Jump to content

Talk:Óscar Romero

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Óscar Romero/Comments)
Former good article nomineeÓscar Romero was a Philosophy and religion good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 7, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 24, 2011, March 24, 2020, March 24, 2022, and March 24, 2023.

Not "notable"???

[edit]

The notability of the subject is questioned. Oscar Romero is the subject of a statue at Westminster Abbey in London, putting him in the company of William Shakespeare and Winston Churchill (two others honored there). He was cited by Pope Benedict during his Angelus address on March 25 because March 24, the date of Romero's death has become a worldwide Catholic holiday. There is a movie about Romero ("Romero," 1989), and he was portrayed in four other movies, including Oliver Stone's "Salvador." Pope John Paul II twice visited his grave. The National Catholic Reporter wrote that "no saint-in-waiting figures more prominently than Oscar Romero." (John Allen, The Word from Rome, NCR, October 17, 2003.). Romero is listed in the book 100 Spiritual Leaders Who Shaped World History, Bluewood Books (2001), written by Samuel Crompton, alongside Jesus, St. Paul, Muhammad, Moses, Confucius, the Buddha, Confucius, St. Francis, and ohers. He was listed among the "Top 100 Catholics of the Twentieth Century." On and on and on.

The published material about Romero is too lengthy to compile. There is an outdated list available at:

http://www.mbeaw.org/resources/voices/romero.html

In short, my question to Wikipedia is this. In light of the foregoing, why should this question NOT be immediately taken off the table? (Note: the "What links here" tab alone denotes the hundreds of other Wikipedia articles that reference Romero and would be left "orphaned" if this story was deleted.") Carlos Carlos_X 02:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If there is no response to this within 20 days of its posting yesterday, I will remove the notification notice. Carlos_X 15:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos; I've gone and removed the notice. It would seem like the user Dangerous Boy is going around to every Catholicism- and Christianity-related article he can find and adding the 'non-notable' notice to them. Other examples include Roman Catholicism in Sudan, Christianity in Eritrea, Roman Catholicism in Portugal and even Bishop of Kensington. By the looks of it he's been on this trolling rampage all month. Knyght27 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Romero simpy not a saint in the Church's view

[edit]

"While Romero has not been canonized by the Roman Catholic Church, which has not given support to liberation theology, he is recognized as a saint by the Church of England."

No he hasn't. The Church of England does not canonize saints. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • He's got a day on the liturgical calendar in the Book of Common Worship, so it's pretty clear that the CoE recognises him as an important Christian role model, even if we have no canonisation procedure as such. In any event, the mention of a commemoration should be fine. Crculver 10:08, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I agree entirely. What is there now is fine. (And interesting. I didn't know he was commemorated that way). DJ Clayworth 17:44, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"To date, however, Rome has not taken the matter any further, probably due to the institutionalized church's continued mistrust of liberation theology."

Actually, no the cat came out of the bag. The Church has not taken the matter further because it has not concluded that there are grounds for beatification. The guidelines for the process of declaring someone a saint are very specific and very thorough. They are applied equally to anyone who has been put forth as a candidate. If Romero qualifies, then he will eventually be recognized as a saint. The Church understands that it is not necessary for someone to have gone through this process (necessarily post mortem) in order to actually be a saint. The Church's declaration of someone's sainthood is only a recognition that we KNOW that a particular person is a saint, and is therefore in heaven*. As such, the Church's position is that ALL of us are called to sainthood, and the definition of a saint is simply one who is allowed the beatific vision, to be in the presence of the glory of God. In other words, unless you are a saint, you can't be with God. The reason is simple: you can't have the stain of sin on you and be in God's direct presence. He is pure good, and sin is the manifestation of evil. If you die with mortal sin, you cannot be with God, and it is understood that you will spend eternity in hell (whether or not you believed in hell while you were alive on earth). If you die with venial sin on your soul (and just about all of us do, to one degree or another), then you must pass through Purgatory, to have your sins purged, as atonement, and as purification in order to be united with God, and all the angels and saints. By the way, the Church does not simply "mistrust" Liberation Theology; it has repeatedly repudiated it**. Also, as a side note, it seems that the Church was wise enough to recognize that those petitioning sainthood for Romero were probably seeking recognition for or endorsement of his political views, effectively making the Church a mouthpiece for Marxist ideology, which the Church has denounced, and in any case, something for which the Church is not intended. Also, to make a reference to the "institutionalized church" is to make a claim that there is another, parallel Catholic Church out there which is not always in concordance with what the Vatican officially declares. While anyone can claim to be Catholic and can say anything they want in disagreement with the Vatican's position on anything, this does not make them or their opinions "part of" the Church, or any loosely organized "parallel church". I can claim to be part of the Anglican church and speak dissent until I am blue in the face. That does not make my views "Anglican", it does not give them validity, and it does not make me part of the Anglican church.

[posted by 24.160.151.112, 6 Feb 2005 14:55]


How about an acknowledgement of recent movements in the beatification cause? Namely, on March 15, 2005, ANSA News Service reported that, in an unusual acknowledgement of the controversy surrounding the Romero cause, the file had been taken out of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints in 1997 and transferred to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger! In November of last year, theological censors from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith approved the continuation of the cause, and in March of this year, to coincide with the 25th anniversary of Romero's assassination, the postulator announced that a Church report had concluded that "Romero was not a revolutionary bishop, but a man of the Church, of the Gospel, and of the Poor." In further announcements in late March and early April of 2004, he predicted that Romero would be beatified this year, or in 2006, at the latest. The ANSA story is found at:

http://espanol.groups.yahoo.com/group/sanromero/message/2116

as much as I love the memory of the man, he has not been declared a Saint by the Catholic Church. That category should be removed.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 15:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On liberation theology

[edit]

SqueakBox, on the one hand I agree that an explanation of liberation theology belongs in liberation theology, on the other Romero does appear to be associated with it and I think at least a few lines should be incorporated in the article saying what it is, tying it to the Salvadoran situation. In theory, hyperlinks make any kind of redundancy in articles superfluous; in practice, I think a small amount of overlap is acceptable and useful. The concept has fallen out of fashion and unlike, say, "capitalism", I doubt that everyone knows what it is. I am going to think about how to best integrate something about it into this article. -- Viajero 13:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine by me, --SqueakBox 20:05, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

bias

[edit]

after witnessing numerous violations of human rights, began to speak out on behalf of the poor and the victims of his country's long and bloody civil war. This brought him into conflict with both the right-wing paramilitary death squads and with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.

Speaking out on behalf of the poor did not bring Romero into conflict with the Catholic Church. Promoting Marxism as a means of helping the poor did.

Please source your claim that Romero promoted Marxism? --SqueakBox 22:01, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

I'll take back my claim that Romero promoted Marxism personally. But it is much more likely that the he came into conflict with the Church because of his association with liberation theologians who did promote Marxism, than that the source of the conflict was merely that he "spoke out on behalf of the poor." If this were the source of the conflict between the Church and Romero, then the Church would have also been in conflict with Mother Theresa.

How do you propose to change the text so we can have an NPOV and remove the notice of partiality? --SqueakBox 00:16, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about this?:
Óscar Arnulfo Romero y Goldámez (August 15, 1917 – March 24, 1980) was a prominent Roman Catholic Archbishop from El Salvador who, after witnessing numerous violations of human rights, began to speak out on behalf of the poor and the victims of his country's long and bloody civil war. His political activism brought him into conflict with both the right-wing paramilitary death squads and with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. -- Temtem 18:53, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

How about "this political activism"? --SqueakBox 19:32, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is its implication that the political activism was limited to speaking out on behalf of the poor. I think it would be better to leave the matter open in the introduction and describe the political activism in the body of the article. -- Temtem 19:36, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Well I don't object to it's (his political activism) insertion. Don't know what others may think. If you put this in will you also remove the POV or are their other biases too? --SqueakBox 19:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

I for one can live with this formulation. I am curious though how Temtem thinks Romero went beyond just "speaking out". You imply that it went much further than this. -- Viajero 19:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Surely a mention of his assasination needs to go into the introduction? DJ Clayworth 19:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good point. How is that? --SqueakBox 19:46, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

All done. Can I remove the POV notice? --SqueakBox 20:10, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I won't hold up the removal of the POV notice. My point was just that it was the particular manner in which he spoke out for the poor (such as opposing foreign military support for the government), rather than merely speaking out for the poor, that created the conflict. But I think this is adequately covered. -- Temtem 21:08, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Good, glad we could resolve this. -- Viajero 21:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem to me is that the text says "of his country's long and bloody civil war". Now, he died in 1980, and at most, the left wing in El Salvador claims that the war started with his death. Since there is no actual official date to the ignition of the civil war, but the common year is attributed to be 1981 then he could have not advocated to the victims of the war, or at least not to the victims of the alleged human right violations of the salvadorean armed forces, the text should refer to "victims of human rights violations" and not war victims

Thing is, the war did not start with Romero's death. But the repression and mass murders began as early as 1930´s (see 32 uprising). Remember that the war was never declared so the start date its not clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.62.50.192 (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

image upload

[edit]

I upload a lossless modified version of ArchibshopRomero.jpg for Oscar Romero's italian article

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immagine:Oscar_Romero-Vescovo.jpg

Upload your version to remove left black line and bottom line.

bye

Discrepancy as to Time of Death

[edit]

This article makes two mutually exclusive statements about when during his last Mass, Archbishop Romero was assassinated. The first occurs during the Introduction, which says that "In 1980, he was assassinated by gunshot while consecrating the Eucharist during mass." The second occurs during the Archbishop portion, which says that "While celebrating mass at a small chapel near his cathedral, Romero was shot to death while he was giving a sermon in which he called for soldiers to disobey orders that violated basic human rights." I do not know exactly which version is correct, though I surmise that it is a minor incongruity between the two and that Arbishop Romero was assassinated while consecrating the Eucharist after he had given a homily calling for soldiers to disobey orders that violated human rights. For those of you that are unsure why these events are necessarily mutually exclusive, it is that the Consecration of the Eucharist is a totally and completely distinct part, action, and ritual of the Mass from the Homily or Sermon. I hope that someone with more knowledge than I can correct this.

140.247.179.161 20:03, 18 October 2005 (UTC) Scotus Adams[reply]

Actually, the first version is the right one.


Romero was shot at approximately 6:25 p.m. on Monday, March 24, 1980 while celebrating mass at the Hospitalito Divina Providencia in the Miramontes district of northwest San Salvador. The sermon calling for soldiers to disobey orders that violated basic human rights had been given the previous day, Sunday, March 23, 1980 starting at aboout 8 A.M. Romero was shot at the altar in front of the Eucharistic gifts, but he was killed well before the actual consecration. In the audio tape recording of the March 24 mass, the fatal shot is heard moments after the concluding remarks of Romero's sermon. Most sources locate him in the Eucharistic offering, but Romero was still in the Liturgy of the Word, and not technically in the Liturgy of the Eucharist -- it was even before the Profession of Faith (praying the Creed). However, Romero had concluded his Sermon with an improvized, pre-Eucharistic prayer, which makes the attribution of the Eucharistic sacrifice as the setting of Romero's martyrdom seem appropriate. Even more fitting were his words:

"This holy Mass, this Eucharist, is precisely an act of Faith. With Christian Faith, we know that at this moment, the Wheaten Host is converted in the Body of the Lord, which was offered for the redemption of the World; and that in this chalice the wine is transformed into the Blood that was the price of salvation. May this Body immolated and this Blood sacrificed for mankind nourish us also, to give our body and our blood over to suffering and pain, like Christ -- not for Self, but to bring harvests of justice and of peace to our People."

Seven seconds later, the shot blares across the tape, and a the crowd explodes. Above the shrieks of panic, a female voice (probably a nun) stands out. She exclaims, "¡Santo Cristo!" (Holy Crist.)

168.98.32.22 02:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Carlos X.[reply]

So, why is there still something in the article about him dying during the Consecration? I am going to remove that passage (about the wine/Blood on his chest and the "mingling" and such).Zerobot 04:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The version in the introduction is not the correct one. Romero being shot during the consecration is a dramatization found in the movie "Romero". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.27.109 (talk) 16:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pope statement

[edit]

What about the sentence saying John Paul II supported non-democratic governments in the sole purpose of containing communism? It would be important to have the source of such information.

Agreed and removed. For the second time, I might add, SqueakBox 00:21, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

[edit]

Is there a source for statement that "May God have mercy on the assassins" were his last words? I tried to verify this but was unable. If someone can find a source for this, please cite it. Otherwise I will remove the quote from the article. 134.173.94.191 20:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Romero's last words is: Jerry Adler, "A Murder in the Chapel," NEWSWEEK, April 7, 1980.

But, why was the quote removed? I provided an authoritative source, a PUBLISHED source. In academic circles, isn't a print source more authoritative than all other sources, including on-line sources? Certainly an article printed in a national publication of repute, within a week of the murder, citing sources on the ground who witnessed the murder is perfectly reliable. I think that it is a suspect editorial move to delete those words. Clearly, it is a very telling remark. I request some formal editorial inquiry or examination that definitely resolves the question.

168.98.32.22 01:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Carlos X.[reply]

Coat of arms

[edit]

Is there a colour picture? --Daniel C. Boyer 01:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Yes. There are pictures of one that was located at Romero's tomb. The tomb was recently majorly revamped, but pictures of the old tomb, and arms, survive:

http://www.vidacom.org/salvador/images/img0014.jpg

168.98.32.21 22:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Carlos X., March 2, 2006[reply]

The Fifth Sun

[edit]

What about the play the Fifth Sun written about Oscar Romero?-Giant89 17:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New canonization update paragraph

[edit]

I propose to repace the second paragraph of the canonization section (which I wrote last year) with the following one:

Twenty six years after Romero's assassination, the canonization cause is stalled. In March 2005, Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, the Vatican official in charge of the drive, announced that Romero's cause had cleared an unprecedented hurdle, having survived a theological audit by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, at the time headed by no other than Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- the future Pope Benedict XVI -- and that beatification could follow within six months. FN1. Dramatically, Pope John Paul II died within weeks of those remarks, and the transition to a new Pontiff slowed down the work of canonizations and beatifications. Moreover, the new pontiff, Pope Benedict XVI, instituted liturgical changes that had the overall effect of reigning in the Vaticans' so-called "factory of saints." FN2. Later that year, an October 2005 interview by Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, appeared to put the kibosh on the prospect of an impending Romero beatification. Asked if Msgr. Paglia's predictions checked out, Cardinal Saraiva snipped, "Not as far as I know today." FN3. In November 2005, a Jesuit magazine whose contents must meet Vatican approval signaled that Romero's beatification was still "years away." FN4.


FN1. http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=35989 FN2. http://time-proxy.yaga.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,1059021,00.html FN3. http://www.30giorni.it/us/articolo.asp?id=9359 FN4. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506300.htm

168.98.32.21 18:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Carlos X.[reply]

I really dislike the word "stalled" as thought the process is a fluid one that has gone off track - some take longer than others... It took 50 or more years for the Greek Catholic martyrs of the Soviet Union to be canonized... Some that are just not meant to proceed simply won't. To say it is stalled is to imply that canonization is garaunteed - and that just isn't the case. It also implies these things move quickly all the time, also, simply just not the case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ASimpleSinner (talk • contribs) 16:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of the Bust

[edit]

Does anyone know, is this the bust on the UCA campus in San Salvador, just outside the Museo? Gershonw 05:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is.

Carlos_X 21:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The funeral needs more info

[edit]

The current article goes past the funeral info so briefly (not even using the word "funeral") that at first I thought it had been omitted completely. I'll be editing in a moment to try and flesh out that amazing part of the story. I hope others will supplement the item as time goes on.Lawikitejana 02:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA failed

[edit]

I am sorry but this article is not sourced. Please fully source it using WP:RS, secondary reliable sources(does Britannica Encyclopedia has an article on him? that might be useful) and then nominate it for "Good Article" status. Thanks --Aminz 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accent mark in first name

[edit]

Since this article is written in English, should it not omit the accent mark of the first mame?


Copy Edit/Notes

[edit]

Hi, I found this article requesting copy editing on the LOCE page. Anyway, I'm about halfway done but must go to the office now to do some 'real' work....however, I find this topic fascinating as I studied a bit of Latin American history in school (years ago) and would like to see it eventually promoted to GA status. However, there are significant chunks of text without sources and direct quotes lacking references as well. I'm also concerned about NPOV. I tagged all as appropriate.

As I said, I would love to see this article get up to GA (I remember reading a fascinating ....so, I will try and finish the copy edit later today and take a look at finding some sources. Let me know if there is more that I can do to help :) Thanks! Lazulilasher (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "and his blood spilled onto the altar with the contents of the chalice". It's a bit too mystical for an encyclopedia article. It doesn't help that the entire sentence describing his death is not cited. --94.76.220.9 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. The movie Romero (film) depicts it that way, and perhaps that is the source of this statement. I believe that it is established that he was shot while elevating the chalice (although I agree that a footnote with source would be good). The movie is by and large historical with regard to Romero's life (some of the minor characters are fictional, probably because the actual people were still living). But I don't consider the film to be a reliable source when it comes to specific cinematic details such as this. (If I had to guess, I would think that the contents of the chalice mostly landed on the altar, but if Romero fell backward his own blood would have ended up on the floor. But that's my guess.) — Lawrence King (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Shield01.jpg

[edit]

Image:Shield01.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you smell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.22.67.197 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Birth?

[edit]

At the start it says he was born on 25 August - then in Childhood it says 15 August. Which is right? Culnacreann (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Paul I conspiracy

[edit]

I found this weird website that attempts to link the persecution of Latin American jesuits with the early death of John Paul I. I don't subsribe to any of it, but it is still intriguing to read anyways. [1] ADM (talk) 03:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholics killing Catholics

[edit]

I find it somewhat problematic, at least from a technical point of view, to list many of the murdered El Salvador clergy as martyrs, since many of their assasins were themselves CINOs (Catholics in name only). If we were to follow that logic, then the murder of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel would also have to be considered a form of martyrdom in the Jewish tradition, Rabin having been killed by an extremist Jew. This is of course different from typical cases of martyrdom, where religious believers are killed by non-believing persecutors, such as in the French Revolution and in the Spanish Civil War, where fanatical Masonic forces ordered the killings of priests and nuns. ADM (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to Catholic terminology: I disagree. Under canon law, someone baptized a Catholic remains a Catholic unless they make some kind of public renunciation of their faith. Therefore, it follows that a significant number of the people in the French Revolution and Spanish Civil War who killed bishops, priests, nuns, and lay faithful were themselves canonically Catholic -- in other words, they came from Catholic families and had been baptized as infants, even though later in life they may have become atheists or agnostics or whatever. And yet Catholic usage recognizes their victims as martyrs. So I don't see why a priest murdered by a member of a Salvadoran death squad isn't equally a martyr, even if his killer was baptized as a Catholic. With regard to Wikipedia: I don't think that Wikipedia articles should be judging who is a martyr and who is not. That's a POV judgment. Of course, Wikipedia can (and in notable cases, should) report that a certain person has been officially pronounced a martyr by some church or organization, or that a certain person is widely regarded as a martyr by some group of people -- because this can be asserted with NPOV. — Lawrence King (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the Doe v. Rafael Saravia case

[edit]

The Assassination and funeral section of this article mentions the Doe v. Rafael Saravia case that was decided in the Eastern California US District court. I've been scouring the net for a copy of the Doe v. Rafael Saravia, 348 F. Supp. 2d 1112 (E.D. Cal. 2004) opinion and cannot find it. However, I found a summary procedings of that case through the site derechos.org. Enderandpeter (talk) 05:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Ritter song?

[edit]

As far as I can tell, the Romero mentioned in the Josh Ritter song (Harrisburg) referenced at the bottom of the article is not Oscar Romero. Yet perhaps there's some potential poetical interpretation that I can't figure out. Can anyone see any justification for the link?Prhodian (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Suggested improvements

[edit]

I've just made some important additions. Here are some other suggestions: 1) Romero's work before he was assassinated badly needs to be expanded. This article should have its emphasis there, rather than on things after his death much of which seems to be connected with claims for Sainthood or the like. 2) The section on international reaction to his assassination, which I began, badly needs to be expanded. Dáibhí Ó Bruadair (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be great to have more material on Romero's work during his life. I just did a small reorganization to move the material on his spiritual life before his assassination, because obviously this happened when he was alive!
At the same time, I think that the coverage of the assassination itself (and the subsequent investigations) is also very valuable, because (sadly, in my opinion) Romero is much more famous for his assassination than for his work before it. And while it's true that there is some material about his proposed canonization, there is even more material about international reactions.
Before your additions, there already was a subsection on international recognition. I just added a subheading to it to make it more clear. This raises a question: Should there be two seperate sections on international reaction, one for reaction to his assassination, and another for reaction to his life as a whole? That's what we have now, with Oscar Romero#International reaction and Oscar Romero#International recognition. If we do want to keep the sections separate, then the material about an annual mass since 1980 sponsored by the Irish-El Salvador Support Committee probably belongs in the second section, because (correct me if I'm wrong) the annual mass probably commemorates his life, not just his assassination. — Lawrence King (talk) 04:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I think that somewhere in this article there should be a mention of Romero being referenced in the book by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent. His murder is listed as an "Unworthy victim" in the book's propaganda model, which the book suggests is due to US-involvement/connection, citing case studies on US media coverage.

He received significantly less US media coverage than Jerzy Popieluszko (about 18.5% of the column inches that were used for Jerzy were used for Romero.)

Chapter 2. Pages 39-44 of Manufacturing Consent, 1988. Israelsrealm (talk) 01:07, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Romero and Rome -- a Missing Discussion

[edit]

An innocent reader, coming to this article, would remain entirely unaware that, prior to his assassination, Romero was heavily criticized by Pope John Paul II on a number of occasions and told, inter alia, to cooperate with the right-wing authorities in El Salvador. Some accounts describe him as being "humiliated" during at least one of his visits to the Vatican.

I can imagine that the absence of such a discussion might be "no accident". Anyone know if these matters were previously covered and then edited out? Anyone immediately on top of this material and in a position to rectify the omission? Nandt1 (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing that this aspect still remains unaddressed. Nandt1 (talk) 07:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Romero was never a supporter of Liberation Theology

[edit]

Despite claims otherwise, Oscar Romero was opposed to Liberation Theology and developed his own theology, with important differences. There was never a "ban" on his beatification process. Its a process that sometimes takes time and despite some questions concerning his beatification there was never an open oposition of Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI to Oscar Romero beatification. I can quote from this link [2] : "Articles in the news about a rapprochement between the Vatican and Liberation Theology tend to link the that development with news about a breakthrough in the beatification cause of Archbishop Oscar Romero, assassinated in El Salvador in 1980, and deeply linked with the defense of the poor. Although Romero’s name is often associated with the controversial Catholic movement in Latin America, the relationship between the man and the movement is ... complicated. Here are 5 essential things to understand (and #4 is probably the most important). (...)/ Romero knew that a Vatican correction of Liberation Theology was on the way. In July 1978, Romero told the faithful that there would be “revisions in Liberation Theology” following Pope John Paul’s visit to Mexico the following year, and Romero warned in his last pastoral letter, issued in August 1979, against a politicized version of Liberation Theology that could render its Christian content “ambiguous,” echoing concerns laid out by John Paul./ (...) Romero’s understanding of Liberation Theology was consistent with Card. Ratzinger’s distinctions between orthodox and heterodox strands. “Let it be known that I study Liberation Theology through solid theologians, such as Cardinal [Eduardo] Pironio, who currently is the prefect of one of the Pope’s congregations, a man who enjoys the full confidence of the Pope,” Romero said in 1977 (Card. Pironio, an Argentine, shared the ‘folk theology’ used by his compatriot Card. Bergoglio; he was appointed Pro-Prefect of the Congregation for Institutes of Consecrated Life by Paul VI and President of the Pontifical Council for the Laity by John Paul II). Romero’s views of Liberation Theology were also informed by the Opus Dei theologian José María Casciaro, the Franciscan friar Buenaventura Kloppenburg, and the CELAM missionary Segundo Galilea. Romero never references Liberation Theologians such as Leonardo Boff, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Manuel Pérez or Carlos Mugica. He did not read books on Liberation Theology that he received as gifts while he was archbishop (they were found in their sealed wrappers after his death)./ (...) Romero cared deeply for the poor and in this he broke bread with Liberation Theology, but he got there through a separate and independent route. As early as 1941, while he was still a seminary student (and long before Liberation Theology was conceived), Romero wrote that, “The poor are the incarnation of Christ. Through their tattered clothing, their dark gazes, their festering sores, the laughter of the mentally ill ... the charitable soul discovers and venerates Christ.” [MORE.] He was influenced by his study of asceticism, which pushed him to embrace poverty and discipline. [MORE.] He was also influenced by the Church Fathers: Fr. Thomas Greenan places Romero “in the patristic episcopal tradition” of St. Basil and St. Ambrose. Romero’s vicar remembers Romero quoting St. John Chrysostom (“Do you want to honor the body of Christ? Don't ignore Him then, when you find him naked in the poor.”), and in his homilies Romero quoted St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine. [MORE.] Finally, Romero was profoundly influenced by the social magisterium of the modern popes.// The Church is not going to beatify Romero because it has decided to go easy on trends it formerly deemed to be in error. Romero, too, recognized that the Liberation Theology movement was adrift and would have been happy to see it guided safely back to port. Romero himself, however, was able to navigate the treacherous waters and never lose his way."Mistico (talk) 16:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Romero beatification process was never blocked

[edit]

This article adresses the question if Oscar Romero beatification process in the Vatican was ever blocked and it concludes by the negative: [3]Mistico (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Óscar Romero/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The article on Archbishop Romero is generally good, which is admirable given the controversial nature of the topic (religion to begin with, the political overtones, moving parts within Catholicism, etc.). The biases have been worked out diligently over a couple of years. There is a lot of good information here, but the style needs to be made more uniform, and several of the passages are short on citations.

Last edited at 15:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 11:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Óscar Romero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Óscar Romero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The article says "was canonized" but the article written 4 days ago says "is to be canonized". I suppose the man was canonized, but we need a link to an article that says that, not just a proposed action. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Content added by 67.184.212.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been removed from this article for copyright reasons. In spite of warning, the individual using this IP has persisted in copying content from copyrighted sources without compatible licensing to Wikipedia. Please do not restore any removed text without first ensuring that the text does not duplicate, closely paraphrase or plagiarize from a previously published source, whether the one cited or another (issues have been detected from other sources than those named). Based on the editing pattern of this person, we cannot make the assumption that the content is usable. You are welcome to use sourced facts that may have been removed to create new content in your own words or to incorporate brief quotations of copyrighted material in accordance with the non-free content policy and guideline. See Wikipedia:Copy-paste and Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160. Thank you. -- 💵Money💵emoji💵💸 01:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does "A Different View" magazine exist?

[edit]

The article mentions that "In 2008, Europe-based magazine A Different View included Romero among its 15 Champions of World Democracy.[9]". Are we sure that this magazine exists? if it's Europe-based and in English, is it in the UK, Ireland or Malta? If it does, does it have a website? Should there be a page for it? I couldn't find out anything about it. Maybe it's a small publisher. In that case, the country of origin would be helpful. Ballystrahan (talk) 20:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two very peculiar things. The IP editor, 203.76.220.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), made a total of 18 edits in 90 minutes in 2008. Every single one of them was to add A Different View to articles. There used to be an article by that name: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Different View. It was not for a European periodical. I say this smells strongly of a hoax and can safely be removed due to failing WP:V. Thank you for your due diligence on this. Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Thank you for following up on this! Ballystrahan (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does… thank you for your insightful words of wisdom my friend. Keep being your amazing self always and beat haters with positive words 2600:1700:3870:9C00:91A6:52ED:3F84:E852 (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carmelite?

[edit]

The Infobox lists Óscar Romero as a member of TOCarm. I could find nothing to substantiate this claim anywhere. Even the official website of the Carmelites, while paying homage to Saint Óscar, does not claim he was a proper Carmelite. 2804:14D:4CD1:93ED:0:0:0:3238 (talk) 16:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Checks out, yes; it says he wore the Brown Scapular, which is not the same as Third Order membership. Perhaps @Bendi07 can offer an explanation. I'll remove it. Elizium23 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

[edit]

English speakers disagree on how to handle accent marks in words/names from other languages.  What is the "official" Wikipedia policy?  I personally agree with using the spelling of the source language as has been done here, but I notice that a link to this page still works with the diacritic omitted.  Should the mark be added to that link? 伟思礼 (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Óscar_Romero&oldid=1211944667"