1
Archbishop Oscar Romero: A Shepherd to All
An examination of his pastoral method
Michael J. Bartholomew
Masters of Arts in Theology Candidate
Seminarian, Diocese of Rockville Centre
March 3, 2008
2
During his short three years as Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero
demonstrated a pastoral approach which gained him much praise from people at home
and abroad. It also gained him many detractors and enemies. Some of these enemies
would go on to assassinate him while he celebrated Mass. The intent of this paper is to
look at the pastoral method of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the groups to whom he
ministered. His pastoral method was balanced and he ministered to or attempted to
minister to all. The three groups we will look at are the major groups which occupied
most of Romero’s energies: los campesinos1 (the poor), los poderosos (the powerful –
government/military/oligarchy), and los sacerdotes (the priests of El Salvador). The
theology behind Romero’s pastoral method is marked by the Second Vatican Council, the
Medellín Conferences of CELAM and the papal writings of Paul VI.
Los Campesinos
The group with which Archbishop Romero is most closely identified is the
campesinos. From the view of those who were influential in supporting his selection as
Archbishop this is hardly what they hoped for. The rich powerful oligarchy and military
hoped Romero would change the social justice policies of the Archdiocese away from
those of his predecessor, Archbishop Chavez, and the then current Auxiliary Bishop
Rivera. February of 1977 would see Romero installed as Archbishop. On March 12,
1977, the world of the Archbishop would change; so would his role as he understood it.
On March 12, 1977, Fr. Rutilio Grande, S.J., while driving from his parish located in
Aguilares to celebrate mass in El Paisnal, was killed by machine gun along with an
1 Campesino is the Spanish for a rural peasant/farmer. Campesinos would be the largest portion of society
in El Salvador during this period. They would also be the most severely effected by the Government’s
promises of reform, and the government’s lack of action in the area of reform.
3
elderly campesino and a young boy. James Brockman places the killings at about
5:30pm and states the Archbishop was in Aguilares by 10pm. (Brockman, 9) Romero’s
dear friend, who was an ally of the poor and one of their more vocal defenders, had been
gunned down. Immediately, the Archbishop wanted answers and would demand that the
government investigate. This would become his constant refrain during his three years as
Archbishop of San Salvador.
The plight of the campesinos is historically bad in many parts of Latin America.
Historically, they were the group who would do the work but receive little or no
compensation. In addition, laws did not extend to them in the matter of security and legal
protections, which the wealthy had and held firmly to. In El Salvador, memories of the
massacre in 1932, in which soldiers put down an insurrection by campesinos, were fresh
in the minds of the people 2
. The government, while democratic in name, was mainly a
military centered repression mechanism. In February 1977, elections had taken place but
there was evidence of election fraud which saw General Romero (of no relation to the
Archbishop) elected. Following the fraudulent elections, some campesinos protested and
once again there was a massacre. This was the situation in which Romero was being
installed as Archbishop. Grande’s death would mark the change from Romero as a
conservative and not too vocal bishop to a vocal defender of human rights, for which he
is most famous.3
2 The 1932 Massacre is a footnote on 454 in A Shepherd’s Diary by Archbishop Oscar Romero, trans. Irene
Hodgson. 3 Archbishop Rivera y Damas, Romero’s successor, would say that the murder of Fr. Grande marked a
conversion for Romero in which he was more able to see the injustices around him and deal with them.
However, Romero would never say he had a conversion (Sobrino, Archbishop Romero, 7 and Pelton ed.,
Archbishop Romero, 18)
4
In the Archdiocese, there were grassroot organizations which operated within the
parish structures. Delegate of the Word was one of these programs. The Delegate of the
Word helped form the laity, which in these rural areas were the poor campesinos. The
Jesuits administered some parishes in the diocese in the rural areas, such as in Aguilares.
In their parishes, the Delegate of the Word and other groups operated strongly. This led
to the government’s suspicion that these groups were subversive and worse, Marxist.
This was one of the ways the government justified expelling foreign priests from the
country. The expulsion of priests would increase and this would to disrupt the lay groups
operating in the rural areas. The Bishops’ conference as a whole generally denounced
expelling the priests. These lay groups were believed to be infiltrated by Marxists.
Marxism, much like in the rest of Latin America, was a key word used by governments to
get more funding from the United States, and in turn led to more and more repressive
tactics. A common tactic used in Latin America, such as in Chile and Argentina, is
forced disappearance (Los Desaparecidos). People were either arrested or taken at night,
tortured and then disappeared. At times, as was the case in Argentina, they were simply
flown over the ocean and dropped. They either died before the drop or after. In some
cases in El Salvador dissidents were tortured and killed and then dumped as if they had
been killed in a shootout, which would be reported in the papers as if they were indeed
Marxists and subversives.
Land reform was a critical issue. The majority of Salvadoreños were landless
peasants. They had little or no legal protection. As such, wages were unjustly minimal
and living conditions were very poor. There was a very small landowning class which
owned the majority of the land and industry. When the landowners felt threatened, they
5
used government forces (Guardia Nacional, ORDEN, and the Army) to suppress the
campesinos. Guardia Nacional and ORDEN were especially vicious and probably most
responsible for the majority of los desaparecidos in the rural areas. ORDEN was a
government rural paramilitary force.
This was the environment in which Archbishop Romero was operating in. Since
the government failed to respond adequately to investigating Grande’s murder, the
Archbishop took it upon himself to highlight the abuses going on. One of the main
methods of doing this was his homilies. Barbara Reid believes that his “conversion”
marks a shift in his preaching from didactic to prophetic. (Reid, 18) Romero’s Sunday
homilies were normally broadcast over the diocesan radio station. Thus, the homilies
could be heard throughout the country. He often used the radio as a way of interpreting
the events which were unfolding throughout the country. The radio served as a means to
defend the Church from attacks in the press.
Romero’s identification with the poor, what he termed an “evolution” rather than
a conversion4, meant he would come to understand what the Medellín and Second
Vatican Council documents’ said about a preferential option for the poor, that the Church
needs to protect and identify with the poor. In identifying with the poor, the poor can
come to know Jesus and His sufferings. Romero not only identified the problems of the
poor and their plight but sought to remedy it. He tried to call everyone to conversion.
This applied to the people who were being victimized and to the perpetrators of the
injustices. There were calls to stop the violence happening on both sides and most of all
to have a conversion of heart.
4 Rosa, on page 34 talks about Romero calling what others termed his conversion as an evolution.
6
In his second pastoral letter, Romero writes, “In this new epoch of the church’s
history, what has always been true has become still more evident: there is need for
conversion. As Medellín puts it, ‘for our authentic liberation, all of us need a profound
conversion’”. (Romero, Voice of the Voiceless, 68) He speaks of the need for personal
conversion but also conversion in the Church. “The pressure of this conversion came not
only when the church looked inward, at itself, with its defects and its sins, but also when
it looked outward, at the sins of the world. The church has regained the basic attitude for
conversion, which is to turn toward ‘those who are especially lowly, poor, and weak.’”
(69)
At Rutilio Grande’s funeral Romero said, “Let us not forget. We are a pilgrim
church, exposed to misunderstanding, to persecution; but a church that walks peacefully
because we carry within us the force of love” (as quoted in Dennis, 32). This is a theme
he would preach on often. The violence which he preached was not physical violence nor
violence steeped in hatred, but a “violence of love”5. “The violence we preach is not the
violence of the sword, the violence of hatred. It is the violence of love, of brotherhood,
the violence that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work” (Romero, The Violence of
Love, 12). This marked his ministry with the poor. He tried to reassure the poor that God
hears their cries and that Jesus’ suffering should be united with their suffering. “In their
faces Romero saw the disfigured countenance of God”. (Sobrino, “A Theologian’s View
of Oscar Romero”, 27) Sobrino also points out that Romero lived out what the Puebla
documents say, “there is stated here a particular relationship between God and the poor, a
preferential relationship within the overall relationship between God and creation.”
5 The Violence of Love is the title of a work compiled and translated by James Brockman. The quote is
taken from a homily done on November 27, 1977.
7
(Sobrino, “Theologian’s”, 28) By seeing the preferential relationship of God to the poor,
Romero then saw the Church’s mission as protecting the poor and the Church’s need to
identify with the poor.
There is a problem however; while identifying with the poor, the Church came
under increased pressures by the powerful- the government and wealthy landowners.
While some bishops refused to recognize the persecution of the Church in El Salvador, it
would increase in ferocity. Archbishop Romero, along with Bishop Rivera y Damas,
would recognize the persecution and attempt to meet it head on. One such instance was
the third pastoral letter of Archbishop Romero which was co-authored by Bishop Rivera
y Damas6. Romero’s third pastoral letter speaks strongly against the afflictions suffered
by the campesinos. In the letter he defends the right of the campesinos to organize. The
current situation was that organizations not condoned by the Government were illegal,
which meant most organizations which did not serve the interests of the oligarchy or
military. In defending this right to organize, Romero quotes Pacem et Terris, the Second
Vatican Council, the Medellín Conference and Octogesima Adveniens. In using the
different Church documents, Romero justified the people’s right to organize and to seek
change. He quotes an address made by Pope Paul VI on a visit to Colombia, “You are
aware of your needs and your sufferings, and like, many others in the world, you are not
going to accept that these conditions continue forever without being able to bring about
the needed remedies” (Romero, Voice, 93). It seemed clear to Romero, as it did to Paul
VI, that there should be a way for the poor to affect their own condition and to bring
6 It should be noted that Rivera y Damas was Romero’s lone ally in the Bishop’s Conference of El Salvador
(CEDES) and would be Romero’s successor after Romero’s assassination.
8
about ways to end their afflictions. Romero saw organizations based on Christian
principles as a way of affecting change in the society.
The Archbishop points to the plan of liberation set out by the Church. It
“involves the whole person”, “it is centered on the Kingdom of God”, “proceeds from the
scriptural vision of human nature”, “demands a conversion of heart and mind” and
“excludes violence” (Romero, Voice, 98-99). He sees these principles as being the only
way in which a group could exist and still have the support of the Church. He also
advises against the danger the Church faces if she supports an organization which loses
sight of any of these principles. The Church is supposed to guide the people to the truth
and to right living. In being pastor of the Church in San Salvador, he clearly sought to
minister to the whole person, not just a symptom or problem. Romero put at the heart of
his teaching and preaching the Kingdom of God. He often looked to scripture to provide
the starting point of his preaching and sought to back up his teaching with scripture and
Church tradition and teachings. He was the loudest voice to preach conversion of heart
and mind in El Salvador. This voice would echo to many parts of the world. While it
specifically addressed those in El Salvador it has touched home in other Latin American
countries and other nations as well. Lastly, any conversion and any liberation were not
going to be brought about justly with violence. One of the stances for which he is most
well known is that of non-violence.
Violence was pervasive in the society. It was the military against campesinos,
military against guerillas, oligarchy against peasants, and peasants against peasants.
While the society thrived on fear to keep their enemies in check, the violence was
reciprocal and a downward spiral. To suggest that Romero was a revolutionary, as some
9
like to think, is to forget this most basic and fundamental stance. Romero sought to live
life inspired by the Gospel, not some political ideology. Romero’s understanding of the
Gospel was not one of justifying violence against human dignity but rather to invoke only
one type of violence and that was love. Because of the Cold War, I believe Romero’s
legacy has been tampered with. Those who saw Romero’s policies as against the
government, which was supposedly democratic, wanted to label Romero as a subversive
or a Marxist or at least a sympathizer to those ideologies, but he did not adhere to a
political ideology. To label him is to ignore the fact that he was aiming to preach the
Gospel to a suffering people, whose affliction he sought to alleviate.
In the third part of his third pastoral letter, Romero states that there are different
types of violence. He categorizes them as, “institutionalized violence”, “the repressive
violence of the state”, “seditious or terrorist violence”, “spontaneous violence”, “violence
in legitimate self-defense” and “the power of non-violence”. (Romero, Voice, 106-107)7
He writes institutional violence is the “most acute form of violence” in El Salvador and
the continent and it “finds expression in the structure and daily functioning of a socio-
economic and political system that takes it for granted that progress is impossible unless
the majority of the people are used as a production force under the control of a privileged
minority” (106). There is a Salvadorian expression, “the 14 families”. This expression
indicates that “at one time, a single family controlled each of El Salvador’s 14 provinces
and that these 14 families ran the country” (Lopez Vigil, 164). This is the most dramatic
proof of the institutionalized violence and structures that were found in El Salvador.
7 Swanson discusses the reasons he sees for this list and some notable exclusions from the list of types of
violence. (Swanson, 137-138)
10
These “fourteen families” controlled the power and economy of the country and would
attempt to control the Church.8
The repressive violence of the state was also another common occurring violence.
It is violence which the state uses to control the majority in favor of protecting the
powerful minority. Thus, it prevents any sort of possibility for change and self-
governance. Tod Swanson makes an interesting argument that policing actions would be
covered under this and that at the current time Romero could not see any of the current
violence coming from the state as justified. (Swanson, 137) Likewise, much of the
violence was coming from the state to begin with. When much of the problem is coming
from the state and the state refuses to stop, this calls for action and a voice of change. To
change the situation, the state would have to stop the violence which was unjust. The
repression which Romero would call on to be stopped was violence against human
dignity and against the society as a whole. This violence did not however justify
reactionary violence, which was what terrorist or seditious violence was.
Some would term seditious violence as revolutionary violence but Romero
avoided using this term due to its overtones as being justified and positive. For Romero,
this type of violence was not positive. It often leads to extending the circle of violence.
This then leads to a breakdown in any hope for successful and productive dialogue for
peace. Likewise, ideologies being used to wage guerrilla warfare on their own people are
misguided. Spontaneous violence is caused by the unplanned and unorganized attacks on
expression of freedoms or rights, such as protesting or just strike. “This form of violence
is marked by desperation and improvisation, and so cannot be an effective way of
8 Romero’s appointment to the Archbishopric would most likely have been influenced by the oligarchy and
government who saw him as the “safe” choice and not as progressive as his predecessor or Bishop Rivera y
Damas. “14 families” held significant influence on life in El Salvador.
11
securing rights or bringing just solutions to conflicts” (Romero, Voice, 107). With
regards to violence in legitimate self-defense, “this violence seeks to neutralize, or at
least to bring under effective control- not necessarily to destroy- an imminent, serious,
and unjust threat” (107).
He ends his treatment on the types of violence with the power of non-violence.
He draws on the Gospel message of turning the other cheek and on Medellín’s stance on
violence. He writes, “‘The Christian can fight, but prefers peace to war,’ was what
Medellín said about this moral force of nonviolence” (Voice, 108). Romero preferred
peace to war most certainly. I think this letter and subsequent statements even up to his
death were an attempt to call El Salvador back from the brink of Civil War. The
historical situation of the country from before Romero was installed as Archbishop to the
time he would die, was that of growing tension between the poderosos-
government/military/oligarchy and the campesinos. The violence which both sides were
subjected to did not justify any of the violence. The repression by the government was
most likely readily visible but still there was a need to stop the peasants from
reciprocating. A tit-for-tat war was being waged while Romero was Archbishop. Any
statement which condemned or questioned the government was taken as an overt action
against the government and thereby dealt with violence which was on a larger scale than
any attack made on the government. By holding people as subversives, the government
was able to justify their behavior to the outside world. Hence, the United States
continued to funnel money into the country for military aid to defeat “the subversives”
and Marxists opponents of the government.
12
In applying all that he had said in the letter, Romero told people to “believe in
peace”, “work for justice”, “reject the fanaticism of violence” and “use peaceful means
first”. He ends with an exhortation to all groups to listen to the Lord and obey him “In so
far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me”9
(Romero, Voice, 111). The document was wide ranging. It called all to conversion, not
just the military and the other offenders of human dignity. It was meant for all the people
of El Salvador.
This letter is truly a good summary of the social teachings of the Church and also
a good summary of Archbishop Romero’s own pastoral teachings and practices. It is
clear that Romero’s own understanding of the situation in which El Salvador was in was
seen through the lens of Catholic Social Teaching. He stands on firm ground when
defending the campesinos and also while defending human dignity and human life. He
did this fearlessly. It is also true that much of what is said in this document could be said
of much of Latin America where need of conversion was and is ever present.
If we look at the conditions among campesinos, some of the criteria for liberation
was not always respected. “Romero denounced not only the violence of the military but
also that of the guerillas when they killed peasants accused of being informers”
(O’Grady, 14). “He also pointed out that the poor were not without fault: ‘How easy it is
to condemn structural injustice, institutionalized violence and socialism. And it is all true
but what is the source of social sin- the heart of each person’” (14). Romero’s pastoral
method was not just focused on the poor campesinos or victims of the government’s
repressive violence. Romero understood and saw the effects on the other side as well.
9 Reference to Mt 25:40.
13
Los Poderosos
One such case that demonstrates Romero’s pastoral concern for those in power
(government, military, and oligarchy) was that of Mauricio Borgonovo. He was the
foreign minister and from one of the “fourteen families”. On April 19, 1977, he was
kidnapped by members of FPL, Fuerzas Populares de Liberacion (Popular Liberation
Front), a guerrilla group opposed to the government. They demanded the release of
political prisoners in return for Borgonovo’s safe return. The government denied having
any of the 37 political prisoners, although some were awaiting trial. The government
refused to negotiate with the kidnappers. The family made pleas for Borgonovo’s
release; they also enlisted Archbishop Romero to plead for his life. Romero gave two
pleas for the safe return of the foreign minister. However, there was no response from
the FPL. While trying to plead for Borgonovo’s life, Romero also called on the
government to cooperate with the Church. About a month later, Borgonovo’s dead body
was found on a back road. (Lopez Vigil, 164, and Brockman, 25-28)
Romero celebrated the funeral of Mauricio Borgonovo which was attended by
some of the most wealthy in El Salvador. However, during his homily he said “The
Church rejects violence. We have repeated this a thousand times, and none of our
ministers preaches violence…” (as quoted in Lopez Vigil, 165). The response to this was
murmuring and muttering as the people “were practically booing him” (Lopez Vigil,
165). So while Romero tried to minister to all sides, receptivity is what made the
difference. His constant calls for the government to act with justice and to make
investigations into disappearances and murders would go almost unheard.
14
Dialogue would also be a common refrain of Romero. He wanted dialogue to
happen with all parties involved, the government, different organizations and the Church.
However, he refused to dialogue when it was apparent that the government did not take
seriously the Church’s role in shedding light on injustices and calling to conversion.
Since Rutilio Grande’s death, Romero had demanded that an investigation be launched
into the murders of Fr. Grande, the old campesino and the young boy. There had been
promises made by the government that the investigation would take place but it never
did. This started a pattern in the life of Archbishop Romero, one in which he would
constantly call for justice to be served, yet nothing would be given except empty
promises by the government.
In various homilies throughout his archbishopric, Romero called the government,
oligarchy, military and unions to conversion and to accept responsibility for their
actions.10
It was clear that he had a universal approach although much of the offenses lay
with the government, military and oligarchy. During his homilies he would recount the
events of the previous week in El Salvador. On May 13, 1979 he said, “…we have the
list of 13 men, captured or disappeared, that added with the ones before, equal about 127
disappeared. They are our brothers and we want to know where they are!”11
(Sobrino, La
voz de los sin voz, 375-376) There was always a cry for justice. On the day he said this,
he recorded in his journal, “The principle point of doctrine in my homily was the Gospel
reading on the vine and the branches, which gave me the theme of ‘grace as a gift of the
10
See Sobrino, La Voz de Los Sin Voz: La Palabra Viva de Monseñor Romero 375-412. There are
homiletic fragments which demonstrate the constant call to all these groups. They are ordered by group
and the date delivered. 11
The author’s translation of “…tenemos la lista de 13 hombres, capturados y desaparecidos, que aunados
a los anteriores, suman ya por lo menos 127 desaparecidos. ¡Son nuestros hermanos y queremos saber
dónde estan!” (Sobrino, La Voz del Los Sin Voz, 375-376)
15
Easter season’. I focused this doctrine on the reality that has been lived in El Salvador
this week, and especially on the massacre of May 8” [1979]. (Romero, A Shepherd’s
Diary, 255)
A call to dialogue also is evident in his homily on September 23, 1979. In that
homily he expressed his hope in “popular dialogue”, in which “political parties, popular
organizations, unions” and others had met. He rejected the “national dialogue” which the
president sponsored but was at the exclusion of the poor and the working class. (Sobrino,
Voz, 378) On the 15th
of October 1979 a bloodless coup took place. General Romero,
the president, had fled to Guatemala and now young military officers along with some
civilians formed a Junta. This Junta lasted from October 15, 1979 to January 5, 1980.
On October 15th
, Romero comments in his journal,
The atmosphere seems to hold a breath of home, although at the same time there
is fear that, because it is a military coup, there may be a reaction from the forces
of the left, who are calling for a popular uprising. There is also fear that the
extreme right will feel threatened by the declarations made by the new
government, promising reforms in economic and social matters. We hope to God
that their goodwill be understood and that together all of us will find a way out of
the crisis of the country. (Romero, Diary, 350)
In response to this turn of events, Archbishop Romero released “Pastoral
Statement in Regard to the New Situation in Our Country”12
. This once again
demonstrates Romero’s pastoral method as fair and balanced, one rooted in God. The
statement begins by stating the current situation. It then comments that the statement is
not a political one but that a pastoral, theological one. He urges the country to place its
12
The entire statement can be found in A Shepherd’s Diary by Archbishop Oscar Romero, 351-353
16
trust in God first. It is in following what God wills that El Salvador will prosper. “Our
plea to the Lord becomes a prayer of reconsecration and a call to conversion, because
hate and vengeance can never be the path to true liberation. The road that leads to
genuine well-being always goes through justice and love” (Romero, Diary, 351).
Throughout the statement the theme of justice and love recurs. In regards to the people,
he asks for patience, although he understands that the patience of the people is wearing
thin since they have suffered so much injustice. He likewise calls on the offenders of the
crimes of violence and repression to “listen to the voice of justice and the voice of the
poor as the voice of the Lord himself, who calls them to be converted and who is to be
the judge of all humankind” (Romero, Diary, 352).
To the political parties and organizations, he writes, “we want to invite them to
show true political maturity, flexibility and a capacity for dialogue” (352). This is a call
that Romero had made to the previous government, but which had gone unheeded or at
least with limited response. The hope was as well that the new government would fulfill
its promises. The government’s success would be judged on its fulfillment or failure of
those promises. Romero urged the country for a calm reaction to these events. (352-353)
Despite this hope, the government would fail and the final government during
Romero’s Archbishopric would take power on January 5, 1980. He once again hoped
that this junta, which was a cooperation between the Christian Democrats and the armed
forces, would bring about “a government that is of and for the people”, which was the
stated objective of the two military men on the Junta. (Romero, Diary, 434) However on
January 22, 1980, a massacre took place during a demonstration and public celebration.
The government would claim that it was leftists who caused the violence, yet observers
17
would say it was police forces. (454-456) The violence was so severe that it forced
Romero to postpone a trip to Louvain. (Brockman, 224)
The violence would escalate in coming weeks. So much of the bloodshed led to
Romero’s famous exhortation to the military:
I would like to appeal in a special way to the army’s enlisted men, and in
particular to the ranks of the Guardia Nacional and the police- those in the
barracks. Brothers: you are part of our own people. You kill your own campesino
brothers and sisters. And before an order to kill that a man may give, God’s law
must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order
against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to take
back your consciences and to obey your consciences rather than the orders of
sin… In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people, whose
laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuous, I beg you, I beseech you, I
order you in the name of God: Stop the repression! (Brockman, 241-242)
A day after this exhortation, Romero would be shot and killed by an assassin’s bullet
while celebrating mass. The exhortation itself is a good summary of his pastoral method
in which he strived to defend the rights of all. He wished for those committing the crimes
to be converted and looked for justice and peace to flourish in El Salvador.
Los Sacerdotes
The last group I wish to examine is a group for which Romero also held special
affection, his priests. As mentioned earlier, upon being named Archbishop, many
received his appointment with disappointment and even despair. It was thought that he
18
would move away from Archbishop Chavez’s pastoral approach to one more in line with
the government and the oligarchy. He would surprise his initial detractors, many of
whom were in the presbyterate. The theme I would like to explore is that of defense of
his priests. Romero tried very hard to make sure he could defend his priests against the
injustices they faced while trying to carry out the Gospel message to the people of El
Salvador. While at times there was disunity in the Episcopal conference, Romero tended
to see the point of view of priests before rejecting any argument they might have;
whereas, other bishops were quicker to denounce the priests in favor of siding with the
government. There are many instances of this, such as when many priests wrote a letter
to the Nuncio criticizing the Nuncio’s actions which supported the government. Also,
priests accused of being subversives were often given fair and just treatment by Romero.
One such case was that of Fr. Alfonso Navarro. The day of Mauricio
Borgonovo’s funeral (May 11, 1977), “up and down the street in front of the church, the
first flyers were passed out saying: BE A PATRIOT. KILL A PRIEST” (Lopez Vigil,
166). That evening, men from the extreme right, entered the rectory and killed the priest
and a young boy. The attack was claimed by White Warrior Union in response to the
death of Borgonovo. (Brockman, 28-29) The White Warrior Union would be a force
employed by the extreme right to cause terror and acts of retribution against supposed
supporters of the guerillas or Marxists. This murder happened less than 2 months after
the murder of Rutilio Grande. Like Grande’s funeral, Romero would use the homily at
the funeral of another murdered priest to call a stop to the violence.
Alfonso’s message, continued Romero, was “a protest, a rejection of violence:
‘They kill me because I point the way to follow.’ And we, the church repeat once
19
more that violence resolves nothing, violence is not Christian, not human….
Violence is produced by all, not only by those who kill but by those who urge to
kill. I would like to address my words from here to the president of the republic-
if what he told me yesterday by telephone is sincere, that he would be concerned
to investigate this murder, just as he would be concerned and is concerned, I
presume, about that of his foreign minister. The life of Mr. Borgonovo was
sacred, but so was the life of the priest who is lost to us today, as was the life of
Father Grande, who also was shot to death, two months ago. And in spite of the
promises of investigation, we are still far from knowing the truth.” (Brockman,
29)
The other issue that would affect Romero over this case was that some of the bishops
thought Navarro might be Marxist and therefore were quick to brand Romero as
protecting or sympathetic to Marxists.13
(Brockman, 31, 177, 182)
Another case of a priest accused of being subversive and aligning with the FPL
was that of Fr. Ernesto Barrera. On November 28, 1978, Fr. Ernesto “Neto” Barrera was
killed. Immediately, the government claimed Fr. Barrera was a member of the FPL,
Fuerzas Populares de Liberacion (Popular Liberation Front) and that he had been killed
in a shootout with government forces. Thus they branded him as a subversive and
Marxist. There is evidence to suggest that the government staged a fake shootout and
Barrera’s body was dumped along with a few others. (Brockman, 151) Even Romero’s
own diary attests to this, “today was disturbed in a dramatic and tragic manner by the
violent death of Father Rafael Ernesto Barrera, who was killed in a feigned attack by the
13
Brockman throughout his work, Romero: A Life, points out the struggles between much of the Bishops’
Conference with Romero. On pages 177-182 have concrete examples of the force of the bishops against
Romero’s pastoral practices and policies.
20
security forces on a house in the Colonia Divina Provindencia, where Father Neto was
found shot to death” (Diary, 103). Complicating matters was the fact that some FPL
leaders wanted to praise Fr. Barrera as a martyr for Marxism as well as the three others
that were found dead with him. This was a tough pastoral spot for the Archbishop to be
in.
Romero quickly decided on his line of action, and he maintained it steadily during
the following weeks of doubt and controversy. Neto was his priest. He knew him
as a faithful, devoted priest, who followed his bishop’s pastoral directions and
was open to him. He had blessed Neto’s work with the labor movement. Any
other Neto was outside his ken – the burden of proof was on those who asserted
that he was an FPL militant. (Brockman, 151)
The day that Romero presided at the funeral he was still concerned that they could “not
confirm or deny” if Fr. Barrera was a member of FPL. (Romero, Diary, 104)
Even as the information could be distorted by the government or by other
factions, Romero stood by his priests. It is clear that the pastoral approach Romero took,
even though it was balanced, was dangerous for the Archbishop, priests, lay ministers and
the Church as a whole. The Archbishop stood in the way of very powerful and violent
forces. As the Archbishop stood in the way of those forces so did his priests. There was
no doubt some priests, although a small minority, were involved in the political realm or
mixed up in ideologies, but for the most part the presbyterate followed the Archbishop’s
lead, even priests who were not part of the Archdiocese.
Conclusion
21
These events put into greater perspective the breadth of Romero’s pastoral
attitude and pastoral method. To keep calling people back and to make them realize life
is sacred and not something to be tossed away arbitrarily. It also shows how he defended
his priests, defended the oligarchy and the campesinos, and attempted to dialogue with
the government.
The theology behind his pastoral method was rooted in Church teaching and in
the Gospel. As previously cited from the Gospel of Matthew, “In so far as you did this to
one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40). He also sought to
comfort those who were suffering. By comforting those who were suffering, he aimed to
have them unite their sufferings to Christ, to have them see that Christ was not absent
from this historical setting. It was through Jesus as the Divine Savior, “El Salvador” that
Romero looked to give hope to those repressed by the government, military, and
oligarchy. He also sought to see that the people responsible for the repression were made
aware of the gravity of their errors against human dignity. Clearly, human dignity was
not being respected in El Salvador and would continue not to be respected throughout the
Civil War which ensued after the death of Archbishop Romero.
I would like to end with another look at Romero’s final plea on the day
before his death.
And before an order to kill that a man may give, God’s law
must prevail that says: Thou shalt not kill! No soldier is obliged to obey an order
against the law of God. No one has to fulfill an immoral law. It is time to take
back your consciences and to obey your consciences rather than the orders of
sin… In the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people, whose
22
laments rise to heaven each day more tumultuous, I beg you, I beseech you, I
order you in the name of God: Stop the repression! (Brockman, 241-242)
I think it is an interesting phrase, “it is time to take back your consciences”. This was one
of many of the calls of conversion. He appealed to people at their innermost being and to
their heart where Christ should be found. However, the sin of hatred and of power
poisoned many. This statement is a boiling point which, in effect, would end his life. It
is as I mentioned earlier, his pastoral method in some sense was dangerous, and priests
did die because of the misinterpretation of his efforts. Ultimately, it was this same
practice which would lead to his death. He was “voice of the voiceless” but he also
ministered to all and sought justice for all no matter their economic or political status. He
was a true shepherd who like the Good Shepherd laid down his life for his sheep.
23
Bibliography
Ashley, James Matthew. “Oscar Romero, Religion and Spirituality”, The Way, 44.2,
(Apr. 2005), 113-133.
Barros, Marcelo de. “Dom Oscar Romero: Latin American Prophet”, Furrow, 56.6, (June
2005), 358-365.
Brockman, James. Romero: A life. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2005.
Cuéllar, Roberto. “Monseñor Oscar Romero: Human Rights Apostle”, Monsignor
Romero: A Bishop for the Third Millennium. Robert S. Pelton, ed. Notre
Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2004, 35-46.
Dennis, Marie, Renny Golden, Scott Wright eds. Oscar Romero. Maryknoll: Orbis
Books, 2006.
Lopez Vigil, Maria. Oscar Romero: Memories in Mosaic. Washington DC: Epic, 2000.
O’Grady, Desmond. “Remembering Archbishop Oscar Romero”, Liguorian Vol. 93.3
(Mar 2005), 12-15.
Pelton, Robert, ed. Archbishop Romero: Martyr and Prophet for the New Millenium.
Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2006.
---, ed. Monsignor Romero: A Bishop for the Third Millennium. Notre
Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2004.
Reid, Barbara E. “Romero the Preacher” Archbishop Romero: Martyr and Prophet for
the New Millenium. Robert Pelton, ed. Scranton: University of Scranton Press,
2006, 17-32.
Ruiz Garcia, Samuel. “Monsignor Oscar A. Romero: Martyr of the Option for the Poor”,
Monsignor Romero: A Bishop for the Third Millennium. Robert S. Pelton, ed.
24
Notre Dame: Notre Dame University Press, 2004, 65-78.
Romero, Archbishop Oscar. A Shepherd’s Diary, trans. Irene Hodgson. Cincinnati: St.
Anthony Messenger Press, 1986.
---. Voice of the Voiceless, trans. Michael Walsh. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990.
---. The Violence of Love, trans. James Brockman. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1988.
Rosa Chávez, Bishop Gregorio. “Archbishop Romero: A Bishop for the New Millenium”
trans. Elizabeth Station, Archbishop Romero: Martyr and Prophet for the New
Millenium. Robert Pelton, ed. Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 2006, 33-
46.
Sobrino, Jon. Archbishop Romero: Memories and Reflections. Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1990.
---. “A Theologian’s View of Oscar Romero”, Voice of the Voiceless, Archbishop Oscar
Romero trans. Michael Walsh. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990, 22-51.
Sobrino, Jon, Ignacio Martín-Baró and R. Cardenal, eds. La Voz de Los Sin Voz: La
Palabra Viva de Monseñor Romero. San Salvador, El Salvador: UCA Editores,
2005.
Swanson, Tod. “A Civil Art: The Persuasive moral voice of Oscar Romero”, Journal of
Religious Ethics 29 no. 1 (Spr 2001), 127-144.
