Touche

If you note the comments listed underneath my recent posting titled "Preflections" (below), you'll see a comment from Mark John over at Vivereestchristus. He referred me to the following article from American Catholic, which indicates to me that I need to be more critically astute regarding my sources:

El Salvador: The Fratricidal War Continues
(by Paul D. Newpower, M.M.)

When the pope arrived in El Salvador on March 6, he insisted on visiting Archbishop Oscar Romero's tomb in spite of opposition. At the open-air Mass which followed, when the pope explained that he had just been to the cathedral, the crowd of 750,000 burst into applause. The pontiff went on to proclaim Archbishop Romero as "a zealous and venerated pastor who tried to stop violence. I ask that his memory be always respected, and let no ideological interest try to distort his sacrifice as a pastor given over to his flock." The right-wing groups did not want to hear that. They portray Romero as one who stirred the poor to violence.

The other papal gesture that drew diverse reactions in El Salvador and rankled the Reagan administration was the pope's use of the word dialogue in talking about steps toward ending the civil war. A month before John Paul II journeyed to Central America, U.S. government representatives visited the Vatican and El Salvador to persuade Church officials to have the pope mention elections rather than dialogue.

During his Mass in El Salvador, the pope directly addressed the question of a solution to the Salvadoran conflict by repeating five times the word dialogue. He also condemned any ideology "which opposes the dignity of the human person, ...sees in the use of force the source of rights, and sees the classification of enemies as the ABC's of politics." He concluded that "no one should be excluded from efforts for peace."

The night of March 6, Pope John Paul warmly encouraged the priests, brothers and sisters in El Salvador to continue to accompany the people in their sufferings—even at the cost of their lives—as others had so valiantly done before in the country of "Our Savior." He cautioned them not to be motivated by political ideologies but by faith. And he affirmed Church workers, including catechists and laity, in their courageous defense of the dignity of every person.

~~~~~
In my posting titled "Preflections", I noted the Pope's failure to grant sufficient audience to Romero only months before his assassination [my exact words: "Romero did more to clarify the meaning of living the Eucharist than many other priests. Yet His Holiness John Paul II, a man entirely devoted to the Eucharist, who has helped my devotion to increase, denied Romero audience for his pleas"]. I got that information from a 1. PBS Frontline transcript, which was quoting 2. Bp. Gumbleton and 3. a liberation theologian. Those red flags alone should have been a context clue; yet, if I'd done more research and thought more critically, I would have realized that multiple misrepresentations abound regarding this supposedly "cold shoulder" attitude of the Vatican towards Romero. Consider the following excerpt from a 2000 Zenit news article:

"During the Synod of Bishops for America, Archbishop Saenz Lacalle circulated a recommendation among the Bishops asking that those who appreciated Archbishop Romero's testimony avoid any manipulation of his person. On occasions, some institutions that are openly opposed to the teaching of the Church's Magisterium either on matters of faith, morals, or social doctrine, have tried to use the person of the deceased Archbishop to present their claims. The organization, 'We Are Church', which was created in Austria to claim the right to priestly ordination for women, the recognition of divorce, marriage of priests in the Catholic Church of Latin rite, and a general democratization of Church structures, recently sent a press release making the Vatican itself responsible for Romero's death. 'The Vatican's critical stance toward liberation theology is to a great extent responsible for the fact that Romero and many like him fell victim to Christian persecution from right-wing politicians in South America,' the organization said in a statement distributed on the occasion of the anniversary. Statements of this kind have been totally denied by Bishop Paglia, the postulator of the cause, who has collected interesting proofs of John Paul II's offer to help the Archbishop when he received death threats. Sources close to the cause say this type of manipulation is the worst obstacle that can be introduced for the cause of beatification. Some political organizations have also tried to add their voice to these misrepresentations."

I'm pretty sure that PBS, Gumbleton, and liberation theologians are openly opposed to the Church's Magisterium on matters of faith, morals, or social doctrine-- hence the red flags.

So what actually happened when Romero went to Rome to have his audience with the Pope? In my attempt to surf and find out, I've found nothing. If you, my reading public, have any leads, please let me know. In the meanwhile, my surfing has yielded some rather excellent resources about the martyr in question. I've already mentioned the Zenit article, which reported on Romero's advancing cause for beatification. Then I found an essay about Romero's pastoral teaching, written by his foremost biographer, James R. Brockman. In that essay, Brockman provides evidence that would refute wholesale the claims made by 'We Are Church'- that organization named in the aforementioned Zenit article. Finally, speaking of the "martyr in question", here you will find a beautiful tribute written by Robert Royal in the Arlington Catholic Herald in 2000. His book about 20th century martyrs, mentioned in the copyright at the bottom of the page, has since been published and can be found at your local bookstore.

Said tribute corroborates information about the Pope's 1983 pastoral visit to El Salvador noted in the article that Mark John posted in the comments attached to my "Preflections" posting. Now you know- in the famous words of Paul Harvey- the REST of the story!

~~~~~

So there you have it, there you go. I title this posting "Touche" not to mean that Mark John has put forth a rebuttal. Rather, I use the term to refer to my own foot-swallowing; it's a touche against myself. In my recent dialogue about newsmedia mentioned in my posting "On Communications, generally", I got on my soapbox and high-horse that people shouldn't trust the newsmedia as a reliable source of information, that the public should be more critically discerning of anti-Christian motives in today's journalism. And here- right here on this blog- I have elucidated for you how I have failed in every respect to follow my own soapbox advice. God has a wonderful way of making me eat humble pie :) Hence, 'touche'.