Why Pope Francis Wants to Declare Murdered Archbishop Romero a Saint

[DonViejo]

Christopher Dickey

The pontiff who earlier denounced the “tyranny of capitalism” is now opening the way to sainthood for clergy killed because they were identified with “the theology of liberation”

One of the things that made Archbishop Oscar Romero so extraordinary, I realized long after I met him and long after he was murdered, was that at first he seemed to be so ordinary. When I went to interview him in early 1980, I was led to believe I’d be meeting a man who would change the world, or, at least, the little world of El Salvador. But he seemed on first encounter to be very gray, more a forgettable clerk than a firebrand cleric. Not a revolutionary, certainly. Not a martyr. Not a saint.

In his quiet, affable, good-humored way, he never seemed to want to be any of those things, in any case, and yet in the minds of millions of people, especially in Latin America, he became all of them.

Only the popes held out against him. For three decades the theological machinery of John Paul II and Benedict XVI prevented the martyred Romero from advancing toward the formal title of saint, a long process that was fast-tracked for John Paul II himself, and also for much less sympathetic figures like the founder of the wealthy and secretive order Opus Dei.

Yes, symbolic gestures were made. John Paul II twice visited Romero’s tomb in the cathedral in San Salvador. But the conservative popes from Poland and Germany didn't like the way people fighting for the rights of the poor — some of whom were communists, many of whom were leftists wrapped up in what was called “the theology of liberation” — adopted Romero as a symbol. John Paul and Benedict both detested that current in the church, seeing it as a front for politics, not faith. As Benedict told reporters in 2007, “the problem was that a political party wanted to take (Romero) for itself as a flag, as an emblematic figure.” Benedict conceded this was “unjust,” but “for reasons of prudence,” it was said, Romero’s beatification was put on hold.

more
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/24/why-pope-francis-wants-to-declare-murdered-archbishop-romero-a-saint.html

[The Magistrate]

1. I Really Could Get To Like This Francis Fella, Sir...

[cleanhippie]

42. Me too!

But I'm still waiting on the action. Words are cheap, and that's all he has offered so far.

Don't forget, he is STILL the head of the largest, most corrupt, misogynistic, patriarchal, homophobic institutions on the planet and other than TALK a good game, he has changed nothing. And FFS, he is already talking about retiring!

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/19/pope-francis-expects-live-two-three-years-may-retire

[Squinch]

2. Romero was a pretty awesome guy.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

3. Romero is far more deserving of canonization than many who have been canonized.

[edhopper]

4. So sainthood isn't about anything celestial

it's more like a Hall of Fame?

[AlbertCat]

5. So sainthood isn't about anything celestial

Well, it also helps fill in for all those lesser deities the ancient Roman population woulda missed after conversion.

It's about marketing.

[cbayer]

6. Not sure what you mean by celestial, but these are the requirements:

To become canonized as a saint, a perfect track record isn’t required (or possible). Hence, being sinless isn’t on the list. So, what is required for sainthood?

Two verifiable postmortem miracles

Note: Canonization (sainthood) requires two miracles, whereas beatification (blessed) requires only one.

Evidence of having led an exemplary life of goodness and virtue worthy of imitation, having died a heroic death (martyrdom), or having undergone a major conversion of heart where a previous immoral life is abandoned and replaced by one of outstanding holiness

Formally declared saints are chosen ultimately by the pope, but only after a thorough investigation of the life, writings, and legacy of the saint candidate. No stone is left unturned. Testimony from witnesses and experts, physical evidence, and the entire life of the person is examined with fine detail. Every skeleton in the closet is taken out, and all dirty laundry looked at — if any exists, that is.

They seem to have lightened up on the miracle requirement, but as this author notes, the miracle is that those that attended his funeral survived.

Perhaps is it more like a hall of fame. Is something wrong with that?

[edhopper]

7. Then what's with all the praying to saints

don't they supposedly have a closer place to God or something, so they can help with prayers.
And how do these saints, especially the dead ones, perform these miracles if they don't have special celestial powers, or at least know some one who does.

Nothing wrong with the hall of fame thing, but if they insist saints are special in heaven and can be asked for help, then my question stands.

can't have it both ways. Either they are more divine than other dead people, or they are just the all star team when they lived.

[cbayer]

8. I have no idea, but I think it's pretty harmless.

I just didn't understand what you meant by celestial, but I am guessing that you mean something supernatural.

If you don't believe in them in the first place, then why would you even care what they are or aren't?

I never really understand this. You can't win this argument, so what is the point?

[edhopper]

10. I think it's quite all right to question beliefs

Especially if those beliefs seem illogical or confused.
You don't think it worthwhile. We differ in that respect.

[cbayer]

16. when you question things like saints, what do you hope to accomplish?

I don't think you are searching for some piece of information that will really clarify it for you. It comes across more as derision and saying it is "illogical or confused" just seems to confirm that.

Certainly this approach is not going to talk anyone out of their belief, and saints seems like such an innocuous and harmless things.

So, I would ask again what your point is. I'm not saying its wrong or you don't have the right to do it, just asking why do it at all?

[edhopper]

19. What do you care what I want to accomplish?

It is a confusing idea and I am asking for clarification.
There is much of this that never made sense to me, even within the context of the Church's beliefs.
So I am asking my questions.

[cbayer]

20. I am merely interested.

Do you feel like it is clarified? I think your questions have been answered.

What is probably not going to happen, though, is that you will truly understand and accept that this is a valid belief for some people.

But as long as you are just curious and not trying to show others that they are wrong, it seems pretty innocuous.

[edhopper]

21. It's not the belief in saints that has me puzzled

it's the process by which they are determined.

[cbayer]

22. Ok. Has that question been answered?

I used to think it was some kind of super-special secret process, but it seems pretty straight forward.

And like most things religious, the human factor makes it less than perfect.

I have recently had the opportunity to learn more about St. Francis and to visit many of the places that are important in his story. FWIW, he was a very special person and remains very powerful today. His sainthood means a great deal to some people.

Then again, there are lots of saints that nobody pays much attention to. Every little town around here has a patron saint and a big to-do for them once a year.

It's about ritual and symbolism, and I find that very interesting.

[edhopper]

33. Less than perfect is an understatement

I guess the amount of inconsistency and illogic corresponds to how serious and real the believer thinks the whole thing is.
Those that see it as more of an official acknowledgement of the person's significance would seem less problematic.

[cbayer]

34. No, the amount of inconsistency and illogic are the nature of things like philosophy

and religion, where there is no way to scientifically prove anything.

They change over time due to a large number of factors.

Were you looking for something definitive? Does the lack of that definitiveness prove something or make this less relevant.

Those that see it any way they want are less problematic, unless one wants to force them to take a decisive position.

[edhopper]

35. You seem to think I am asking if they can prove someone is a saint.

I am not, there is an internal inconsistency and illogic in the way Saints are proclaimed.
Those are the questions I asked about.

[okasha]

36. Simple.

A saint is anyone who's in heaven.

Miracles are regarded as proof they're in heaven.

Canonization is a ceremony that acknowledges their presence in heaven. It neither creates nor changes that status.

[edhopper]

39. Everyone in heaven is a saint?

Never heard that one.
So there billions of saints?
why pick only a few to pray to?

[okasha]

40. yes and yes.

They're referred to as "the communion of saints," sometimes as the Church Triumphant. The Episcopal Mass calls them "the company of heaven."

Only a few have verified miracles. But people invoke unofficial saints all the time, especially people they were close to in life.

[edhopper]

47. Is this from the RCC?

or another Church?

[okasha]

51. It's a widespread understanding.

The RCC, the Episcopal/Anglican Communion, the Orthodox Churches, Lutheran churches, Copts, all consider all persons in heaven to be saints. Many others expand the term to mean righteous persons now living, which is how the word is used in the NT. The obvious contemporary example is the Latter Day Saints.

[trotsky]

45. That is one take.

Disturbingly, canonization is then just the formal acknowledgment that someone is in heaven.

Everyone else who's dead? Hell or purgatory. How neat!

[rug]

46. "Everyone else who's dead? Hell or purgatory."

That's not it at all. okasha stated it precisely.

How neat!

[edhopper]

48. So everyone in heaven is a saint?

Why all the bother to determine who is a saint then.
Why the stuff about miracles?
Aren't there billions or hundreds of millions of saints then?
Or do very few people get to heaven?
Was there a question inside the Church if Mother Teresa or JPII went to heaven that had to be investigated?

[rug]

49. Yes, by definition.

For much the same reason there's Mt. Rushmore.

To make the extraordinary claim that a person indeed is in heaven, as opposed to a hope, extraordinary evidence is required. Though you may prefer that all miracles ultimately have a natural explanation, the fact is most remain unexplained.

That would be my guess.

Personally, I think it's much easier to get to heaven than it is to get to hell. It's extremely difficult to reject God absolutely, assuming you're not dealing with a caricature.

Sure, every canonization for about 500 years has had what was colloquially called the Devil's Advocate (Advocatus Diaboli) to challenge the cause of an individual's sainthood. The title is actually Promoter of the Faith (Promotor Fidei). Hitchens was called by him as a witness in the investigation of Mother Teresa. Bemusement ensued.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01168b.htm

[edhopper]

50. Thanks

for the explanation.

[Act_of_Reparation]

15. One of our practicing Catholics may be more qualified to answer this question in detail...

...but the simple answer is that saint-specific prayers are essentially requests for that particular saint to pray for you or someone else. It's like asking friends or family to pray for you... except you're asking someone who has been dead for a long time.

[edhopper]

18. And those who prayed to Saints

that later were acknowledged to not exist at all?

[Act_of_Reparation]

23. I would wager the endeavor was just as fruitful as praying to saints who did exist.

That is, not fruitful at all.

[cbayer]

24. Perhaps no different in terms of absolute outcome, but if praying

helped someone personally by giving them an opportunity to reflect, be thankful, feel comforted, then it is indeed fruitful.

Whether the saint existed or not seems completely irrelevant.

[rug]

9. Its most practical significance is to highlight a person worth emulating.

Under that criterion, this is good.

[edhopper]

11. But then the

Last edited Sun Aug 24, 2014, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

Miracle thing brings a supernatural and special divne powers to the whole thing.
Which opens up many questions.

[rug]

12. That's intrinsic in any notion of sainthood. If Romero becames better known from this process, great

If silence on the supernatural is a prerequisite for saluting people, it would be a short list.

Personally, I'm waiting to see if the movement for Dorothy Day gets off the ground.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Day

She is someone I've admired for a long time.

[edhopper]

13. Seems there are too issues here

Acknowledging the good qualities of the person, within the view of the Church.
And what is the spiritual nature of sainthood.
Does something different happening to their souls once they were canonized, or were they special before?
Do you want me to disreguard the spiritual aspect of sainthood ?
Is that whole aspect unimportant?

Also, though Romero is worthy of the adulation, would you agree some sainted people might be less so.

[rug]

14. Canonization, as you should know, is simply a public recognition that someone became a saint.

You can regard or disregard anything you want. It doesn't change the nature of it.

That aspect is the essence of it.

Canonization is an imperfect process subject to the times and the cultures. I never understood why Jeanne d'Arc is considere a saint.

[edhopper]

17. Okay

That's the thing I didn't get.
If we accept the premiss of a saint, it seems a sainthood is bestowed by God. But then there is this canonization ritual that says saints are elected (for want of a better term) but wouldn't they already be saints?
And then there are the saints that didn't really exists...
Imperfect indeed.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

26. Basically, Joan of Arc was canonized as a political sop to the French.

And as recognition that she was railroaded at her trial for heresy. It was all political on both sides.

[rug]

31. That's fairly accurate.

[rexcat]

37. Everything the RCC does is political...

and everything they do is carefully considered.

[cbayer]

43. I think there is a lot of truth to this.

That's why I am cautiously optimistic about the new pope. It's not because I think he has some divine ability, it's because I think he's a pretty good politician with some views that may take the church forward.

But we shall see.

[rexcat]

52. The current Pope's...

tone is softer but the RCC's message has not changed. The message is still az harsh as ever.

[cbayer]

55. As you have noted, it's highly political and if things are going so change, they

are going to change very slowly.

I'm not terribly optimistic, but I do like this guy better than any pope in my lifetime.

[rexcat]

57. I think that we will have to agree to disagree...

he may sound better than the last one but I don't think any improvements within the church will happen during his reign as pope. To compare this pope to the last one is a very low bar.

[cbayer]

58. Ok, but I'm not sure we really disagree.

I am simply a little less pessimistic.

Nice talking to you, and you didn't even need your hazmat suit.

[rexcat]

62. I am not getting the hasmat suit thing...

We can have good exchanges but on occasion things do get messed up. That is a part of being human. I am sure most of us on this board would agree politically but when it comes to religion, not so much!

I see the RCC as an extremely corrupt organization that is need of major reform. This is just my opinion but the rot has been there for quite some time. There has been one scandal after another and it is gotten to the point they are now unable to hide it as in the past (not sure if you agree with my assessment). I know some in this forum have an issue with my assessment of their church to the point of calling me a bigot but I consider that their problem and there is little I can or care to do about it.

Any lay catholics out there who think they can affect change with the RCC is not looking at the situation clearly. The RCC is a top-down organization and heavily political. One person, not even their pope, can move the RCC in any meaningful way without consensus from the cardinals.

By the way both boys are now at college. We just returned from Montreal where we dropped one of them off at McGill University. The house seems a little empty. We were finally able to navigate the Quebec, Canadian and McGill bureaucracy. It was much easier with the other son at Ohio University. The OU kid got a full ride based on academics. McGill doesn't give scholarships to US citizens but is one of the top universities in the world and has very high academic standards for admission. My apologies for the bragging but the mom and I are very proud of both of them.

[cbayer]

63. You are right, sometimes things do get messed up, and people can rather

adamantly disagree. That really doesn't provide a good reason to call people names or participate in witch hunts. If you don't know to what I refer, don't give it another thought. Let's just take it from here.

I'm not fan of the RCC and agree that it needs major reform. I am willing to promote just about anything that may contribute to that in a positive way. It's not going away, but it is possible that it could at least put the brakes on the scandalous and unforgivable behavior that has so permeated it for so long.

I don't see it as helpful to reject or condemn everything they do. It's like crying wolf. When someone can see absolutely nothing good about the organization or give the guy in charge an iota of credit, then it is hard to take their criticism very seriously. Not saying that this is what you do, but it is certainly done at times. And it's even worse when accusations of complicity are made towards those that identify as catholic.

So happy about your boys. It's a huge transitional point in your life and I hope you will find enjoyment. It is so very hard and it just feels all wrong for awhile. I found that once I truly believed that they were going to be just fine, I could relax and begin to explore my own life again. Interesting that they have chosen such different paths, but you have every right to be extraordinarily proud of them.

Thanksgiving is not that far away!

[rexcat]

65. Agree that the RCC can and does do some good things...

on the other hand I have had three very bad experiences because of catholic hospitals. One when my wife had a miscarriage, one when my boys were born secondary to the anti-father thing in the maternity ward and a third time when I had major surgery and ended up with complications that were preventable. There is also a lot of prejudice within the RCC when it comes to atheists. I consider the current pope's comments concerning atheists as lip service. I don't think it will trickle down to the priests and congregation anytime soon.

As an atheist I am very uncomfortable dealing with catholic health care. My healthcare choices would be limited within their environment, especially when it comes to end of life matters and choice.

We won't see the kid in Canada at Thanksgiving. It is too close to his finals and Canadian Thanksgiving is sometime in October. The kid at OU will get to come home. We just have to figure when we will go to Montreal this term. Hopefully we can fly up a couple of time. Driving is not an option (14 hour drive).

[cbayer]

68. Yikes! Were those episodes in the same hospital or different ones?

My only experience with a catholic hospital was in the "charity" system in New Orleans. While there were some things that were difficult to swallow, like the issues with birth control and abortion, they were the only game in town when it came to taking care of the really, really poor.

At any rate, I wouldn't conclude that all the problems you had with catholic hospitals had anything to do with them being catholic, but they may have been.

Agree about the prejudice against atheists though, and I agree that that is not likely to change much.

It is disturbing that there are communities in which there may not be an alternative to a catholic hospital, but I would strongly reject the idea that catholic hospitals should be prohibited. There just should be choice.

I forgot about Canadian thanksgiving being different. I was there once taking a road trip and thought I had lost a month in some kind of fugue state when I saw all the signs up advertising Thanksgiving dinners!

When is parent's weekend? Isn't that generally in the fall?

[rexcat]

70. Same hospital...

Good Samaritan Hospital in Cincinnati, OH. The problem I have is catholic hospitals are a major factor in the area. My health insurance and where my doctors have admitting privileges is also an issue. Two of the issues had to do with policy and that was controlled by the hospital leadership (thinks nuns). The issue with post-op complications had to do with an overworked staff but in some respect has to do with hospital leadership.

I have never said catholic hospitals should be prohibited but I do have a problem with an institution who receives federal monies and is still able to discriminate and push their values on a group of people who have limited or no other choices. To me that is were the line is crossed.

The right to chose in Ohio is quickly becoming something of the past because of our current governor and legislature. They are trying to model the state after Texas which I would say is the least common denominator, so to speak. They don't care about the safety net or quality of life for the average person but everything to do about the rich.

[cbayer]

72. I know that they have a major foothold in some areas.

I hope that you are able to find another alternative.

One of the problems is that many poor people never have any options and the catholic facilities often are the ones that step up to care for them. If all the other hospitals in an area are for profit, then those without funds or on Medicaid may have no other choice.

This is why I strongly object to the proposition that catholic hospitals be eliminated completely. But I also strongly object to public institutions that get government funding being able to discriminate. This is a particular problem when it comes to access to family planning.

I think this will become less of an issue when we have single payer and the for profits are no longer the major players.

Sorry to hear that Ohio is going the way of Texas. I hope that there is some growing pushback.

[trotsky]

25. If we want to be honest,

sainthood is marketing. Drumming up interest in your product, "updating" it to keep people engaged.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

27. That is clearly your take on it

Other people have differing honest opinions.

[trotsky]

28. Speaking of honesty...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143606

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

29. Of course, you take care not to link to the multiple posts where I QUOTE

(with sources) Dawkins saying that raising a child to be a believer is worse than child abuse.

But then, honesty is not one of your strong points, is it? Nastiness, on the other hand, clearly is.

[trotsky]

30. You have no credibility, FA.

Absolutely none.

Go ahead and link to your multiple posts then, if you are upset I didn't accurately quote you.

Until then, this is the documented history:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143606

[rug]

32. This drivel has what to do with the subject of the OP, canonization?

If you want to have a personal pissing contest, there are alleys for that.

[Warren Stupidity]

44. plagiarism is however one of your strong points.

You were quite good at it. For a while. Here you are passing off as your own an essay by Garry Wills.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218143436#post14

[rexcat]

38. It is always about the bottom line...

with the RCC.

[rug]

41. Good, I'm glad you're here. Can you tell me the bottom line on this?

http://news.yahoo.com/catholic-nun-dies-ebola-virus-liberia-155925035.html

[rexcat]

53. Its about money...

and power.

By the way rug, bottom line usually refers to money. Sorry you missed the nuance but your shark is loud and clear.

[rug]

54. How much money did they make off this death?

[rexcat]

56. Since I was responding to trotsky's comment...

and not the OP your question would appear irrelevant. Following the line of thought a bit difficult for you today or is your BACE 1 enzyme system defective and you are now showing the signs and systems of the defect?

[rug]

59. You should know a post on a message board is not a pm.

It might be your colon acting up.

As it is, your comment remains, wafting in the wind, ludicrous.

[rexcat]

60. Sounds more like projection on your part...

and your comment also remains ludicrous to the context of my post to trotsky. Best retort you could come up with is a colon comment? I'm disappointed in you because I expect better of you.

Sweetheart, have a wonderful day!

[rug]

61. You're the one claiming everthing the RCC does is about money.

Looks like one simple question you can not answer was sufficient to let the bullshit leeach out of that claim.

[rexcat]

64. You forgot the "power" thing rug...

and power and money go hand in hand. Of course over time they have lost a lot of their power and that started around the time of the Reformation and continues to present. Probably a good thing considering the atrocities committed by the priesthood the people they considered as heretics.

The RCC still holds the notion they are the only true church of Christ which can be problematic at times. The RCC has sold indulgences, needs good lawyers to defend their priest's abhorrent practices against children, the ongoing banking scandal, the rat lines post WWII, support the hierarchy of the church, and on and on. Because of their lack of transparency (their prerogative since they are a private, religious organization) corruption has allowed to fester with the RCC. It takes a lot of money to hide or defend their bad practices and to support the life-style of the upper echelon in the manner they have become accustomed.

I am sorry to see how hateful you are when it comes to critics of the RCC but I am not surprised in the least. Catholic indoctrination is an art form and an excellent model for others to follow if deception is the intent. I saw that with my wife until she finally was able to see behind the veneer of the church.

[rug]

66. Ok, how did this death show the RCC's thirst for power?

Sorry you feel questions about your opinions are hateful.

[rexcat]

69. The current pope bringing up the sainthood of Oscar Romero...

has nothing to do with a thirst for power by the RCC. That I have no issue with and more than willing to give you this one. I am surprised that the current pope would come out and support Romero based on Romero's teaching of liberation theology and his Marxist leanings. He was killed by a right-wing government supported by the US.

Will the rest of the RCC leadership come in line with the pope on this issue, maybe, maybe not. The European popes post-death of Romero would never go with sainthood for Romero.

It is still my opinion that the RCC does things for political reasons, for the most part, and money is a driving force. Is this statement better or are you still offended.

Oddly, many years ago John-Luc Ponty composed a piece titled "Eulogy to Oscar Romero" which I really like. Because of the piece I researched who Oscar Romero was.


http://www.last.fm/music/Jean-Luc+Ponty/_/Eulogy+To+Oscar+Romero

[rug]

71. Like every global institution, politics is a very big consideration.

But it's a lot more than that. You know you know that.

[okasha]

73. Actually, it's very much in line

with his recent actions. Francis has lifted the ban on several liberation theologians and met personally with Gustavo Gutierrez at the Vatican. Francis' career has consistently emphasized "God's preferential option for the poor," which is very much in line with liberation theology.