The civil war in El Salvador was a blood curdling mess that lasted almost 13 years. Abp. Romero’s involvement in that war occurred at its very beginning. He was assassinated in March of 1980; the war ended in 1992.
The antagonists in the civil war were right wing landholders and military (tacitly supported by the USA) versus the left wing Marxist-Leninista FMLN (who were held under the thrall of communist Cuba and Nicaragua). The average Salvadorans who had no allegiance to either side and were caught in between, and they became the victims of the political animus that blossomed between two uncompromising combatants.
El Salvadorans are not communists, but the FMLN, taking advantage of the criminally unbalanced economic conditions of the era, incited some (but most certainly not all) of the peasants to rise up in revolt. The FMLN preached class warfare and, unfortunately, many in the Church encouraged their faithful to take part in the disaster that was about to unfold. These were priests and nuns influenced by Liberation Theology. Abp. Romero was, I suspect, complicit with their cause. But I think his involvement was more innocent than deliberate. I think he was well-intentioned but naive. I don’t think he embraced Liberation Theology in its fullness.
Following the death by assassination of his friend, Fr. Rutilio Grande, a “progressive” priest, at the hands of the right wingers, Romero made the unfortunate decision to write an open letter to the President of the United States (Jimmy Carter) asking him to not fund the current El Salvadoran government. This was a strategic mistake, because the archbishop had made his gripe against the ruling junta public. He made enduring enemies by stepping across the often invisible line that separates Church and State. Once you cross that line, you have picked sides, and Romero had chosen the side of the leftists.
As far as the junta was concerned, their archbishop had brought shame to their cause and there was no more room for anymore conversation. Romero had burned his bridge. And this, I think, is where the tragedy lay – because, as a prominent clergyman who represents *all *of the people, and not just some, Archbishop Romero needed to keep the lines of communication open – even though that might mean he had to talk with the men who had killed his friend.
Romero’s mistake was fatal. His enemies would no longer listen to him and they began to plot against him in earnest. The die was cast – the bishop must be silenced.
Prior to his writing the letter to the US president, Romero, as a respected clergyman, had the ability to walk directly into the corridors of power – on both sides of the issue – to speak about ways to conduct peace not war. But once he crossed over to the other side, he lost that ability. The Right would now refuse to listen, and the atheist Left would now be free to treat him (to quote Lenin) as a “useful idiot” that he had become.
Upon Oscar Romero’s death, the people of El Salvador sank into a tragedy that consumed their nation for more than a decade and took the lives of tens of thousands of innocent people.
Oscar Romero was a brilliant, holy and loving man, but he was also a bishop, and, as such, he had responsibilities to shepherd all the faithful. I feel that the tightrope he was forced to tread was too thin for him to walk on, and it broke under the weight of history.
