Editor’s Note: This essay won the Second Prize in the 2024 TLC Student Essay Contest.
While I do not remember when I was first introduced to St. Oscar Romero, I began to be drawn to him during my senior year of college at Manchester University. I had brought several of my classmates with me to Sunday Eucharist at the Episcopal Cathedral in Indianapolis as part of an interfaith trip on what happened to be the same day the Salvadoran Archbishop was finally canonized by the Catholic Church. That Sunday, Christ Church Cathedral used the Episcopalian collect for Oscar Romero alongside the appointed one for that Sunday in the Book of Common Prayer, and the sermon focused on his life and witness. The following spring, I took a Peace Studies class on nonviolent social change where I spent my final project exploring Romero as a representative of liberation theology. As I began to seriously discern a call to the ordained ministry Monsignor Romero became one of my main inspirations for the kind of priest I hope to one day be.
Coming to Anglicanism from an Anabaptist background with a family that particularly valued their denomination’s peace witness, I was drawn to Romero’s commitment to peace. He did not settle for the absence of violence but called for structural change to address the issues facing his nation. Throughout his life, he remained a committed son of the Catholic Church which shaped the bedrock of his theology. At the same time, his theology was deeply shaped by the political situation in El Salvador during his ministry. By examining the role of peace in the theology of St. Oscar Romero one can find a model for committed peacemakers striving to proclaim Christ’s justice in the world.
Methodist theologian Edgardo Colón-Emeric argues for the importance of interpreting Oscar Romero’s theology in light of the centrality of the Feast of the Transfiguration on both the secular and religious Salvadorian calendars.[1] This is relevant to those interested in the role of peacemaking in Romero’s theology given the historic violence connected to both the establishment of this feast and its role as the namesake of El Salvador. While the Eastern Orthodox church already celebrated the Transfiguration on August 6, Pope Callixtus III added this feast to the Western calendar to celebrate news reaching Rome of an earlier Christian victory over the Turks on August 6, 1456.[2] More directly in the Salvadorian context, the county and capital city’s names are derived from the feast. The exact historical details are murky, with one source attributing the naming to Spanish conquer Pedro de Alvarado and another stating it was given in honor of a Spanish victory over the indigenous population on August 6, 1526. Either way, the names and associated religious and later national holiday were quickly linked to the colonial conquest of the region.[3]
According to Colón-Emeric, the main weakness of Archbishop Romero’s interpretation of the Transfiguration is his failure to engage with this history.[4] He follows the precedent of Pope Pius XII, who in his address to the First Eucharistic Congress of El Salvador in 1942 praised the “la acendrada piedad de Pedro Alvarado la que en los albores de la conquista americana tan altamente os bautizó.”[5] In the English translation provided by Colón-Emeric, the quote praises “the burning piety of Pedro Alvarado that in the dawn of the American conquest baptized you so highly; it was nothing less than the very Providence of God.”[6] It is important to recognize and name the context behind El Salvador’s patronal festival when invoking its meaning and legacy. This blind spot does not invalidate Romero’s interpretation of the Transfiguration as a basis for personal and structural change, but it is a significant oversight in his theology of peacemaking.[7] Nevertheless, the Biblical event this important day in the Salvadoran ecclesial and national calendar celebrates provides an important backdrop to Romero’s pastoral letters.
Romero’s third pastoral letter as Archbishop of San Salvador includes an extensive section on the Christian understanding of violence. This letter, which was co-authored by Bishop Arturo Rivera y Damas, was released on the Feast of the Transfiguration 1978.[8] Its third section is titled “The Judgement of the Church on Violence.”[9] In it, Romero identifies five forms of violence: institutionalized violence perpetuated by unjust systems, repressive violence by the state to uphold its power, terrorism that some describe as revolutionary violence, spontaneous violence in reaction to attacks, and legitimate self-defense.[10] After identifying these forms of violence the Archbishop praises the power of nonviolence as a method for social change, arguing that Jesus’s teaching to turn the other cheek “far from being passivity and cowardice, is evidence of great moral strength that can leave an aggressor morally defeated and humiliated.”[11]
Drawing on Catholic tradition and particularly quoting documents from the Medellin Conference and an article published by Osservatore Romano, Romero outlines what he sees as an updated statement of the Church’s teaching on violence. He argues that all violence is the result of human imperfection, and the Church prefers peace. Nevertheless, the Church recognizes the different forms of violence and judges them differently. Institutional, repressive, and terrorist violence are always condemned as is any violence that provokes legitimate self-defense. On the other hand, violence can be used legitimately for self-defense provided one uses the least amount of force necessary, that all peaceful options for resolution have been tried, and that violent resistance does not lead to greater violence or injustice. In all cases, nonviolent methods are to be preferred to violent ones.[12]
Romero applies this understanding of violence to his context in El Salvador by urging his readers to have faith in nonviolent methods of confronting oppression. He states that true peace will not be established without justice and that further repressive violence by the government will only bring the nation closer to a situation that meets the criteria for legitimate self-defense.[13] Romero urges the Salvadoran people to pursue peaceful means before resorting to violence and expresses concern about the “spiral of violence” resulting from the polarization of his society.[14] For the Archbishop, nonviolence represents the first and best tactic of the Christian when faced with violence and injustice.
In his fourth pastoral letter “The Church’s Mission amid the National Crisis,” published on the Feast of the Transfiguration in 1979, Romero largely summarizes and reiterates the points he made the previous year. This time he focuses specifically on how these questions of violence and peace relate to El Salvador’s context. For example, he highlights and critiques violence perpetuated by extreme right-wing groups in the country.[15] After reaffirming the grounds for the legitimate use of violence the archbishop points out how difficult it is to be absolutely sure they are all met before using violence. He also highlights the high costs of war and the difficulty of rebuilding afterward.[16] Earlier in the letter he expresses his concern that the ongoing “cycle of violence” in El Salvador is spiraling towards the point where nonviolent means would no longer be enough to resolve the conflict, a situation that he clearly sought to avoid.[17] Throughout, Romero shows a clear preference for nonviolent forms of social change.
Despite the importance of peace in his theology as demonstrated in his pastoral letters, Romero was not an absolute pacifist. This is explicit in his fourth pastoral letter when he writes, “The church cannot state, in a simplistic fashion, that it condemns every kind of violence.”[18] Though the archbishop does not explicitly use the term Just War Theory in these reflections, the requirements he names for the legitimate use of violence follow Catholicism’s traditional justification for the use of force when necessary. Romero recognizes the legitimacy of using violence to end oppression, but only as a last resort when all available nonviolent methods have been tried and failed. He is keenly aware of the harm even justified violence does to the innocent and seeks to avoid that scenario as far as possible.
This allowance of violence, even if only as a last resort, distinguishes Romero from other Christian peacemakers who interpret their faith as requiring absolute pacifism. These Christians, especially those from the historic peace church traditions, might take issue with Romero’s framing of pacifism as being unwilling or unable to fight.[19] Twice in his third pastoral letter, Romero quotes Medellin’s documents to state that the faithful Christian is “not simply a pacifist, for he can fight, but prefers peace to war.”[20] The latter time he adapts this statement in order to apply it to the other Biblical figures who appear alongside Jesus in the Transfiguration narrative. Romero argues that through the encounter with Jesus, Moses, Elijah, Peter, James, and John’s natural aggression was transformed and directed towards productive purposes.[21] If, as the archbishop seems to be arguing, it is this natural aggression that makes the witnesses to the Transfiguration “not simply pacifists,” what does that mean for Romero’s view of those who are simply pacifists? Does he mean to infer that they are unwilling or unable to contribute to the “rich work of construction, of building up justice and peace in the world?”[22]
Given his repeated insistence that being Christian and committed to peace does not mean being a pacifist, Romero seems to have viewed pacifists as passive in the face of violence and oppression. While individuals’ moral lines on what actions are acceptably nonviolent vary, pacifism does not mean doing nothing. While some Christian pacifists have interpreted their faith as a call to separate themselves from the world and its violence, many others have been motivated by their faith to actively confront injustice through nonviolent means. The question for them is not if they can fight injustice, but what means of fighting it are morally and ethically permissible.
Additionally, Romero’s statements about pacifism in his pastoral letters seem to indicate that he thought of it solely in terms of absolute pacifism which rejects any kind of violence or use of force for any reason; however, sociologist Sharon Erickson Nepstad argues other forms of pacifism exist. One alternative is realistic pacifism, which views nonviolence as ideal but recognizes that using force may be necessary in specific situations for self-defense or to protect the innocent.[23] According to this definition, Romero himself could be classified as a realistic pacifist. At the very least, his arguments in favor of nonviolent action while continuing to recognize legitimate self-defense lean in that direction.
It is unlikely that any nonviolent movement for social change will consist only of absolute pacifists. Pacifism can be a difficult sell, especially in the face of the kind of violent oppression prevalent in El Salvador during Archbishop Romero’s life. If one’s moral and ethical views on pacifism stem from one’s religious convictions it will be difficult if not impossible to convince others who do not share those convictions. And, following Nepstad, not all pacifists reject all use of force. Here Romero’s theology provides a foundation for peacemaking and nonviolent action that can include absolute pacifists, realistic pacifists, and non-pacifists working together towards the larger goal of peace.
The theology of Oscar Romero provides a model for peacemakers seeking a more just world. Both the Biblical story of the Transfiguration and the Christian holiday that celebrates it provide important context for Romero’s theology and the role of peacemaking within it. In his third and fourth pastoral letters, he dealt directly with the question of violence and its justification in light of the teaching of the Catholic Church and developed for El Salvador’s context. While not without room for critique, this theology of peacemaking provides a foundation that diverse perspectives can agree on as a starting point for nonviolent action. St. Oscar Romero’s theology reflects a man who sought to follow Jesus and make present Christ’s peace in the world.
[1] Colón-Emeric, Edgardo. Óscar Romero’s Theological Vision: Liberation and the
Transfiguration of the Poor. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2018,
24.
[2] Ibid., 70.
[3] Ibid., 61-63.
[4] Ibid., 64.
[5] Pope Pius Xii, “Radiomensaje de su santidad Pío XII al I Congreso Eucharístico Nacional de El Salvador,” The Holy See, published November 26, 1942, accessed July 23, 2023, https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/es/speeches/1942/documents/hf_p-xii_spe_19421126_eucaristico-salvador.html#_ednref*.
[6] Ibid., 64.
[7] Colón-Emeric, 64.
[8] Oscar Romero, Voice of the Voiceless: The Four Pastoral Letters and Other Statements, trans. Michael J. Walsh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1985), 85.
[9] Ibid., 105.
[10] Ibid., 106-107.
[11] Ibid., 107-108.
[12] Ibid., 108-109.
[13] Ibid., 109-110.
[14] Ibid., 110.
[15] Ibid., 114-144.
[16] Ibid., 145.
[17] Ibid., 120.
[18] Ibid., 143.
[19] The historic peace churches include the Church of the Brethren, the Mennonites, and the Religious Society of Friends or the Quakers. These traditions have historically been known for a commitment to pacifism and nonviolence as a requirement of their faith, though not all members today hold to that belief.
[20] Romero, 108-110.
[21] Ibid., 110.
[22] Ibid., 110.
[23] Sharon Erickson Nepstad, Nonviolent Struggle: Theories, Strategies, and Dynamics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), chap. 1, Kindle.
