Mons. Oscar A. Romero Martyr of the Option for the Poor (By Samuel Ruiz García, Bishop

“Mons. Oscar A. Romero
Martyr of the Option for the Poor” (by Samuel Ruiz García,
Bishop Emeritus of
San Cristobál de las Casas,
Chiapas, México)

I. Introduction

Even though much time has passed since the 24'th of March, 1980, the date when Monsignor Oscar A. Romero was assassinated, Monsignor Romero’s presence continues to live and grow among us.

Monsignor Romero still dwells in his faithful people(followers), his presence is a sociological fact, a cultural and political event (or deed) and it forms part of the Latin American reality and the most surprising thing is that, his presence is and will be part of the future reality of Latin America. We must put our faith in him (count on him) so that history may be made.

On the 29'th of March, 1980, a group of Latin American Bishops signed a document which stated : There are THREE things which we admire and are grateful for during (or in) the Episcopate of Monsignor Oscar A. Romero: first and foremost he was considered a great announcer (messenger or advertiser) of faith, a teacher of the TRUTH...Second, he was a STAUNCH defender of justice...and thirdly, he was a FRIEND, a BROTHER, a defender of the poor and oppressed, of the farmers and country people, of the workers, of those who have been marginalized by society (lit. “live in marginal barrios/places/neighborhoods).

“Monsignor Romero has been an exemplary Bishop because he has been a Bishop of the poor on a continent which cruelly brings the mark of poverty to the vast majority of people, he walked among them, he defended their cause, and he has suffered the same luck (or fate) as those he defended: persecution and martyrdom. Monsignor Romero is a symbol of an entire Church and a continent of Latin Americans, a true suffering servant of Yahweh, weighed down by the sin of injustice and death on our continent.”

“Although sometimes we feared it, his assassination has not surprised us, there could not have been another destiny for him, yes, he was faithful to Jesus, and,yes, he truly put himself right in the middle of the pain of our people and villages. But, as we know the death of Monsignor Romero is not an isolated incident, it is part of the testimony (or history) of a Church which in Medellín and Puebla chose to follow the Gospel of Christ, and defended the poor and the oppressed. Because of this, we are better able to comprehend, since the martyrdom of Monsignor Romero, that death from hunger and sickness, permanent realities in our villages, towns and cities: that like the innumerable martyrs, the innumerable crosses which we have had to bear, and which have marked our continent for several years, country people, townspeople, workers, students, priests, pastoral servants, people in religious orders, imprisoned Bishops, tortured, assassinated and killed for believing in Jesus Christ and for loving the poor. They make us reflect upon the death of Jesus, who was the fruit of the injustice of man, and at the same time the seed of the Resurrection.”

“...Monsignor Oscar A. Romero is a martyr of liberation who demands that we follow the Holy Gospel,a living example of the Pastor who loved Puebla...” (Communique/document which was signed by various Bishops in San Salvador on March 29, 1980)

II. Who are the poor of today? (See Pixley and Clodovis Boff: “Opçao pelos pobres” /(“Option for the Poor”). Vozes. 1986, pages 20 and 21.)

In a real sense, and not a metaphorical one, they are those who suffer from fundamental needs and economic deficiencies, those who are deprived of the goods and materials necessary to exist in a dignified and humane manner. They are those who have been scarred by insecurity. Someone once added: “They are those who die before their time.”

The poor of today can define themselves with only 3 adjectives: a) they are a collective phenomenon, b) their reality is the result of a process which is in conflict
c) they ask for an alternative outcome to the current historical project.
A) The poor are a collective phenomenon.
Poverty today is a social question, a structural question and it is massive and widespread. The poor of today are social classes, masses and entire peoples and towns. In Latin America today the poor constitute the majority of the population, more or less 80%, confronted with a middle class of about 15% and upper and upper middle classes of about 5%.

This empirical data or vision has been discarded (the empirical date is considered “vulgar”) because when studied in this manner a poor person is imagined or conceived as an individual, each person is considered and individual or special case. This view is considered outdated and rendered useless and ineffective, but still present in Latin America. Still present and based upon a theory that there are only 2 causes of poverty: there are moral causes of poverty and there are natural causes of poverty. In terms of the moral causes; they would be ignorance and laziness (of the poor), and the natural causes would be that since Adam and Eve, poverty has always existed, they were born poor, and we will always the rich and the poor in our world.

This vision is going to result in a kind of “asistentialism”. In other words, it is exactly the act of giving to the poor, without awakening them to their plot. The acts of giving what they need: contributions, schooling, and that naturally it is because of the rich and the “haves” who do this and are thus considered the saviors of the poor.

The majority of the religious initiatives in the last century, and even in this century, were bolstered by the objective of helping the poor, feeling for them with evangelic passion, but with very little criticism; the individual cases are evident, but not the collective causes, the poor people can be seen, but not the structures (economic, social, etc.) by which they are held captive.

B)The poor are a result of a conflictive process.
The poor are a social phenomenon which was produced or made, and not the result of fate or a natural fact. They are “impoverished”, maintained and forced to stay poor by a system of domination, in which “the great luxury of the few becomes an insult against the misery of the masses (the many). This is contrary to the Creator’s plan and it is insulting to the honor which we owe Him...in the Church a situation of social sin may be found or discerned, this is a very grave situation for the Church, because it (social sin), exists primarily in countries which are predominately Catholic, and where they (the poor) have opportunities to convert to other religious groups “ (where there has been evangelization by protestant and other groups). (Pue., p. 28)

“This poverty is not just a stage or passing phase, but the product of situations and economic structures, social and political structures, even though there may be other causes of misery. This attitude which in ingrained in our countries, we see in many cases, the origin of and the support of mechanisms, which because they are based upon these concepts they do not impart a sense of authentic humanism, but a sense of materialism, and they produce an international level or class of the wealthy, who grow more and more wealthy, at the cost of the poor, who grow poorer and poorer. This reality leads to a sort of personal conversion and to profound changes of the structures which deal with and respond to the legitimate aspirations of the people and moves toward a real social justice; changes which, have not taken place in Latin America or if they have begun to are moving extremely slowly.” (Pue. 31)
“The situation of extreme and generalized poverty, takes on, in real life, concrete and individual faces and it is in these faces that we should recognize how Christ, our Lord, suffered for us, the Lord who questions us and implores us(to follow Him)
C) The poor claim the right to (or demand) an alternative social project.
Given the fact that the situation of the poor has it’s roots in societal structures, a change in these structures must take place because they have historically prohibited the poor in society to grow and to affirm themselves in a historical context. The poor who exist in today’s society orient or view their perspectives of change toward a new society, and it is for this reason that the poor are tied to the idea of a change in the basic social system. What was just an ideal in the past is becoming a concrete plan for society, a society which no longer permits the few to rule or dominate the many, and which no longer suffers the privation of the vital basics of human life, such as: food, housing, clothing, education and basic health care.

We realize today that poverty is not of the same nature as it was in the past. Now, it does not consist simply of an absence or in a delay of material development, but it is principally the fruit of a contradictory development which allows the wealthy to become more wealthy, at the cost of the poor becoming increasingly poorer. The poverty of today signifies a social oppression and dependency, and is ethically unjust and is a social sin.
(We affirm that the poor exist because of the social structures of exploitation and exclusion which exist in our society).

The flawed “functionalist” vision considers poverty to be a collective reality (but not a conflictive one), in which the poor are only held back, maintained in a state of underdevelopment, and denied access to the fruits of development. In order to improve their situation (according to the functionalist view), the poor have only to wait for help and support from the privileged and wealthy. According to them, everything depends upon technology, investment and national projects. However, even with this theory and all of the help which it claims to provide, this functionalist theory which was the basis upon which “The Alliance for Progress” was built in the 1960's, it was a failure. It only made people more aware of the need for real liberation and not just “development”.

III.Option for The Poor

a) In the Old Testament

It seems unnecessary to stress that God speaks only in the Bible. Common sense and understanding tells us that our God (of the western culture) is truly the only perfect being, omnipotent and omniscient, the maker of heaven and earth, whose goodness and sense of justice is limitless. However, in Latin America we have learned that the common belief in a single and only God has caused conflicts between Christians. This only God who is sometimes invisible to some and whose existence has caused differences in perceptions among the peoples has been the source of conflict between peoples and groups in Latin America.Nevertheless, we are able to affirm that the God who speaks in the Bible, is the same God who led His people out of Egypt (Old Testament), and the God who raised his only Son, Jesus Christ from the dead (New Testament). So truly, this IS the God who created heaven and earth, and the perfect nature of the love of God commands us to believe that He is Universal. However, this concrete expression of universal love gave preference to the slaves in Egypt and to the impoverished in Galilee and Palestine. God’s love for the Pharaoh was not as great as His love and preference for the slaves; also His love for the Pharisees and the scribes was not as great as His love for the sinners and for the women of Galilee. So, the God of the Bible who created heaven and earth has a specific profile: “I am Yahweh, your God, who took you out Egypt, rescued you from slavery. You will have no other Gods but me”. (Exodus 20, 2-3)

These phrases from the Bible are so familiar to us that sometimes it seems that we shouldn’t study them more deeply. Nevertheless, the meanings of these familiar phrases are not so obvious or evident. Most of all, Yahweh presents Himself in a polemic manner when compared to other gods. The test does not deny the existence of other gods, neither does it declare the existence of other gods. Their existence or nonexistence is not important. What IS important, is that YOU, Israelite, who must follow this law, must deny all other gods and deities, and proclaim Yahweh as your only and omnipotent God. In doing this, who will find justice and mercy. In other words, any God who did not bring you out of your slavery in Egypt, can not be your one true God.
(All of the commandments which speak of just and good behavior of one person toward another, ex.( “Honor thy father and thy mother”), “Thou shalt not kill”, “thou shalt not steal, etc.” These commandments are introduced and presented to us as direct and personal commandments from a God who “took you out of the land of Egypt , out of the house of slavery and servitude”.)

“I am Yahweh, your God”. The proper name of Yahweh tells us that those other gods who were not able to rescue the faithful from slavery in Egypt should not be obscured behind the generic name of God. The great narrative traditions of the Pentateuch concur with regard to placing the revelation of this divine name in the context of Exodus.

“I am Yahweh, your God”. It is because Yahweh or God led His people out of Egypt that He is the God of Israel. This act of liberation establishes a relationship of exclusive dependence on Yahweh. It is not possible to love and adore God without admitting that one has been rescued from slavery in the land of Egypt by God. The people of Exodus are the people of God. According to Exodus 18-38, the people who were led out of Egypt were a heterogenous multitude whose unity was born and created in the Exodus.

No stranger shall partake of the Passover. If a stranger (infidel) who lives with you wishes to celebrate the Passover of Yahweh, all of the men in the family must be circumcised, and only then may they participate as though they were natives of the land, the people who came out of Egypt. (Exodus 12, 43.48)

( In other words, for Yahweh to be your God, you must unite yourself with those who celebrate liberation from servitude and slavery. No one who is in solidarity with the liberated people of God which is signified by circumcision, will be excluded from the community which celebrates its liberation from Egypt. In practice, things were not so simple in Israel, however, we are expressing an intention: Yahweh is your God).

The God of Exodus is a God who is able to hear the cries of the slaves, who took them out of slavery, liberated them and took them to the land of milk and honey.(Moses, the man chosen by Yahweh to help Him free the people from Egypt, has as his credential the fact that he had killed an Egyptian who had abused and mistreated a Hebrew slave). ( Exodus 2, 11-15 )

The story of Exodus makes it sufficiently clear that justice demands that someone takes the side of the oppressed. Yahweh chose the oppressed. The impartiality of God does not ignore His preferential love for the orphan and the widow and, in a situation of oppression , He makes a choice for the poor, He opts for the poor.
(Yahweh’s preferences and options for the poor are an integral element of the Exodus which was the building block for Israel, it exerts a basic influence on almost all of the material in the Bible.)

b) In the New Testament:
If the people of God appear to be the “chosen” people, and heirs to the promises of God, it is because they are poor and oppressed people. The logic of the Incarnation, is not only understood as the divine “condescension”, in which the Son of God assumes, (searching for His divinity), our humanity to convert himself into the Son of Man; but also to assume a voluntary poverty, having been born in Bethlehem in Juda, where in accordance with the decree of Quirinus, went together with Mary, his mother and Joseph, who represented the Heavenly Father.
An angel appeared to the shepherds who lived in the countryside around Bethlehem, astounding them with his light and told them “Do not fear, I come to announce to you good news which will be the joy of all people. Today, in the town of Bethlehem was born a Savior for ALL OF YOU, who is Christ the Lord”. (Luke 2:10-11)

Jesus, having experienced exile in Egypt, and having returned to the simplicity and humility of his home in Nazareth,.where He lived as the son of a carpenter, grew in wisdom, age and Grace before God, and before mankind as He awaited a sign from God that it was time to begin His public life. The sign came in the form of the imprisonment and death of His precursor, St. John the Baptist.

After having visited many communities, and after having seen the people as sheep without a shepherd, Christ entered the synagogue in Nazareth, in which He stood up and spoke publicly. “...He stood up to speak, they gave Him the book of the prophet Isaiah, and He found the passage which says: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for He has anointed me to bring Good News to the poor, to announce liberty and freedom to the captives, and that soon the blind shall see.
To set free the oppressed and to bring a year of good favor from the Lord.”
He then put back the scroll and proclaimed to those who were present and whose eyes were fixed upon Him: “Today these prophecies which you have just heard will be realized”. (Luke 4: 28-30)