 |
|||||||||
|
Interview with Mons. Gregorio Rosa Chávez, Auxiliary Bishop of San Salvador. By Roberto Valencia, Magazine: Enfoques, La Prensa Gráfica, 23 de marzo de 2008. Translated by CRISPAZ.
“Jesus would make a lot of changes in the Vatican”
Enfoque interviewed Monsignor Rosa Chavez a day before the 28th anniversary of Monsignor Romero’s assassination. Mons. Rosa Chavez paints a clear picture of Salvadoran reality, the church’s role today and Monsignor Romero’s canonization process.
Interview by Roberto Valencia
3/23/2008He likes to talk in Moses’ Office. Gregorio Rosa Chavez has baptized the interior patio of his house with this name [, “Moses’ Office”]. His home is situated at the corner of Avenues Monseñor Romero and Juan Pablo II. Causally revealing. Its here he receives his visitors. In about 25 square meters of this patio fit four green metallic chairs, a table, a canopy, and plants here and there and in the middle, a dominant and stylized mango tree.
“I call it Moses’ office. ¿Do you know why? Because the bible— and he smiles—says that Moses received guests under a tree.”
It is a roofless patio allowing the hustle and bustle of historic downtown to filter in. This doesn’t bother him, the veteran bishop is proud to reside in this place, in front of a bus stop. To live here, he assures, allows reality to enter through your eyes everyday. And he doesn’t like what he sees. He sees a dehumanized society, an ineffective government, a right leaning youth, and a church too far out of touch with its community. The picture seems apocalyptical but for Rosa Chavez there is a solution. The path has been laid in the document Benedict XVI approved in the meeting of Latin American bishops last year in Brazil and in the discourse the Pope proclaimed a few weeks ago before the eleven Salvadoran bishops in Rome. The figure of Monsignor Romero was praised in this proclamation.
You went to meet with Joseph Ratzinger. Had you seen him since he was named Pope?
Yes, I saw him last year at Caritas’s World Summit. We had an audience with him in which I was able to greet him but we did not have a conversation. And before this I had seen him when he was a Cardinal.
What is he like? Because he has a very serious face.
He is a person that doesn’t have, let’s say, charisma. He is a calm person, simple, smiley and is of few words. He is contemplative, but friendly. I was by his side for the official picture and I asked him about the second volume of his book “Jesus of Nazareth”, and he told me that it might be finished within two years.
And in what language did you speak?
In Italian and also in Spanish.
In the official meeting’s discourse, the Pope mentioned Monsignor Oscar Arnulfo Romero.
In the second paragraph he remembered the first Salvadoran evangelizers and the current ones. It was here he mentioned Monsignor Romero. The end of the paragraph is very eye catching, because it says that the word of God is not chained, and one can interpret it as homage to a man who knew how to be a prophet in very hard times, to be a leader, and this cost him his life. But this is left to interpretation, because in the text it doesn’t say in an explicit way. The allusion, surprising to me, felt like homage to pastoral work and the bravery of Monsignor Romero.
This is the only reference in this discourse. From this, one could infer that the Pope is saying Romero as an example for the other bishops?
The Pope is very careful with his words, but yes you can be sure that he was giving Monsignor Romero as an example of how to be a pastor. The reference that appears in the first paragraphs is very significative. And in fact, everyone interpreted it in this way; this was in the world news that I saw in different news agencies.
Had something like this happened in the other four visits that you had participated in?
I remember very well the 2001 interview with Pope John Paul II that was the last time we saw him. He was very sick, very passive, he seemed absent, but at the end he raised his eyes and asked: “And Monsignor Romero?” And archbishop Lacalle responded speaking to the devotion towards him, and then the Pope stood up, took his cane in his left hand, with the right he made a gesture and he said in Italian: “It’s a martyrdom”, and walked out.
This time did you talk about his canonization process?
Not with the Pope, but yes it was discussed with the office that is in charge of the case, which is the Congregation for the Causes of the Saints. There was talk of two issues, two martyrs. Of Monsignor Romero and of one that it almost never talked about, this is the Italian Franciscan Priest, Cosme Spessotto, who was killed in the Zacatecoluca Dioceses in 1980. These were the only topics of conversation that lasted more than an hour, and the one that the full members of the congregation attended, with the Cardinal Jose Saraiva who was in charge, the monitor from Portugal.
What was said about Romero?
The climate of the conversation was very positive, very cordial, and the attitude towards both martyrs was also very open, very positive. My impression is that the process of canonization has arrived or come to a maturity and that today in a certain way everything is ready to take the next step at a time that could be considered opportune. This was my impression and that of the other bishops with whom I spoke. There was no tension.
Was there tension at other times?
It’s that, lets say, in other occasions, not all the bishops had the same vision, and the congregation hadn’t always received us. In fact, of the five times, this has been the second time they have seen us, but yes, this time this was the important theme. I am very happy about the meeting and the manner in which the dialogue took place. I think we are in the home stretch of the process, even though we must remember that this could take a very long time.
You said a little while ago that John Paul II knew that he was a martyr since 2001. There are no contradictions between your impressions from the visits and the time that has gone by without advances?
No. I have been visiting Rome for 25 years. I have seen how at first the topic of Monsignor Romero was uncomfortable, and how the atmosphere has calmed, and 2001 was the inflexion point, because John Paul II spoke clearly, and then Cardinal Ratzinger also appeared more tranquil after he examined the doctrine and ensure that this doctrine was completely inline with the principles of the Church. And from then I have noticed that the topic in Rome is seen with neutrality, with more clarity, and everything is falling into place.
But Benedict XVI continues to be very critical of Liberation Theology, and Monsignor Romero has not stopped being for many an example of this theology.
There is a documented anecdote that clarifies this topic a bit. Pope Benedict XVI, when he was the Monitor of the Congregation for the Faith Doctrine, had the idea that Monsignor Romero was one of the embodiments of this theology. He was surprised when they told him that in Romero’s private library he didn’t have very many books about Liberation Theology. I am a witness that this is true, because I visited Monsignor, and in his small library the book with the most signs of use is the famous “Bible Commentaries of Saint Jerome”, and one that the theologian Leonardo Boff had given him he never read. The only theologian he had direct contact with was Jon Sobrino, and that was because he lived here and he visited the UCA.
You have distanced yourself from Liberation Theology
Let’s get to the heart of it. The vision of liberation Monsignor Romero spoke about was taken from a document from Pope Paul VI called Evangelii nuntiandi. This was his base, to a grade that, and this fact is surprising, the first homily that was transcribed, was given when they assassinated Father Rutilio Grande, is organized around the affirmation of Paul VI theory about what is the true Christian liberator. Almost all his liberation doctrine is taken from this source.
What do you want to tell me with all of this?
That Monsignor Romero was not a banner for Liberation Theology, but a man who found a unique and original way to express Paul VI Doctrine about Christian liberation, and this was also later adopted in the Puebla Document (1979); after returning from Puebla, he was able to say, “Puebla has confirmed my doctrine and my teaching.” Monsignor Romero’s doctrine is very conservative, very traditional, even though his positioning in the presence of the reality was very audacious. These are two different issues.
Because the current Pope continues to be inflexible with Liberation Theology.
This is why he was surprised to find his sources were not these theologians. He didn’t even have time to get to know them. Monsignor died in 1980 and he met them only one year before in Puebla.
This fact is interesting and surprising because one imagines something else. I can swear that he lived his work in such an intense way there truly wasn’t much time for him to read.
A year ago the Pope reprimanded Jon Sobrino for a book he wrote in 1991. It seemed to be a very clear message.
Yes, but this was before his visit to Aparecida, in Brazil, where he got to see the faith of the Latin American community, and proposed that steps must be taken from faith toward justice. One of the most respected bishops in Brazil told me that the Pope changed in Aparecida.
Another interesting topic these days is the succession of Monsignor Saenz Lacalle. Was this topic discussed with Benedict XVI?
Not one word in any of the official meetings. There was no allusion to the topic, not even indirectly.
As auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, do you have an opinion about whether the successor should be Salvadoran?
I will express my opinion and the reasons for them in front of the nuncio apostolic when the moment comes. I will do it with complete liberty, because this is when one can propose his position with the possibility that it will be taken into account. In this meeting that all the bishops have individually they ask for names and for reasons. Everything else is pure speculation. And this is a small country, I don’t think they will have to use a lot of brain power to choose his successor.
Your feeling is that this process is just beginning…
In Fact, in Rome I didn’t see one sign that the process has matured
By the time you were 39, you were already a bishop. Very young
Yes, there are two other cases of Salvadoran bishops chosen younger than I was. Monsignor Luis Chavez and Gonzalez was named bishop at the age of 37, and Monsignor Rivera and Damas at the age of 36. But the norm is for a bishop to be at least 40 years old.
About the Salvadoran Catholic Church, from outside it seems that there are different visions of the same reality. Is this true?
Well, I, after being in Rome I went to Spain, and in the Episcopal conference (of Spain) there was contradictory visions. With this example I want to illustrate that there are two scenarios: one conflictive and the other is more serene.
What are you referring to when you say conflictive?
When Monsignor Romero was Archbishop there were only six bishops in the country and, to put it in a more simple way, the decisions were taken four against two. There was almost never a consensus. There were some very dramatic moments that Romero writes about in his diary. When Monsignor Rivera and Damas followed, one of his goals was to change this dynamic to a consensus. Consensus is what predominates today in the Bishop’s Counsel. All published documents are fruit of the consensus method, and this is important to point out. At times there are documents that greatly effect the community, and others that aren’t are strong, but they are all chosen by consensus and now there are even more bishops.
How many are there now?
There are eleven, counting the two that will be ordained in the next few days.
But there are clear differences between some.
Yes, but this comes after. There are distinct tendencies, visions, and sensibilities. The church is not just of one color but these tinges can be made into a tone of confrontation or one of fraternity. In El Salvador we had an extremely difficult experience during the time of Monsignor Romero, and now we are in a time of fraternity.
Monsignor, you were the one who performed the funeral rights for Schafik Handal. Were you solicited by the family?
There are two cases. I also attended the funeral rights of Major D’Aubuisson, and it is important that people know that. When D’Aubuisson died, the nuncio asked of Monsignor Rivera that there be presence from the Church at the funeral, but he resisted. So, I told him: “If you want, I’ll go”. I went together with the nuncio, and I noticed the surprised faces of the ARENA leaders. They didn’t expect me. Several years went by before one of them, a Member of Parliament Roberto Angulo (now with the PCN), thanked me in the elevator of legislative Assembly.
And with Schafik Handal? You had a more active role.
I want to tell you what happened. The family and the party [FMLN] sought me out, I consulted with Archbishop Saenz Lacalle, and he consented right away. After they asked that it be in the Crypt, and the archbishop said: “fine”. Later they asked that it be in the plaza, and the archbishop approved this as well. In other words, I didn’t do anything out of sight of the archbishop, because this was a special moment, in which I couldn’t act without his approval.
I know for a fact that including within the church there are critics of the passivity in the high levels of the hierarchy about some social problems.
They criticize and they are right to do so. In fact, the Pope, in his discourse in Brazil, remembered a phrase from his first encyclical about the differences between policy and justice. Policy corresponds to states, but the struggle for justice corresponds to the Church, and this you can not renounce. He is very worried to see that faith doesn’t transform history, to see that one goes to church on Sunday, but the next day doesn’t act according to Christian ethics. It’s true, and people have the right to complain that we are not present in some issues that have serious implications and that affect the Salvadoran community.
And if you believe that those who complain are correct. Why doesn’t one correct this?
If you analyze the latest documents, they have been surprising. For example, the mining issue. The mining companies pressured the archbishop to change our position, but we have been emphatic. Or the dam issue, that has also been part of our message, or including the issue of violence, we have analyzed this in depth. It’s true that at times we don’t follow through like we should.
This is what I’m referring to.
But in Brazil it was very clear, the Pope approved, that we can not continue as we are. How do we make this change? Well, there are different options. For example, the elections are coming up. What are we going to say? When are we going to say it? We have already promised that we are going to say something, because in crucial moments in the history of a country are when you have to speak out, and act.
Are you telling me that in the next few months the church is going to stress its position similar to the one you have maintained in the issue of mining?
Without a doubt. It’s clear, because we have two new messages. The discourse of Brazil, and what the Pope told us in Rome. We have a three day meeting in July, and the church’s attitude will be a central part of the agenda.
And these more critical positions will be the fruit of a consensus process as well.
This is without a doubt, because this is the dynamic we already have, which does not take away ones ability to publicly express ones personal positions on hot issues. One does not take away from the other.
Up till now, personal opinions are what have been heard.
But the current dynamic is leading to a more active church. I hope it will be so.
Monsignor, why does there continue to be so much poverty in El Salvador?
There is a document that we wrote when John Paul II visited us in 1996, a short but controversial document. We asked ourselves, what country is the Pope coming to visit, and we responded that El Salvador is a country that signed for peace, but that doesn’t have the daily experience of peace. And to support our position we pointed to poverty, unemployment, and the insecurity of our citizens.
But you are spiritual leaders. Are you not co-responsible that peace is not found in daily life?
I believe that several wounds from the war have not healed because they have not accepted the plan that John Paul II proposed in 1997 to reconcile the country. He planted a new concept within the church that is the purification of memory. But, here in the country they do not want to revoke the Amnesty Law even though there is a resolution from the Organization of American States (OAS) that demands it be repealed. The Pope said something else: “Truth and justice are bases of forgiveness”, and he wrote it in a document titled, “Offer forgiveness, and receive peace”. The church, in fact, publicly asked for forgiveness in 2006 for the harm done by some sons of the Church, and the Pope received much opposition for this action.
And the Salvadoran Church shouldn’t ask for forgiveness for anything?
It is that the Salvadoran Church is one of the few churches that has been at the height that it has paid with the lives of many of its pastors.
Many of the people who hold strategic government positions were educated in Catholic High Schools. Why then is it that we have the country we have?
This is exactly what the Pope spoke about this month. How the education is not only to transmit knowledge, but also values and a way of life, and Catholic schools have this vocation. This was also talked about in the seventies when we saw, that even though almost all the leaders had graduated from Catholic schools, inequality increased. Monsignor Romero had a phrase that became famous: “We have Christians of Sunday mass and of unjust weeks”.
The case of the Jesuits is maybe more pragmatic. Until the seventies they dedicated themselves strictly to educating the wealthiest class.
This changed when the congregation chose what was called the option for justice, and from then they were present in the popular sector. But, getting back to the issue, it is completely true that the church has had the current leaders of countries in its classrooms, and what is chosen rarely coincides with the values, one supposes, they should have assimilated. You can’t forget the role of the family, grammar schooling, and most of the time parents want to see that their children have money, are doing well, but do not educate them about justice or solidarity. And the other factor is that the youth of today are…we are not in May 1968 at all. Today’s youth are of the right, and this contradicts because one identifies youth with the new, the audacious, ideals, but never the less we have a generation that thinks, basically, like people from the right, in a very conservative way. And the youth were not like this in the time of Monsignor Romero. Those were the times when all of Latin America was ignited with the idealism of protest, and you only had to listen to the songs that documented this period of time. This is not what we have today. So, there is quite a challenge.
What we have today are 9 or 10 deaths a day, 14,000 murders in four years. And the worst is that society seems to live with these statistics as if they are normal.
One lives the opposite when they go to other countries. One time when I was in Spain the country was practically paralyzed by the death of a taxi driver. Outside there is a culture of respect for life that we do not have here. Here we have a culture of death. I remember during the war, when the children would have to walk by cadavers every single day on their way to school. So, life is not worth anything. There are only statistics and an ideological vision on the issue of homicides. In fact, statistically speaking, there are more homicides today than when President Saca began to govern, and his promise was security. What does that indicate? That policy has failed.
You could also charge the spiritual leaders for the situation in which we live.
The pastoral letter about violence establishes three points. The first is to have an objective diagnostic, and anyone can see that, until a little while ago, the police's practice was to blame the gang members and the judges. Second, you need an analysis of the causes. And third, you need a consensus proposal, and now there are insinuations that there are advances, but they stay in the beginning stages. The government has not decided to take on the policy scheme proposed by the Catholic Church. And I hope now that the Pope has readdressed this, they will give it more attention. What is it that we need to do? We need to create a movement, and I am convinced that it is possible to do this because it was done during the time of war…a national movement in these issues. The facts tell us this needs to happen, and there is a way, there is a way. I always say that if we support families 100%, the violence we be cut in half within a few months.
But aren’t you minimizing the role of the church in society?
No, I am acknowledging that we are at fault.
I am saying that there are poorer countries that are less violent. Like Nicaragua.
And within El Salvador, there are poor departments with less violence. But in our letter, the two words that appear are drug trafficking and organized crime. Today they are using these two words more frequently in the media, but a couple of years ago they weren’t. So, a focus on violence that ignores these two facts is completely subjective, and this is what predominated up until a little while ago.
Monsignor, here people throw the trash wherever they want, they drive without respect…and this social decomposition can not be attributed to drug trafficking.
Let me tell you another story that has to do with social peace. Do you remember the campaign to construct social peace? President Saca and his team invited all the bishops and I asked: “How do you understand social peace? And they answered me that it is to live together peacefully. And what was the campaign reduced to? That you should drive respectfully. The message was to be conductor of social peace, you should drive respectfully. This is another example of how we never address the root of the problem, and at the root one expects to have a more just country, more fraternal, one of solidarity.
Do you believe El Salvador is leaving these values behind?
Of course. We have a society that is not just, not fraternal, and not in solidarity. You have to create a culture of life, in front of this culture of death that dominates us. And a culture of life for us means four things: defend life that will be born; it means a just and dignified life: it means to look for a true democracy, truly participative: and you have the spiritual component as well. These four things are in last year’s document from Brazil and are searching for life for everyone. But here the Church’s social doctrine has been branded communistic.
A couple of days ago a bishop personally affirmed that to accumulate excessive riches is a sin.
Certainly, I believe that the future of humanity will lead an austere life, but this is not what advertising would have you believe these days.
And you believe that the Church, as an institution, in an example of austerity?
There is a bit of everything. When I go to the Vatican I ask myself: If Jesus Christ came here, what changes would he make? I believe he would make a lot of changes. Because really, its not the same for someone who comes to visit me to go through just one door or to go through three security gates. And this happens in several bishops’ offices in Europe, due to the cultural structure. I live in front of a bus stop, and reality enters through my eyes and inundates my being. So, in Rome there are a lot of things that have been accumulating and that have made the churches’ walk heavier. Certainly, we should permanently clean our face, to then talk to the world. The church should be simpler in all aspects, including in our language. That of Excellencies and Eminences…a simple church is what the people understand as the church of Jesus, and I believe that this is clear. This still isn’t true in the life of all pastors, from the most humble to the Holy Pontiff.
I conclude with who we began, Romero. How do you interpret this figure that embodied goodness, was born in El Salvador and was a priest in a country like El Salvador?
God sends fortunate men and women where they are needed. And why was he sent to this tiny country? Why a man who was so timid and so frightful converted into a giant? That is the work of grace. Certainly, in the case of Monsignor, a series of factors united: he was a man with a traditional roman formation, with great knowledge of the church’s doctrine, a man with an impressive gift of word, a man close to his people, that never imagined he would be named archbishop…he was a man whose naming was a disappointment, but that in a few days we already had a different Romero. It is the work of grace when a person realizes he has been called by God, that is difficult, but to know that God will not fail you and Romero is the example of this truth.
