“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)
The option for the poor of Jesus provoked indignation and rejection by those present. They grabbed Him and
dragged Him outside the city, to the top of a hill, intending to push Him off the cliff to His death, instead, He faded into
the crowd and continued on His way. (Luke 4: 28-30)
A great logical and vibrant congruence are then, the Beatitudes, the Magna Carta of the Kingdom. Jesus awakens
hope in the multitudes, and invites them to raise themselves up from their state of prostration; but He also obliges them
to expand their perspective or view of life. The “Kingdom” which the poor will come into will not make them wealthy
and comfortable; It promises joy in the midst of persecutions.
There is no discontinuity between the Old and the New Testaments, and Christ did not come to abolish the Law, but
to perfect it and to give it richness. When speaking of the greatest commandment of the old Law (the Old Testament): (
To love God before all other things), Jesus tells us of the second greatest commandment: (To love thy neighbor as
thyself). Christ puts these two commandments on the same level. (Matthew 22: 37-40). However, when He pronounces
the great New Commandment, in which He combines the two greatest commandments, (John 13, 34); it is fortunate
that as the Apostle John understood very well, it is not possible to love God without loving one’s neighbor: (John 2: 710, and 4: 20-21).
Furthermore, the degree to which we have or have not loved our disgraced and poor neighbors, shows how much we
have or have not loved God, and this will be the great question which all of us will someday have to answer on the Day
of Judgement. (Matthew 25: 32-46)
c)The Church
+ The Second Vatican Council II
Pope John XXIII had two fundamental objectives/points to be discussed at the Second Ecumenical Vatican Council:
1) How must we speak of God to those who do not believe in God? And 2) In what manner should Christians, who are
divided among themselves be examples and testimonies for those who are not Christians?
Just before the beginning of the Council (2-X-1962), Pope John XXIII stated the following: “There is a third
enlightening point: the Church, which exists among and in developing nations and peoples, should discover what it is
and what it should be: The Church of the Poor, that is to say everyone’s Church, the Universal Church.
This synthetic expression is quite dense and rich in thought: that this option for the poor is not really an option, but
constitutive of the Church ; it is an option which is based on procedure and deserves a timely review; it does not have
only to do with the poor as individuals, but also with those who are a result of a social structure, (“ peoples on the path
to development”); that to only be a Church for the poor, is the Universal Church, since only a Church imposed on the
people could come from the upper classes, the wealthy; that the Church for the poor serves and calls out to all peoples,
an inclusive Church; the poor also have a need for conversion, and that in reality all of us should work to make the
Kingdom of God, in the form of a just society, including those who have been marginalized.
Lamentably, although the first two points which I mentioned were adequately addressed by the Council, the last
point was not able to be addressed with the degree of profoundness required for the simple and only reason that at that
time Europe was considered the “first” world and the poor live primarily in the southern hemisphere. Since there are no
real Poor in Europe, there was no pastoral work, nor an insertion into their world, and due to this a theological
reflection into the reality of what was considered to be a nonexistent experience did not take place during the Council.
The Church in developing nations was not completely ignored by the Council, and there do exist references to it in
the documents of the Council, but we are well aware that a deeper and more profound consideration and study must be
done after the Council.
+Medellín, Puebla and Santo Domingo.
When the bishops of Latin America met in Medellín, Puebla and Santo Domingo, they realized that the Pope’s first
two points for the Council (talking about God to nonbelievers and being examples and witnesses to non-Christians),
were “first” world realities, because at that time Latin America was predominately Catholic. The third point which the
Holy Father wished to address during the Council is and was a universal reality in all of Latin America.
The Latin American Bishops announced the “Option for the Poor” of Latin America. They affirmed that there exists
no “juxtaposition” between the world of the poor and the world of the wealthy. However, there does exist a causal
relationship between the rich and the poor; the wealthy exist because of the poor, and the poor exist because of the
wealthy. Thus, the proclamation of the Gospel and the act of constructing the Kingdom of God are believed to be
“liberation” from the situation of sin which exists in the current system.
“The Latin American Episcopate,”( stated the Bishops in Medellín), can not remain indifferent in the face of such
tremendous social injustices which exist in Latin America, injustices which maintain the majority of people, in many
instances, just on the verge of inhuman suffering and misery.
“A silent collective wail comes from the depths of millions of people, begging their pastors for a liberation which
never comes. “You are listening to us in silence, but we hear your cry which rises from your suffering”, the Pope said
to a group of peasants in Colombia. (Medellín 14. Pobreza de la Iglesia #1 and 2 )
( “If development is the new name of peace” (Paul VI Pop. Progr. 87), Latin American underdevelopment, with it’s
own characteristics indigenous to each country, is an unjust situation which promotes tensions which threaten to
undermine peace...”
...”When we speak of a situation of injustice, we refer to these realities which express a situation of sin;...”
(Medellín, Doc. 2, about the peace’sobre la paz’#1)
“Christ, our Savior did not only love the poor, but He “feeling rich, made himself poor”, He lived in poverty, He
based His mission on announcing to the poor their liberation and He founded His Church as a sign of this poverty
which exists in humanity”.
“The current situation demands, of Bishops, priests, religious and lay people the spirit of poverty which “ breaking
the ties of selfish possession of temporal or material goods, to stimulate the Christian to organically dispose the
economy and the powers that be to work for the benefit of the community” (Pope Paul VI, “ Address at the Mass for
the Day of Development,” Bogotá, August 23, 1968.)
The poverty of the Church and it’s members in Latin America should serve as a sign and a commitment. A sign of the
immeasurable courage of the poor in the eyes of God; and a commitment to solidarity with those who suffer”.
(Medellín, Doc. 14: “The Poverty of the Church”, “La Pobreza de la Iglesia”, #7.
(Upon subsequent reflection in the meetings of CELAM in Puebla and in Santo Domingo, there are references to the
indigenous peoples as the poorest of the poor. The option for them, Christ Himself demands “and for the scandalous
reality of the great economic disparities in Latin America which should lead to the establishment of human coexistence , an existence which is dignified and fraternal and to build a society which is merciful, just and free.”
(Medellín, 4a. Part , Chapter I) “...In order to live and to announce the needs and demands of Christian poverty, the
Church should revise it’s structures and the lives of it’s members, especially those who are engaged in pastoral work,
with a view toward an effective conversion.” (Medellín 1157)
“This conversion brings with it a demand for an austere lifestyle and total faith in the Lord, since in the evangelical
activity of the Church, much more faith should be put into the being and the power of God, and of the grace of God,
than “having more”, and secular power.” In this manner, the Church will present an image which is authentically poor,
open to God and to our brothers and neighbors, always available, where the poor have the opportunity for real
participation, and are recognized for their contributions and worth.” (Medellín 1158)
IV.-The Option of Monsignor Oscar A. Romero
+When Monsignor Oscar A. Romero was named the Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Salvador on the 8'th of
February, 1977, El Salvador was already living in a situation of repression and clear persecution of the most committed
sectors of the Salvadoran Church.
On February 3, 1977, the Salvadoran government expelled a former Jesuit priest from Spain to Guatemala, after he
had been imprisoned and tortured for 10 days. On February 21, 1977, the eve of Monsignor Romero’s installation as
Archbishop, Fr. Rafael Barahona was kidnaped and brutally tortured and beaten by Salvadoran authorities. In addition,
on March 12, 1977, Fr. Rutilio Grande, Mr. Manuel Soloranzo and a young man named Nelson Rutilio Lemus were
murdered.
On the same day, one of Fr. Barahona’s brothers was also murdered.
+ Reaction and attitude with regard to the murder of Fr. Rulilio Grande:
Upon learning of Fr. Grande’s murder, Monsignor Romero immediately asked President Molina for a complete
investigation of the events which led to Fr. Grande’s death. Monsignor Romero excommunicated those responsible for
Fr. Grande’s murder. He refused to participate in any sort of official state ceremony or event, “ until this situation is
resolved.” Monsignor Romero did not attend the inauguration of the new president a few months later; he formed a
Permanent Committee on Human Rights; he closed all Catholic schools and universities for three days; and on Sunday,
March 20'th, he cancelled all of the Catholic Masses in all of the churches in El Salvador, except for a Mass which he
presided over in the Cathedral.
+His Homilies
At the funeral Mass held for Fr. Rutilio Grande, Monsignor Romero declared: “ If this were a simple funeral I would
speak to you of human and personal relationships with Fr. Rutilio Grande, who was like a brother to me. In culminating
and important times in my life he stood by my side, and those gestures will never be forgotten, but at this moment it is
not appropriate to “think or speak of personal feelings and thoughts, rather, it is time to take from his lifeless body a
message, a message for all of us who continue on the path of pilgrimage.”
“The Pope (Paul the Sixth )tells us: The Church offers us this opportunity for a liberating struggle in a world which
is liberating people, and to those the Church offers an inspirational message of faith, a social doctrine which forms the
base upon which the Church translates it into concrete commitments, and an all encompassing motivation of love, of
fraternal love.”
“ True love is what brought Fr. Rutilio to his death grasping the hands of two farmers. In this manner he shows his
love for the Church, he dies with them, and together with them he will present himself before the transcendence of
heaven. He loves them, and it is of significance that while Fr. Grande walked with his people toward receiving the
message of the Mass and of salvation, that is precisely where he fell, riddled with many holes...The love of God
inspires the actions of Fr. Rutilio Grande. Dear priests, may we take on this precious inheritance.”
At the funeral of Fr. Alfonso Navarro Oviedo on May 12'th, 1977, Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero spoke the
following words which illustrate what has been called a process of conversion: “Here we promise, before the body of a
dead priest,that we the priests, in what we proclaimed in a communiqué a few days ago: We want to ratify our vow of
fidelity to the Word of God. And with this motivation...we will feel the courage of the first apostles and say: “It is not
right or legal to obey man before obeying God.” And this is the flag we will fly and which will not fall. And if we are
going to bury a brother of ours, we do not lash ourselves in defeat; we feel the absence of a missing soldier in our
ranks, but we also feel that someone must fill the space which he left.”
+The Capacity to Recognize His Faults and to Ask for Forgiveness
This was one of the most attractive aspects of Monsignor Romero’s personality: his willingness to admit his errors.
This trait is evidenced during two visits which he made to the Christian community of Zacamil, a poor neighborhood
outside the city of San Salvador. He made the first visit in 1972, when he was the Auxiliary Bishop of San Salvador, he
went there to celebrate Mass, but what he really wanted to accomplish was to discuss a pronouncement of the Episcopal
Conference, which was also signed by Monsignor Romero. ( It dealt with a comprehensive declaration regarding an
attack on the National University by the military in which more than 80 people were killed, there were many injured
and the university suffered great destruction.) At one point during his homily he began to speak about the ‘University
and while some condemned the violence and the injustice, Monsignor Romero defended the action of the military
because of a communist infiltration among the students at the University. The Monsignor said: “...the work which you
do here is political, not pastoral. You have not invited me here to celebrate the Eucharist, but have invited me to a
subversive meeting.” Fr. Pedro Declercq who had invited him, removed his alb and his stole and placed them on the
altar saying: “ We can’t celebrate the Eucharist under these conditions, there will be no Mass.” Monsignor gathered up
his documents and left alone. Six years later, Monsignor Romero returned to Zacamil for a celebration which the
people had prepared to celebrate his elevation to Archbishop. Monsignor Romero made it clear from the beginning of
his visit, he said, “You all remember that on my last visit here we were not even able to celebrate the Eucharist.” There
was a great silence and Monsignor continued: “I remember it very well and today, as your Pastor, I want to tell you that
now I understand what happened, and that I wish to publicly admit before all of you that I admit that I made a mistake.
I was wrong; you were right, and that day you gave me a lesson in faith, a lesson which is a tenant of the Church.
Please, forgive me for what happened.”
(The fact that he relied on others to give him advice does not diminish the coherence or force of his message, and
with great honesty and clarity he said: “Any preaching which is not incarnated in reality may have pretty and pious
traits which do not bother anyone,” but the preaching of Christ should awaken us, illuminate and disturb the sinner.
Naturally, good preaching includes conflict, it has to uncover misunderstood prestige, it must bother and must be
persecuted. It must make the powers of darkness and sin uneasy.”)
In1979, Monsignor Romero attended the Third General Conference of Latin American Bishops in Puebla, he clearly
identified himself with what was referred to by the bishops as “the conversion of the entire Church to the preferential
option for the poor, with the ultimate goal of the complete and total integration of the Church.” In the same manner,
Monsignor Romero read with complete clarity in a country torn apart by violence the following: “The subversive
testimony of the Beatitudes, the substance of which has turned everything upside down,” and he understood that
violence has to be eliminated from the base upward, the structural violence, and social injustice.He affirms that it is the
duty of the Church to” know and to recognize the mechanisms which engender poverty.” The preferential option for the
poor is an invitation to the Church as a whole, but also an invitation to any follower of Christ. “The Christian who does
not wish to live with and to honor this commitment of solidarity with the poor is not worthy to call himself a
Christian,” and the he added :” Therefore it is the poor themselves who have traced out the true path of the Church. A
Church which will not unite itself with the poor to denounce from within or among the poor the injustices which have
been committed is not the true Church of Jesus Christ.” (Homily, September 23, 1979) Archbishop Romero recognized
his own mission as an Archbishop: “This denunciation...I believe to be obligatory in my position as pastor and
shepherd of all who suffer injustice. The Gospel imposes it on me, and I am willing and ready to face the legal process
and imprisonment.” (Homily, May 14, 1978)
With much clarity in his homily on July 8, 1979 he said: “ If the were to cut off our access to radio, if they were to
ban the newspapers, if they were to silence us and not allow us to speak, if they were to kill all of the priests and even
the Archbishop, and if the people were left without priests, every one of you should become a microphone of God,
every one of you should be a messenger, a prophet.”
During a 4 day religious retreat with a group of priests from the Vicariate of Chalatenango, Archbishop Romero
wrote these notes which were for his confessor, Fr. Azcue: “...another fear which plagues me is with regard to the risks
to my life. It is difficult to accept a violent death, which under the present circumstances is extremely possible....Fr.
Azcue has lifted my spirits by telling me that my mission should be to give my life to God, no matter the manner of
death I should suffer. I should welcome the unknown circumstances of my life, and live them out, with the grace of
God. God has helped the martyrs, and should it be necessary, I will feel His presence next to me when I take my last
breath.But, what is most important is to sacrifice my life for Him, and to live my life for Him.”
Two weeks before his death, in an interview with the newspaper El Excelsior of México, Monsignor Romero said: I
have been threatened by death frequently. I should tell you that, as a Christian, I do not believe in death without
Resurrection: If they kill me, I will be resurrected among the Salvadoran people. This I tell you not in a boastful
manner, but with the greatest humility.
“As a pastor, I am obliged by Divine order, to give my life for those whom I love, all Salvadorans, and to give my
love even to those who will murder me. If they are able to carry out their threats, I will obey God, I offer my blood for
the redemption and resurrection of El Salvador.”
“Martyrdom is a grace which God bestows upon us, which I do not believe I am worthy of. But, if God accepts my
life as a sacrifice, may my blood be the seed of the liberation of my people, and testimony for the hope of the future.
You have my permission to say that if they should murder me, that I forgive and bless those who carry it out.”
There is absolutely no doubt that the assassination of Monsignor Romero had a Martyr-like character about it.
We see that in Latin America, a new age is beginning in which Christians, dying for the faith and giving their lives
for justice.
+Samuel Ruiz García
Bishop Emeritus of San Cristobal de las Casas
State of Chiapas, México