Recently, along with other clergy, I received a publicity notice for the Archbishop Romero Memorial Lecture, organised by the Archbishop Romero Trust whose first aim is:"To promote knowledge and awareness of the life and work of Archbishop Romero."Archbishop Romero is, of course, an inspiring figure. Shot dead while celebrating Mass, he will always be remembered as a champion of the poor and perhaps one day soon he may be elevated to the altars of the Church.
Fr John Boyle has a post today (Romero and Filochowski) questioning the involvement of Julian Filochowski as a Trustee of the Romero Trust - he is listed as such on the flyer giving publicity to the Memorial Lecture.
Fr John refers to my post Civil Partnerships and the Church II. Practice in which I drew attention to the public celebration of Mr Filochowski's Civil Partnership with his long-standing partner Martin Pendergast. (In Civil Partnerships and the Church I. Theory, I referred to an article by Mgr Gordon Read looking at the canonical implications of the public act of entering a Civil Partnership.) It does seem odd that a high-profile public repudiation of the Church's teaching can be treated by the Church as if it simply did not matter. One of our Bishops is a fellow Trustee so presumably nobody thinks there is a problem.
The satisfactory completion of the Diocesan process for the canonisation of Archbishop Romero was accepted by the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1998. An investigation was undertaken by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (under Cardinal Ratzinger) and the nihil obstat was granted in March 2005. At that point the postulator speculated that he could be beatified within six months. A few weeks later, Pope John Paul died and Pope Benedict was elected.
He has since made a clear distinction between the processes of beatification and canonisation, (cf. his letter to Cardinal Martins and the Cardinal's subsequent communiqué). The principal effect of this will be the celebration of the beatification will normally be carried out by the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in the diocese that has promoted the cause. This has been characterised as a "tightening up" but it seems rather more like a clarifying of the process. It is unlikely that Romero's cause has been held up unduly and perhaps we will see his beatification before too long.
6 comments:
I was told by an Opus Dei priest that on the very day he was shot, Romero had been spending a day of recollection with them. Not something his more liberal supporters would appreciate. One of my predecessors installed a rather good (artistically, that is) triptych of Romero in my church. I tell people that it's St JoseMaria—there is a certain likeness. But I tend to be persuaded of Romero's own merits in any case, and shall be pleased to acknowledge the triptych as soon as we are permitted public cult.
Dear Father,
Is it wrong to pray to God to guide our Church to caution with, or away from, the process of canonization of a candidate for sainthood such as Oscar Romero, especially when it has gone so far? I have been deeply uneasy with the push for sainthood for him. Not because I know much about the man but because of the persons who are pushing for it. They say birds of a feather folk together. Now that you have brought up this "married" homosexual working arm in arm with a "bishop" to advance Romero's cause, I finally get a grip on the cause of my discomfort. I worked in an ecumenical "soical justice" organization abundantly funded by the Catholic Bishops' conference of that region. The place was run by the usual social justice gurus - dissenting and benched Catholic priests, self-declared atheists, Catholic lefties, Churched agnostics, a disproportionate number of adrift protestants and militant non-Catholic gays. All the time I was there, keeping my Catholicism a secret, my heart kept saying they came across as the natural heirs of the satanists, communists and intellectualists (is that a word?)that the "smoke of satan" congealed into (like an evil genie out of a bottle) after they openly manifested with Vatican II. There was much ridicule for Catholic devotional practices such as praying to saints and serious bile being spewed on the Pope in our lunchtime and casual conversations. There was outrage that BVI was elected Pope and one of the "priests" actually said they were praying for God to reward him with a speedy call to eternal rest. The first place I got to hear of Oscar Romero was in that place and I could not understand why people who had such contempt for orthodox Catholicism were so keen on sainthood for him. I have seen homosexual activists push for certain apointments that they claim is solely on merit, only to watch them later rejoice that "see, who says gay people can't be like everybody else, therefore we demand xyz 'rights' for gays." I came across some gay newsite the other day and there was much rejoicing over Saints Cosmos and Damian, whom the site claims were gay. Is there any ring of truth to that, or were they simply homosexual in orientaiton? Like the Catholic church, I feel all people can rise to sainthood and would have no problem praying to Saint Romero, if God has allowed it and if it is about what he did versus how well his "sainthood" will advance the hidden agendas of certain groups, especially those who seem hellbent on wrecking the Church with open rebellion against her teachings. (Being from the 'Global South', my heart continues to bleed over how my Church destroys our societies by letting loose on us these crazies to whip up revolution and has given them almost a free hand to shape the intellectual fibre of our educated class.They get an unchallenged pass simply because they claim to be helping the poor and oppressed and therefore, by doing "good" while transmitting a legacy that the social is superior to the spiritual, no one should question their moral degeneracy.)
While I share your views (and the Church's) on civil partnerships, I wonder whether there is really any scandal here. Does the Oscar Romero Trust advertise itself as being Catholic? If not, then I don't see how we can really insist on its officers living Catholic lives. After all, we could belong to a Martin Luther King Appreciation Society without sharing Dr King's Protestant beliefs.
anonymous, you have no reason to be uneasy about the cause of Oscar Romero. I was too young at the time to have any recollection of him but having read some of his writings one can detect not just an inspirational figure but a holy one. Do not be putt off by any criticism of him as a radical figure for as he put it himself:
"Those who do not understand transcendence cannot understand us.
When we speak of injustice here below and denounce it, they think
we are playing politics. It is in the name of God's just reign
that we denounce the injustices of the earth.
Not just purgatory but hell awaits those who could have done
good and did not do it. It is the reverse of the Beatitude that
the Bible has for those who are saved, for the saints, "who could
have done wrong and did not." Of those who are condemned it will
be said: they could have done good and did not." July 16, 1977
If sinners are inspired by him is there anything wrong in that? Rather, pray that their lifestyle may be changed by following Romero's example. Remember that they will have to give an account of their lives on that day - as will you.
Anon @ comment #2, I hope you are not suggesting a link between the late archbishop Romero and homosexuality. However I do see a red flag when gay activists are in the forefront of any cause. I too have noted those who promote Liberation Theology are loud on social justice and often close knit with gay activism. In British Columbia, a homosexual couple, the Correns, not too long ago won a settlement with the provinces Ministry of Education for some slight they claimed and had sued over. They were given a sweeping hand in rewriting the provinces curriculum and redesigning a high school "social justice" course to present the homosexual lifestyle as normal and healthy. Parents and students do not have the right to opt out. Now that the poor and oppressed no longer appear to be what the Church initially itended but well to do people like the Correns, Elton John etc who are oppressed by any one who does not like their lifestyle, perhaps there is more than meets the eye in this story of the promoters of Ramero's cause.
First, to be clear, Mgr. Romero was unambiguous in stating his views regarding homosexuality and he preached against it in his sermons. For example, he condemned "the aberrations of those individuals who abuse sexual pleasure: those who avoid having children, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, abortion, prostitution, etc."--rattling off the usual list of Catholic no-no's. (6 Nov. 1977 Homily.) He stated firmly that, "sexual relations are only allowed within a marriage, between a man and a woman," adding vehemently that, "God definitively forbids all relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman." (18 Mar. 1979 Hom.) Second, I don't think Mr. Filochowski is drawn to Mgr. Romero's cause for any ulterior reasons that could in any way reflect negatively on Mgr. Romero's image. I understand that Mr. Filochowski met Mgr. Romero while Filochowski was a CAFOD volunteer in Central America, and that his admiration stems from that encounter. Finally, and frankly my dear brothers in Christ, I am reminded of Mgr. Romero's sermon on the day before he was killed, in which he reflected on the day's Gospel, John 8:1-11, and said: "I can find no more beautiful figure of Jesus restoring a person’s human dignity than that of the sinless Jesus who comes face to face with the woman surprised in the act of adultery. Her judges want her stoned to death ... They persisted and with great wisdom Jesus said: 'Let the one among you who has no sin cast the first stone'." (23 Mar. 1980 Hom.)
Post a Comment