Talk:Óscar Romero

An editor has suggested that this article may benefit from an appropriate infobox, or the current infobox could be updated. The template to use is {{Infobox biography}}.

Not "notable"???

The notability of the subject is questioned. Oscar Romero is the subject of a statue at Westminster Abbey in London, putting him in the company of William Shakespeare and Winston Churchill (two others honored there). He was cited by Pope Benedict during his Angelus address on March 25 because March 24, the date of Romero's death has become a worldwide Catholic holiday. There is a movie about Romero ("Romero," 1989), and he was portrayed in four other movies, including Oliver Stone's "Salvador." Pope John Paul II twice visited his grave. The National Catholic Reporter wrote that "no saint-in-waiting figures more prominently than Oscar Romero." (John Allen, The Word from Rome, NCR, October 17, 2003.). Romero is listed in the book 100 Spiritual Leaders Who Shaped World History, Bluewood Books (2001), written by Samuel Crompton, alongside Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad, Moses, Confucius, the Buddha, Confucius, St. Francis, and ohers. He was listed among the "Top 100 Catholics of the Twentieth Century." On and on and on.

The published material about Romero is too lengthy to compile. There is an outdated list available at:

http://www.mbeaw.org/resources/voices/romero.html

In short, my question to Wikipedia is this. In light of the foregoing, why should this question NOT be immediately taken off the table? (Note: the "What links here" tab alone denotes the hundreds of other Wikipedia articles that reference Romero and would be left "orphaned" if this story was deleted.") Carlos Carlos_X 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. If there is no response to this within 20 days of its posting yesterday, I will remove the notification notice. Carlos_X 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Carlos; I've gone and removed the notice. It would seem like the user Dangerous Boy is going around to every Catholicism- and Christianity-related article he can find and adding the 'non-notable' notice to them. Other examples include Roman Catholicism in Sudan, Christianity in Eritrea, Roman Catholicism in Portugal and even Bishop of Kensington. By the looks of it he's been on this trolling rampage all month. Knyght27 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Romero simpy not a saint in the Church's view

"While Romero has not been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, which has not given support to liberation theology, he is recognized as a saint by the Church of England."

No he hasn't. The Church of England does not canonize saints. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• He's got a day on the liturgical calendar in the Book of Common Worship, so it's pretty clear that the CoE recognises him as an important Christian role model, even if we have no canonisation procedure as such. In any event, the mention of a commemoration should be fine. Crculver 10:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree entirely. What is there now is fine. (And interesting. I didn't know he was commemorated that way). DJ Clayworth 17:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"To date, however, Rome has not taken the matter any further, probably due to the institutionalized church's continued mistrust of liberation theology."

Actually, no the cat came out of the bag. The Church has not taken the matter further because it has not concluded that there are grounds for beatification. The guidelines for the process of declaring someone a saint are very specific and very thorough. They are applied equally to anyone who has been put forth as a candidate. If Romero qualifies, then he will eventually be recognized as a saint. The Church understands that it is not necessary for someone to have gone through this process (necessarily post mortem) in order to actually be a saint. The Church's declaration of someone's sainthood is only a recognition that we KNOW that a particular person is a saint, and is therefore in heaven*. As such, the Church's position is that ALL of us are called to sainthood, and the definition of a saint is simply one who is allowed the beatific vision, to be in the presence of the glory of God. In other words, unless you are a saint, you can't be with God. The reason is simple: you can't have the stain of sin on you and be in God's direct presence. He is pure good, and sin is the manifestation of evil. If you die with mortal sin, you cannot be with God, and it is understood that you will spend eternity in hell (whether or not you believed in hell while you were alive on earth). If you die with venial sin on your soul (and just about all of us do, to one degree or another), then you must pass through Purgatory, to have your sins purged, as atonement, and as purification in order to be united with God, and all the angels and saints. By the way, the Church does not simply "mistrust" Liberation Theology; it has repeatedly repudiated it**. Also, as a side note, it seems that the Church was wise enough to recognize that those petitioning sainthood for Romero were probably seeking recognition for or endorsement of his political views, effectively making the Church a mouthpiece for Marxist ideology, which the Church has denounced, and in any case, something for which the Church is not intended. Also, to make a reference to the "institutionalized church" is to make a claim that there is another, parallel Catholic Church out there which is not always in concordance with what the Vatican officially declares. While anyone can claim to be Catholic and can say anything they want in disagreement with the Vatican's position on anything, this does not make them or their opinions "part of" the Church, or any loosely organized "parallel church". I can claim to be part of the Anglican church and speak dissent until I am blue in the face. That does not make my views "Anglican", it does not give them validity, and it does not make me part of the Anglican church.

• http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/08/23/vatican.teresa/index.html
  • http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/40/096.html

[posted by 24.160.151.112, 6 Feb 2005 14:55]

How about an acknowledgement of recent movements in the beatification cause? Namely, on March 15, 2005, ANSA News Service reported that, in an unusual acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding the Romero cause, the file had been taken out of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1997 and transferred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger! In November of last year, theological censors from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approved the continuation of the cause, and in March of this year, to coincide with the 25th anniversary of Romero's assassination, the postulator announced that a Church report had concluded that "Romero was not a revolutionary bishop, but a man of the Church, of the Gospel, and of the Poor." In further announcements in late March and early April of 2004, he predicted that Romero would be beatified this year, or in 2006, at the latest. The ANSA story is found at:

http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/sanromero/message/2116

On liberation theology

SqueakBox, on the one hand I agree that an explanation of liberation theology belongs in liberation theology, on the other Romero does appear to be associated with it and I think at least a few lines should be incorporated in the article saying what it is, tying it to the Salvadoran situation. In theory, hyperlinks make any kind of redundancy in articles superfluous; in practice, I think a small amount of overlap is acceptable and useful. The concept has fallen out of fashion and unlike, say, "capitalism", I doubt that everyone knows what it is. I am going to think about how to best integrate something about it into this article. -- Viajero 13:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, --SqueakBox 20:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

bias

after witnessing numerous violations of human rights, began to speak out on behalf of the poor and the victims of his country's long and bloody civil war. This brought him into conflict with both the right-wing paramilitary death squads and with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Speaking out on behalf of the poor did not bring Romero into conflict with the Catholic Church. Promoting Marxism as a means of helping the poor did.

Please source your claim that Romero promoted Marxism? --SqueakBox 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take back my claim that Romero promoted Marxism personally. But it is much more likely that the he came into conflict with the Church because of his association with liberation theologians who did promote Marxism, than that the source of the conflict was merely that he "spoke out on behalf of the poor." If this were the source of the conflict between the Church and Romero, then the Church would have also been in conflict with Mother Theresa.

How do you propose to change the text so we can have an NPOV and remove the notice of partiality? --SqueakBox 00:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about this?:

Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Goldámez (August 15, 1917 – March 24, 1980) was a prominent Roman Catholic Archbishop from El Salvador who, after witnessing numerous violations of human rights, began to speak out on behalf of the poor and the victims of his country's long and bloody civil war. His political activism brought him into conflict with both the right-wing paramilitary death squads and with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. -- Temtem 18:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about "this political activism"? --SqueakBox 19:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is its implication that the political activism was limited to speaking out on behalf of the poor. I think it would be better to leave the matter open in the introduction and describe the political activism in the body of the article. -- Temtem 19:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't object to it's (his political activism) insertion. Don't know what others may think. If you put this in will you also remove the POV or are their other biases too? --SqueakBox 19:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I for one can live with this formulation. I am curious though how Temtem thinks Romero went beyond just "speaking out". You imply that it went much further than this. -- Viajero 19:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely a mention of his assasination needs to go into the introduction? DJ Clayworth 19:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. How is that? --SqueakBox 19:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

All done. Can I remove the POV notice? --SqueakBox 20:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I won't hold up the removal of the POV notice. My point was just that it was the particular manner in which he spoke out for the poor (such as opposing foreign military support for the government), rather than merely speaking out for the poor, that created the conflict. But I think this is adequately covered. -- Temtem 21:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good, glad we could resolve this. -- Viajero 21:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem to me is that the text says "of his country's long and bloody civil war". Now, he died in 1980, and at most, the left wing in El Salvador claims that the war started with his death. Since there is no actual official date to the ignition of the civil war, but the common year is attributed to be 1981 then he could have not advocated to the victims of the war, or at least not to the victims of the alleged human right violations of the salvadorean armed forces, the text should refer to "victims of human rights violations" and not war victims

---

Thing is, the war did not start with Romero's death. But the repression and mass murders began as early as 1930´s (see 32 uprising). Remember that the war was never declared so the start date its not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.62.50.192 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

image upload

I upload a lossless modified version of ArchibshopRomero.jpg for Oscar Romero's italian article

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Oscar_Romero-Vescovo.jpg

Upload your version to remove left black line and bottom line.

bye

Discrepancy as to Time of Death

This article makes two mutually exclusive statements about when during his last Mass, Archbishop Romero was assassinated. The first occurs during the Introduction, which says that "In 1980, he was assassinated by gunshot while consecrating the Eucharist during mass." The second occurs during the Archbishop portion, which says that "While celebrating mass at a small chapel near his cathedral, Romero was shot to death while he was giving a sermon in which he called for soldiers to disobey orders that violated basic human rights." I do not know exactly which version is correct, though I surmise that it is a minor incongruity between the two and that Arbishop Romero was assassinated while consecrating the Eucharist after he had given a homily calling for soldiers to disobey orders that violated human rights. For those of you that are unsure why these events are necessarily mutually exclusive, it is that the Consecration of the Eucharist is a totally and completely distinct part, action, and ritual of the Mass from the Homily or Sermon. I hope that someone with more knowledge than I can correct this.

140.247.179.161 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Scotus Adams

Actually, the first version is the right one.

Romero was shot at approximately 6:25 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 1980 while celebrating mass at the Hospitalito Divina Providencia in the Miramontes district of northwest San Salvador. The sermon calling for soldiers to disobey orders that violated basic human rights had been given the previous day, Sunday, March 23, 1980 starting at aboout 8 A.M. Romero was shot at the altar in front of the Eucharistic gifts, but he was killed well before the actual consecration. In the audio tape recording of the March 24 mass, the fatal shot is heard moments after the concluding remarks of Romero's sermon. Most sources locate him in the Eucharistic offering, but Romero was still in the Liturgy of the Word, and not technically in the Liturgy of the Eucharist -- it was even before the Profession of Faith (praying the Creed). However, Romero had concluded his Sermon with an improvized, pre-Eucharistic prayer, which makes the attribution of the Eucharistic sacrifice as the setting of Romero's martyrdom seem appropriate. Even more fitting were his words:

"This holy Mass, this Eucharist, is precisely an act of Faith. With Christian Faith, we know that at this moment, the Wheaten Host is converted in the Body of the Lord, which was offered for the redemption of the World; and that in this chalice the wine is transformed into the Blood that was the price of salvation. May this Body immolated and this Blood sacrificed for mankind nourish us also, to give our body and our blood over to suffering and pain, like Christ -- not for Self, but to bring harvests of justice and of peace to our People."

Seven seconds later, the shot blares across the tape, and a the crowd explodes. Above the shrieks of panic, a female voice (probably a nun) stands out. She exclaims, "¡Santo Cristo!" (Holy Crist.)

168.98.32.22 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Carlos X.

So, why is there still something in the article about him dying during the Consecration? I am going to remove that passage (about the wine/Blood on his chest and the "mingling" and such).Zerobot 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The version in the introduction is not the correct one. Romero being shot during the consecration is a dramatization found in the movie "Romero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.27.109 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Pope statement

What about the sentence saying John Paul II supported non-democratic governments in the sole purpose of containing communism? It would be important to have the source of such information.

Agreed and removed. For the second time, I might add, SqueakBox 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Sources?

Is there a source for statement that "May God have mercy on the assassins" were his last words? I tried to verify this but was unable. If someone can find a source for this, please cite it. Otherwise I will remove the quote from the article. 134.173.94.191 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The source for Romero's last words is: Jerry Adler, "A Murder in the Chapel," NEWSWEEK, April 7, 1980.

But, why was the quote removed? I provided an authoritative source, a PUBLISHED source. In academic circles, isn't a print source more authoritative than all other sources, including on-line sources? Certainly an article printed in a national publication of repute, within a week of the murder, citing sources on the ground who witnessed the murder is perfectly reliable. I think that it is a suspect editorial move to delete those words. Clearly, it is a very telling remark. I request some formal editorial inquiry or examination that definitely resolves the question.

168.98.32.22 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Carlos X.

Coat of arms

Is there a colour picture? --Daniel C. Boyer 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. There are pictures of one that was located at Romero's tomb. The tomb was recently majorly revamped, but pictures of the old tomb, and arms, survive:

http://www.vidacom.org/salvador/images/img0014.jpg

168.98.32.21 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Carlos X., March 2, 2006

The Fifth Sun

What about the play the Fifth Sun written about Oscar Romero?-Giant89 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

New canonization update paragraph

I propose to repace the second paragraph of the canonization section (which I wrote last year) with the following one:

Twenty six years after Romero's assassination, the canonization cause is stalled. In March 2005, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican official in charge of the drive, announced that Romero's cause had cleared an unprecedented hurdle, having survived a theological audit by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time headed by no other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the future Pope Benedict XVI -- and that beatification could follow within six months. FN1. Dramatically, Pope John Paul II died within weeks of those remarks, and the transition to a new Pontiff slowed down the work of canonizations and beatifications. Moreover, the new pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, instituted liturgical changes that had the overall effect of reigning in the Vaticans' so-called "factory of saints." FN2. Later that year, an October 2005 interview by Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, appeared to put the kibosh on the prospect of an impending Romero beatification. Asked if Msgr. Paglia's predictions checked out, Cardinal Saraiva snipped, "Not as far as I know today." FN3. In November 2005, a Jesuit magazine whose contents must meet Vatican approval signaled that Romero's beatification was still "years away." FN4.

FN1. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35989 FN2. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1059021,00.html FN3. http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9359 FN4. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506300.htm

168.98.32.21 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Carlos X.

I really dislike the word "stalled" as thought the process is a fluid one that has gone off track - some take longer than others... It took 50 or more years for the Greek Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union to be canonized... Some that are just not meant to proceed simply won't. To say it is stalled is to imply that canonization is garaunteed - and that just isn't the case. It also implies these things move quickly all the time, also, simply just not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleSinner (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Photo of the Bust

Does anyone know, is this the bust on the UCA campus in San Salvador, just outside the Museo? Gershonw 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It is.

Carlos_X 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The funeral needs more info

The current article goes past the funeral info so briefly (not even using the word "funeral") that at first I thought it had been omitted completely. I'll be editing in a moment to try and flesh out that amazing part of the story. I hope others will supplement the item as time goes on.Lawikitejana 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

GA failed

I am sorry but this article is not sourced. Please fully source it using WP:RS, secondary reliable sources(does Britannica Encyclopedia has an article on him? that might be useful) and then nominate it for "Good Article" status. Thanks --Aminz 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Accent mark in first name

Since this article is written in English, should it not omit the accent mark of the first mame?

Copy Edit/Notes

Hi, I found this article requesting copy editing on the LOCE page. Anyway, I'm about halfway done but must go to the office now to do some 'real' work....however, I find this topic fascinating as I studied a bit of Latin American history in school (years ago) and would like to see it eventually promoted to GA status. However, there are significant chunks of text without sources and direct quotes lacking references as well. I'm also concerned about NPOV. I tagged all as appropriate.

As I said, I would love to see this article get up to GA (I remember reading a fascinating ....so, I will try and finish the copy edit later today and take a look at finding some sources. Let me know if there is more that I can do to help :) Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed "and his blood spilled onto the altar with the contents of the chalice". It's a bit too mystical for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't help that the entire sentence describing his death is not cited.

--94.76.220.9 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shield01.jpg

Image:Shield01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

you smell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.67.197 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Date of Birth?

At the start it says he was born on 25 August - then in Childhood it says 15 August. Which is right? Culnacreann (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

John Paul I conspiracy

I found this weird website that attempts to link the persecution of Latin American jesuits with the early death of John Paul I. I don't subsribe to any of it, but it is still intriguing to read anyways. [1] ADM (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Catholics killing Catholics

I find it somewhat problematic, at least from a technical point of view, to list many of the murdered El Salvador clergy as martyrs, since many of their assasins were themselves CINOs (Catholics in name only). If we were to follow that logic, then the murder of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel would also have to be considered a form of martyrdom in the Jewish tradition, Rabin having been killed by an extremist Jew. This is of course different from typical cases of martyrdom, where religious believers are killed by non-believing persecutors, such as in the French Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War, where fanatical Masonic forces ordered the killings of priests and nuns. ADM (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

On the Doe v. Rafael Saravia case

The Assassination and funeral section of this article mentions the Doe v. Rafael Saravia case that was decided in the Eastern California US District court. I've been scouring the net for a copy of the Doe v. Rafael Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2004) opinion and cannot find it. However, I found a summary procedings of that case through the site derechos.org. Enderandpeter (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Josh Ritter song?

As far as I can tell, the Romero mentioned in the Josh Ritter song (Harrisburg) referenced at the bottom of the article is not Oscar Romero. Yet perhaps there's some potential poetical interpretation that I can't figure out. Can anyone see any justification for the link?Prhodian (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)