blocked the standard review of his writings, but that is coming from people working on a Cause, and I know from personal experience that when a process is going slowly people get frustrated and think someone in Rome is sitting on it.

 

An article in the Catholic Herald today seems to reiterate that the Cause was blocked, reporting on a visit by the President of El Salvador to the Holy Father.  The President brought a gift of a piece of Archbishop Romero's blood-stained chasuble as a thank you to the Pope for "unblocking" the Cause.  I notice in the photograph at the head of the article that the Holy Father is looking rather seriously at the reliquary - maybe that is just my interpretation.  Remember Pope Francis is no fan of Liberation Theology and got himself in trouble with various figures in South America because he cautioned priests and faithful. 

 

Personally I believe that during his life the Archbishop was trying to steer a middle course.  Like John Paul and the then Cardinal Ratzinger, he saw the injustices in his country and understood what Liberation Theology, in its orthodox Catholic dimensions, could do to help.  However, I believe he also saw the dangers and kept a distance from the extreme Marxist theologians who veered Liberation Theology in the direction of revolution.  Given that it was an age of great confusion, it was not always possible to differentiate subtle differences.  As the above article suggests, and as indicated by Pope Benedict, Archbishop Romero may well have been unjustly co-opted as a political figure: he was hijacked as a martyr for a left-wing cause.  Personally I think that happened, and so now there is a suspicion hanging over him.  We see another example of this in Blessed John XXIII who was hijacked by the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd who seemed to present the Pontiff as a screaming liberal who wanted to blow up the Church and rebuild it as a hippie commune.

 

I note at the end of the article Fr. Lombardi may well be slapping the wrists of those speculating on the status of Romero's Cause: he said the Cause is going forward according to Church rules and it is up to the Congregation for the Causes of Saints to inform us about the process's status. And let's be realistic - the Church has to be careful when it comes to Saints.  If there are issues they have to be examined; if there are questions, those questions have to be answered satisfactorily.  Remember, Saints are raised up in God's time, not ours.  And just because our Pope is from Latin America doesn't mean he's going to throw caution to the wind and do a job for the boys back home.  If we have learned anything about Pope Francis since his election we know he has a wise head on his shoulders and he is very astute.  And let us not forget, he comes from that part of the world so he knows a lot more about the subtleties, the difficulties and the hidden agendas.  And if Archbishop Romero needs to be taken back from left-wing revolutionary groups who have co-opted him, then the Holy Father will know how to do that. 

Hijacked

Pope John XXIII and myself did not get on for a long time.   I'll tell you why.  As I was growing up in the eighties I heard and saw a lot concerning Vatican II, and as I observed what was happening in the Church, I did not think Vatican II had been a very good idea, and the so-called "Good Pope John" who ushered in what seemed to tearing the Church apart was not high on the list of those I admired (neither was Archbishop Lefebvre, by the way).  He was adored by the more liberal proponents of the "spirit of Vatican II" and seeing what they were up to did not enamour him to me either.  However, as I began to wiggle my way out of a bad catechetical process and the "coffee-table Mass brigade" I began to discover that Vatican II had been very different from what I, and many of my generation, had been told.  

That began to change my attitude towards Pope John.  His treatment of St Pio (and I love St Pio), did not mean we suddenly jumped into a fire of fraternal harmony, but it eased tensions between us.  When he was beatified in 2000 I accepted the will of God and decision of the Church though not jumping for joy, but I welcomed it and congratulated him.  And when I finally got to Rome as a pilgrim and later living there as a seminarian, when in St Peter's I would go to his tomb, kneel before his incorrupt body and pray.  Bit by bit things are improving - we are moving in the right direction, it may be slow due to my fallen humanity, but we are getting there.   I now see that what he envisioned was tremendous, orthodox and evangelical, his best interpreters are Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, not the "spirit of Vatican II" crowd.

My attitude towards Archbishop Oscar Romero was not much better - I always associated him with Liberation Theology - and Marxists who tried to reinterpret the Gospel according to their own materialist, revolutionary ideas.  Of course he was concerned for his people, but, as I began to discover, he was not a Marxist - like Blessed John XXIII he has been hijacked by an ideology, and used by the proponents of that ideology to further their own aims.  As Francis Phillips points out, Archbishop Romero was a holy man, a man in full communion with the Church, who based his struggle to defend his people on the Church's social teaching rather than The Communist Manifesto or Das Kapital.    Phillips in his article expresses his uneasiness with the visit of President Barack Obama to the late Archbishop's tomb: I can relate to that.

We, in the Church, have so much to reclaim - including the truth and authentic legacy of our heroes and saints, including Blessed Pope John and Archbishop Romero.  I would never class myself as a victim - but I do think that I, and many of my generation, have lost something of the Church's great tradition and people who should set our hearts on fire with love and enthusiasm, but raging ideologies within the Church have given us a distorted picture and we have to overcome that in ourselves.  That is why the pontificates of the Ven. Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI are so important: they are helping us reclaim what is our inheritance in this Communion of faith and love, while still being open to the world and to new (orthodox) evangelical possibilities.  That is what Blessed Pope John XXIII was trying to do, and the Servant of God, Archbishop Oscar Romero in defence of his people.   Francis Phillip's article got me thinking about all that again, thought I might share it.