Two new saints: Archbishop Oscar Romero and Pope Paul VI

I am delighted with the news of the forthcoming canonisations of Archbishop Romero and Pope Paul VI, which emerged this last week.  Bishop Campbell has posted accounts of both the future saints at his weekly blog: Two new Saints for the Church.

As far as Archbishop Romero is concerned, I think it is important to go to original sources to learn about him as a person and about his work as a Bishop. I am unconvinced by the narrative of "sudden conversion" that is a feature of some accounts of his life.  I have always sensed an absolute continuity of faith, but a faith that responded to his changing mission in the Church. I recall, for example, a number of years ago attending a Paul VI lecture organised by CAFOD at which Maria Lopez Vigil spoke about Archbishop Romero. She was asked a question after her talk (by Peter Hebblethwaite, if I recall correctly - corrections via the comments if I have this wrong) which framed Archbishop Romero within the narrative of "sudden conversion". I remember chuckling to myself as Ms Lopez Vigil's answer to the question declined to take up such a view. Soon after Archbishop Romero's death, I placed him alongside Fr Jerzy Popieluszko in a talk, identifying both of them as martyrs for the truth about the human person (cf now the provisions of Maiorem Hac Dilectionem)

I remain convinced that, in recent decades, we have had Popes who have quite immediately been the most appropriate for their particular times. I include in that Pope Paul VI, who I consider to be very much underestimated, and Pope Francis. The denigration that both receive from certain quarters is, in my view, greatly to the discredit of those responsible for that denigration. There are a number of aspects of Christian life that I take for granted, and which have their modern day roots in the pontificate of Pope Paul VI: a vivid sense of the Christian life as an ecclesial life (witness for, example, Paul VI's Year of Faith and the Credo of the People of God), a vivid sense of the Marian dimension to ecclesial life (witness his proposal of the title Mother of the Church when the Council fathers had not taken it up, a proposal now taken up by Pope Francis in establishing a memoria in the universal calendar with precisely that dedication); and a deep responsiveness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit (it may never be possible to verify it historically, but I like to speculate that, at least in a general sense, that Humanae Vitae was written at a prompting of the Holy Spirit). All of these themes are recognisable in the exercise of his office by Pope Francis.

St Maximilian Kolbe: an "offering of life"

Some spirited remarks about St Maximilian Kolbe in this morning's homily have reminded me to place alongside each other the text of Pope St John Paul II's homily at the canonisation Mass for the saint (Italian original here, English translation here) and Pope Francis' recent motu proprio Maiorem Hac Dilectionem establishing the offer of life as a cause for beatification.

Speaking of the event of St Maximilian's death, Pope St John Paul II said:

All this happened in the concentration camp at Auschwitz where during the last war some four million people were put to death, including the Servant of God, Edith Stein (the Carmelite Sister Teresa Benedicta of the Cross), whose cause for beatification is in progress at the competent Congregation. Disobedience to God-the Creator of life who said, "Thou shalt not kill"-caused in that place the immense holocaust of so many innocent persons. And so at the same time, our age has thus been horribly stigmatized by the slaughter of the innocent.

Father Maximilian Kolbe, himself a prisoner of the concentration camp, defended in that place of death an innocent man's right to life. Father Kolbe defended his right to life, declaring that he was ready to go to death in the man's place, because he was the father of a family and his life was necessary for his dear ones. Father Maximilian Maria Kolbe thus reaffirmed the Creator's exclusive right over innocent human life. He bore witness to Christ and to love. For the Apostle John writes: "By this we know love, that he laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren" (1 John 3:16).

I have added the italics to try to draw out how John Paul II's words indicate a way of understanding the intention of Pope Francis' idea of an "offer of life". Later in the homily, this becomes clearer still:

Men saw what happened in the camp at Auschwitz. And even if to their eyes it must have seemed that a companion of their torment "dies," even if humanly speaking they could consider "his departure" as "a disaster," nevertheless in their minds this was not simply "death." Maximilian did not die but "gave his life...for his brother." In that death, terrible from the human point of view, there was the whole definitive greatness of the human act and of the human choice. He spontaneously offered himself up to death out of love.

And in this human death of his there was the clear witness borne to Christ: the witness borne in Christ to the dignity of man, to the sanctity of his life, and to the saving power of death in which the power of love is made manifest.  

Pope Francis characterises the offer of life as "a free and voluntary offer of life and heroic acceptance propter caritatem of a certain and untimely death". Pope John Paul II, to an extent foreshadowing Pope Francis' motu proprio, assimilated St Maximilian's offer of his life to martyrdom and proclaimed that St Maximilian was to be recognised, not just as a confessor of the faith, but as a martyr for the faith.

Many years ago now I recall speaking and writing about Archbishop Oscar Romero and Fr Jerzy Popieluszko as "martyrs for the truth about man". I think we can see in both of these great figures examples of the "offering of life" which Pope Francis has now established as a way to beatification.

Archbishop Romero: a cause unblocked

I have always had some difficulty understanding why the cause for the canonisation of Archbishop Romero has not progressed. I had sometimes wondered whether it was in part down to the fact that those Catholics who admire him might not have an interest in seeing through the processes required for canonisation. Talk of the cause being "blocked" in Rome would appear now have some foundation, though it has always struck me that any "blocking" of that type would be somewhat ill informed and/or short sighted. Far better, whatever the ecclesiastical politics in play, to let the facts speak for themselves and the cause to play out according to due process.

The underlying concern behind this "blocking" has been, so far as I can tell, that the beatification and canonisation of Archbishop Romero might give encouragement to trends in theological reflection and ecclesial practice normally ascribed to "liberation theology" - even though it does not take a detailed reading of, for example, Archbishop Romero's four pastoral letters to realise that he in no way espoused such thinking or practice. A perception that, among those supporting Archbishop Romero's cause, are some not known for their faithfulness in matters ecclesial might also have represented a barrier - though, again, one cannot read, for example, the pastoral letters without gaining a sense of an Archbishop profoundly faithful to the magisterium of the Church. [This report of the unblocking at UCAnews.com - which ends describing Archbishop Romero as a "patron saint of liberation theology" - rather illustrates the problematic misapprehension that might have been behind the "blocking".]

The website of the Archbishop Romero Trust makes available much of the primary documentation with regard to  Archbishop Romero, and it is worth a visit. I would particularly commend the text of the Romero Lecture delivered in 2007 by Mgr Urioste, who was the Vicar General of the Diocese of San Salvador during Archbishop Romero's time as the pastor of the archdiocese. The title of the Lecture is "A Saint for the 21st Century".  The following passage is taken from page 7 of the text:

It is said of Archbishop Romero that he changed drastically with the murder of Father Rutilio Grande, and that his conversion happened less than one month after he became Archbishop. I don't believe that this is so. I believe that Monseñor Romero was someone who always, throughout his life, sought conversion. It was something similar to what Mark tells us about when Jesus cured a blind man. When they arrived at Bethsaida, they brought him a blind man and begged Jesus to touch him. Jesus took the blind man by the hand and led him outside the village. Putting spittle on his eyes he laid his hands on him and asked: "Do you see anything?" Looking up the blind man replied: "I see people who look like trees, walking". Then Jesus laid hands on his eyes a second time and he saw clearly, his sight was restored and he could see everything distinctly" (Mark 8:22-25). Monseñor Romero also began to see gradually, as he discovered more about the Gospel and the painful situation of the people. All of these changed him. He never spoke of himself in terms of conversion; he spoke of evolution. For this reason he wrote: "readiness to change. He who fails to change will not gain the Kingdom." This is why he adds: "When we escape from reality, we escape from God."

I think this testimony to a "hermeneutic of continuity" in the life of Archbishop Romero, rather than to a "hermeneutic of rupture", by one of his closest collaborators, is very important for understanding Archbishop Romero's person and mission in the Church. I would hope that the "unblocking" of his cause will allow it to become more widely known.

Archbishop Romero: two diary entries

It is rather intriguing to see the connection being made between Archbishop Romero and the participation of Christians in the "March for the Alternative" on 26th March. There is a report of this here. It would be interesting to know whether Archbishop Romero would have made such a direct connection between his mission in the life of El Salvador and such a specific political protest.

It prompted me to look in his diary for an entry for 19th March, to go with my feast day today. This is part of the entry for Monday, March 19-Friday, March 23 1979; it refers to Archbishop Romero's participation in a seminar in the Dominican Republic on the subject of devotion to the Sacred Heart:

We studied how to make this devotion attractive to the people of today - this devotion that undoubtedly continues to be important, but that, perhaps because of not having been brought up to date sufficiently, is considered by some to be antiquated. Nevertheless, enlightened by our reflections, we understood that it needs to regain the attention that it deserves. For this reason, those of us attending from Central America decided to organise a small committtee which, working with the international centre, will look for ways to carry out the ideal renewal of the worship of the Sacred Heart in our countries.

I had the honour of being named president of the small Central American group. I accepted with pleasure because it has always been my preferred devotion and because I know that devotion to the Sacred Heart could be very fruitful for the pastoral work of our diocese.

The entry for 19th March 1980, just days before Archbishop Romero's death, includes the celebration of two feast day Masses and whirlwind of different pastoral and adminstrative meetings. Two particular paragraphs indicate Archbishop Romero's view of politicization among the priests of his diocese. The Archibishop's concerns need to be understood against the background of his own contribution to the political arena in his country, in denouncing atrocities and speaking against all violence.

I went to the chancery for a while. There were a large number of visits, the most significant one from Fathers Toruella and Mejia, who came to share with me some ideas from a group of priests who are concerned about the politicization of some of the priests. They invited me to a reflection so that we may have a dialogue among the different sectors of the clergy and, if possible, an inquiry in order to neutralize anything which might divide us as priests....

At four o'clock in the afternoon we had a meeting with the council or committee for humanitarian aid, an ecumenical committee of which Caritas is part. It was to discuss a problem that has arisen in the refugee centres. What is happening is that the agents of the popular political organizations are using these people for their political activities. We have tried to make it clear that a refugee centre should not be a headquarters for their operations. There was a great deal of discussion. I always have the impression of extreme politicization in the declarations made by Father Rogelio and Father Tilo Sanchez, as well as by others who participated in the meeting. But I was also very glad to see the very balanced position of some of the priests and some of the members of the Protestant Churches who collaborate with us in this ecumenical work. The manager of Caritas, Miss Carmen, was also very prudent in her orientation.

Pope Paul VI Lecture 2010

A few years ago, I went to CAFOD'S Paul VI Memorial Lecture when the lecturer was a lady called Maria Lopez Vigil. She had been a collaborator with Archbishop Oscar Romero and, at the time of the lecture, had just published a book Oscar Romero: Memories in Mosaic. The book is a collection of people's memories of Archbishop Romero. I went because I was interested in meeting someone who had worked with Archbishop Romero and would be able to communicate something of the man - not that I had any intention of speaking to her individually but that, when you hear someone speaking in person, you gain a sense of them as a person as well as a sense of their thought.

Maria Lopez does recognise in the introduction to her book that Archbishop Romero experienced a "conversion" as he took up his office as Archbishop of San Salvador; but my memory of her talk is that she did not present this "conversion" as a change from being an arch-conservative (in both ecclesiological and political terms) to an arch-liberal (again in both ecclesiological and political terms), a way in which he is often presented but which, in my view, has no basis in Archbishop Romero's own writings. I found it a very interesting occasion, and was very pleased to have attended.

In a similar way, when I learnt that the 2010 Paul VI Memorial Lecture would be given by a speaker who is Secretary General of Pax Christi International and a former Prime Minister of Haiti, my interest was caught. I am looking forward to an "encounter" with someone who has held political and public office and, as she has done so, has tried to put her faith into practice. Claudette Werleigh's CV can be found on Pax Christi International's website. I am expecting that, whatever one might think of CAFOD, this will be an interesting evening.

It is interesting to explore the Pax Christi International website, perhaps particularly the page which tells the history of the movement. Pax Christi has an authentically Catholic charism, which can be seen both in its original inspiration in France in the wake of the Second World War and in its recognition within the Catholic Church. Those of a more conservative mind might not be comfortable with the charism of Pax Christi, and might feel that some of its personalities have not always been faithful to the Church's life. But this should not detract from the fact that Pax Christi does have an authentic charism in the Church.

Another beatification?

One of the difficulties accompanying both John Henry Newman and Oscar Romero, seen as candidates for canonisation, is the way in which their life in the Church is "politicised" by ecclesial commentators. Liberal and conservative Catholics fight for "ownership" of Newman, and Romero is championed by liberal Catholics and ignored by conservatives. This is somewhat of a caricature, I know, but it does reflect a reality. What is really required is an attitude of openness and receptivity, which sees the lives and personalities of both as gifts of God, given for the spiritual good of the Church. We need to let the two speak for themselves.

In this context, Thinking Faith's article Another beatification? suggests an interesting point. This is that the concerns which characterise Newman's life are the same as those that characterise Romero's:

Among them are: his way of thinking, his search for objective truth, his faith in infallible authority, his concern for the role of the laity and church unity, and finally his trusting surrender to God’s providence. Each of these issues also figured prominently in the life of Archbishop Romero and gave depth to the religious faith he shared with others.

I do not know enough about Cardinal Newman and Archbishop Romero to verify these individual points; but all my reading of Archbishop Romero's original words suggests that he was completely loyal to the teaching of the Church. The suggestion of parallels between him and Newman is one that is worth pursuing.

 
One wonders whether the author of this article is airing what he senses as a grievance at the beatification of John Henry Newman occuring when, as yet, there appears to be no sign of Oscar Romero being beatified. Tucked away in the article is a classic of the "spirit of Vatican II", perhaps a product of editing or of hasty writing, perhaps not:

The great contribution of the Second Vatican Council was to offer a new vision of the Church, which saw it not as a hierarchical structure, but rather a communion of equals.

Er, chapter 3 of the Constitution Lumen Gentium on the Church is entitled in the Latin original: "De constitutione Hierarchica Ecclesiae et in specie de Episcopatu", translated in the version on the Vatican website as "On the hierarchical structure of the Church, and in particular on the Episcopate". There is, of course, an element of truth in this "spirit of Vatican II -ism" in that all the faithful are equal before God in terms of their being called to holiness, to growth in the spiritual life. But, as far as offices held in the Church are concerned, Lumen Gentium provides an explicit teaching on the difference of offices in the church. This slip is a shame, as I think the underlying idea that a commonality of concerns, and so a common worthiness as candidates for beatification and canonisation, can be found in the lives and missions of John Henry Newman and Oscar Romero in the Church is one that is worth exploring.

Odds and ends

As Jessica Hausner's film Lourdes goes on general release in England, there are some more reviews appearing in the electronic media. My own comments can be found here and here, but it looks as if Ann Arco is taking a rather different approach to the film than I have. UPDATE: Ann Arco's interview with Jessica Hausner is now on the Catholic Herald website. Andrew Brown's review of the film is here.

The anniversary of the martyrdom of Archbishop Oscar Romero has prompted a number of commemorative celebrations. Thinking Faith, the Jesuit on-line journal, has published a homily preached at a memorial Mass in  St Mary's Cathedral, Edinburgh. The majority of the homily is a description of the situation in El Salvador, and of some of Archbishop Romero's action in response to it; it offers only brief reflection on the charism itself of Archbishop Romero. Welcome is the fact that the homily does not propagate the "sudden conversion" model of Archbishop Romero, an interpretation of his life that I do not think is justified. The homily does ask a pertinent question about the stance of Archbishop Romero's fellow bishops in El Salvador at the time, a question that it is quite legitimate to ask. And it suggests an unwelcome criticism of the attitude of the Holy See to liberation theology (one thing Archbishop Romero was not was an exponent of liberation theology!) and small Christian communities.

But unfortunately also, the lack, so far, of official Church recognition of Romero’s murder as truly a martyrdom causes sadness and dismay to many. The lack of progress towards beatification and canonisation is hard to fathom, but perhaps it is unimportant. Millions of ordinary people who, after all, are the Church and provide a sensus fidelium do not doubt that he is a saint.

The recognition of Jerzy Popieluszko's death as a martyrdom is a clear precedent for Archbishop Romero's death to be similarly recognised. I do think that the progression of the cause for his canonisation is important - the devotion of the people is one of the components of evidence that can be used to support the cause, but it does not replace it as Bishop Taylor implies. Canonisation allows the liturgical cult of the person in the Church and manifests the glory of God in the world and for the good of the world. So I too am disappointed that there is said to be "lack of progress" in Archbishop Romero's cause. I am not sure that the cause is being prosecuted as effectively as it might; and I wonder, too, whether the dissenting stance of some of those who admire Archbishop Romero is a hindrance to his cause.

UPDATE: Bridges and Tangents gives an account of Archbishop Vincent Nichol's homily about Archbishop Romero - which appears to be a much better reflection on Archbishop Romero's charism.

Bishops, laity and politics

The following is from a recent ZENIT news report:

After being criticized by the secular media for being reticent on moral issues, the archbishop of Quebec acknowledged that the country's bishops really should speak out more.

Peter Kavanaugh of CBC radio admitted last week at the International Catholic Media Convention in Toronto of being envious of the United Kingdom, where the bishops there are willing "to actually engage in public, in the fiercest of terms, an issue that they saw as being vital to the future of the nation and the future of humanity," reported LifeSiteNews.com.

I have found it quite interesting to reflect on the role taken by the Catholic Bishops of the United Kingdom during the recent debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Over quite a long period of time, briefing material was produced on their behalf and circulated and posted on their website. Speeches were made by a number of Bishop and press statements released by them; lay Catholics were encouraged to lobby their Members of Parliament. The Bishops deep seated opposition to key points of the Bill was made clear by those four or five bishops who acted as spokesmen for the others.

Thought 1: it is quite right that the Bishops should "teach" and "give a lead" on these issues.

Thought 2: the fields of politics, and of science and technology, and of medicine could rightly be seen as areas of lay engagement, where lay Catholics take their (secular) professional expertise into action in the light of faith, so it is really up to lay people to take the lead on these sorts of issues.

There is clearly a balance to be achieved between these two thoughts, and also a reflection to be made on whether that balance was correctly and effectively achieved during the recent events surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

I think the balance of the two thoughts could be reflected in two role models. My role model for the "Thought 1" approach would be Archbishop Oscar Romero. His pastoral letters are profoundly rooted in the Magisterium of the Church, and then apply that Magisterium to the situation in El Salvador at his time. His Sunday homilies, broadcast to the nation by radio, spoke out the truth about violence and injustice that otherwise would not have been admitted or generally known. However, he incessantly called for an end to violence and for an end to injustice; and while these calls may have most often been addressed to those in Government, they were in principle equally applicable to opposition groups as well. So, I think the Bishop's role is to teach the truth of the Catholic faith, applied to the current local situation, and be willing to express judgements as to whether or not particular actions or proposed policies are in accordance with truth and justice as taught by Catholic faith.

My role model for the "Thought 2" approach is Rocco Buttiglione. He was proposed by Italy as a commisioner for the European Union in 2004 (I think!). At a pre-appointment hearing, he was put on the spot about the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality, since he had been nominated for the Commission portfolio that would have included equalities issues. As result of making a very cautious and carefully expressed statement of that teaching and refusing to deny that it was what he believed (but at the same time clearly defending the principle of non-discrimination in public life, which is what mattered to his holding public office), Rocco Buttiglione became the subject of considerable public criticism. Eventually, the withdrawal of his nomination as a European commisioner was forced on Italy. What is of interest here (and, I suspect, in other areas of Rocco Buttiglione's political and academic career too) is that, as a lay person, in the area of his own professional expertise and experience, he made a stand for a point of Catholic teaching that cost him a prestigious politcal appointment. For me, Rocco Buttiglione is the outstanding contemporary lay witness to Catholic teaching on homosexuality. So, I think the lay person's role is to use their professional expertise to judge when and how to act in witness to the content of Catholic teaching, and to do this on their own initiative and not just at the direction of the Bishops.

To evaluate the recent approach by the Catholic Church towards the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, we can perhaps ask some questions.

Question 1: Did the Bishops do more than teach the content of faith and apply it in making known their judgements as to whether the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill were compatible with truth and justice as expressed in Catholic teaching? Did the Bishops engage in a politcal campaign that might have more appropriately been led by lay people?

Question 2: Did Catholic politicians, particularly Cabinet members, really
act in witness to the judgements expressed by the Bishops and rooted in Catholic teaching? Or did they fudge it? Did other lay Catholics really run with political and media campaign that was properly theirs, rather than relying on the public stance of the Bishops?

On a more personal note that reflect this discussion, I was a Parliamentary candidate for the ProLife Alliance during the 1997 General Election (a fascinating experience which taught me a lot about the electoral process). At the time, my parish priest received some criticism from others for not coming out in support of my candidature. But it had never occurred to me that he should (or could) endorse the particular approach to pro-life politics represented at that election by the ProLife Alliance. I considered it to be up to me a as a lay person to make the decision about what I was doing and how I was going to translate pro-life principles into political action. If I recall correctly, not everyone who was pro-life thought that the ProLife Alliance activity at that election was appropriate, and it clearly had great potential for mishap.