If Romero is to be judged a martyr, then he has to have been killed because of his Christian faith. Yet, as John Allen has written, there has been “some question as to whether his death meets the classic test for martyrdom of being killed in odium fidei, meaning ‘in hatred of the faith,’ or whether the motives were more social and political.” Was his death because of doctrine or was it reprisal for what may have been interpreted as political options which did not seem to rule out violence?
Romero was quite outspoken about social tensions, and it does his memory no service to sweep this under the rug. The language of class struggle echoed in his rhetoric. He used the word “oligarchy” frequently. He once said “the rich will continue to be called ‘those whom God despises,’ because they put more confidence in their money.” On Sunday February 24, 1980, shortly before he died he spoke thus about “the oligarchs” with these words, “Let them not keep killing those of us who are trying to achieve a more just sharing of the power and wealth of our country.” The archbishop called those who opposed the “oligarchs” simply “the people.”
…
The rich-poor polarity spilled over into pastoral actions, too. The archbishop attempted to deny Christian burial to a newspaper publisher because of his extreme right-wing views and forbade a pastor to celebrate the funeral mass. The priest, with the code of canon law in hand, said he saw no scandal in the Christian burial of a professed Catholic, however inconvenient his political views. “What makes you think the rich will go to heaven?” asked the Archbishop bitterly.
(Richard Antall, Oversimplifying Oscar Romero)
This seems like a propitious time to look at figures like Romero, as we now have a Pope from an analogous South American millieu.
Here in the academy I hear vitriol directed mostly against Republicans — or “conservatives,” as they are mistakenly called by all manner of credentialed, smart, but clueless people. But that’s how things go in the Ivory Tower, where we’re all card-carrying liberals, you know. We’re people who value “diversity,” which means we want as many people in as many different skin colors and native costumes from as many different places thinking exactly as we do.
You know, “diversity.”
But being as I am incorrigible—being, that is, a stubborn occupant of the Ivory Tower more comfortable out of school than in it—I see things somewhat differently. I see in this most recent Washingtonian Dumb-Show — or Morality Play: take your pick — intractable ignorance up against impervious arrogance.
…
[A]ffluence is in jeopardy and must be. Infinite growth on a finite planet is madness.
This madness may be measured with some precision among oncologists, who seem to desire unlimited economic growth in their professions (so that as they complain about their med-school debts they can pay for their mansions and BMWs) even as they acknowledge that the name for unlimited growth in the human organism is “cancer.”
Earlier this week I began a series of lectures in one of my classes on the thought of the Anti-Federalists. I began by echoing some of the conclusions of the great compiler and interpreter of the Anti-Federalist writings, Herbert Storing, whose summation of their thought is found in his compact introductory volume, What the Anti-Federalists Were For. I began with the first main conclusion of that book, that in the context of the debate over the Constitution, the Anti-Federalists were the original American conservatives. I then related a series of positions that were held by the Anti-Federalist opponents of the proposed Constitution. To wit:
They insisted on the importance of a small political scale … They believed that laws were and ought to be educative, and insisted upon the centrality of virtue in a citizenry. Among the virtues most prized was frugality, and they opposed an expansive, commercial economy … They were strongly in favor of “diversity,” particularly relatively bounded communities of relatively homogeneous people … They believed that laws were only likely to be followed when more or less directly assented to by the citizenry, and feared that as distance between legislators and the citizenry increased, that laws would require increased force of arms to achieve compliance. For that reason, along with their fears of the attractions of international commerce and of imperial expansion, they strongly opposed the creation of a standing army and insisted instead upon state-based civilian militias. They demanded inclusion of a Bill of Rights …
As I disclosed the positions of the Anti-Federalists, I could see puzzlement growing on the faces of a number of students, until one finally exclaimed—”this doesn’t sound like conservatism at all!” Conservatism, for these 18-to-22-year-olds, has always been associated with George W. Bush: a combination of cowboy, crony capitalism, and foreign adventurism in search of eradicating evil from the world. To hear the views of the Anti-Federalists described as “conservative” was the source of severe cognitive dissonance, a deep confusion about what, exactly, is meant by conservatism.
…
Today’s conservatives are liberals—they favor an economy that wreaks “creative destruction,” especially on the mass of “non-winners,” increasingly controlled by a few powerful actors who secure special benefits for themselves and their heirs; a military that is constructed to be only loyal to the central authority in the capital, frequently moved about to avoid any rooted loyalty, and increasingly isolated from most fellow citizens; an increasingly utilitarian view of education aimed at creating individuals who will become able cogs in a globalized industrial system, largely without allegiance or loyalty; proponents of an increasingly homogenized society whose allegiance is to a set of ideas, especially a “more perfect union,” which Francis Bellamy expressed, was inspired by the example of the French Revolution.
(Patrick Deneen, emphasis added)
Take a brisk walk. Eat well. Control your blood sugar and cholesterol. And you’ll die looking great.
(Dr. Mary Guerriero Austrom, PhD, a Dementia expert, to the Indian Continuing Legal Education Elder Law Institute)
* * * * *
“The remarks made in this essay do not represent scholarly research. They are intended as topical stimulations for conversation among intelligent and informed people.” (Gerhart Niemeyer)
Tipsy Teetotaler ن 