Rutilio Grande, S.J.: Homilies and Writings Translation and Commentary by Thomas M. Kelly, Ph.D. Forthcoming September 2015 Pre-order from Liturgical Press http://www.litpress.org/Products/8773/Rutilio-Grande-SJ.aspx Rutilio Grande, S.J. was the first Jesuit assassinated in El Salvador on March 12, 1977. He was killed for having done the works which Jesus commands with regard to one's neighbor as a priest in the Roman Catholic Church. This volume of his writings and homilies illustrates how he applied the social and ecclesial teachings of the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) in his ministry with the poor and marginalized of El Salvador. His use of the social sciences to understand the problems in his context, his prophetic denunciation of power and wealth, and his ministry to empower lay people to lead their faith communities all speak to the Holy Spirit working through the courage of a true servant leader. Thomas M. Kelly, Ph.D is Professor of Systematic Theology at Creighton University. Dr. Kelly has taught immersion courses on the Church in Latin America in El Salvador, Peru, Bolivia and the Dominican Republic over the past 12 years and serves as Immersion Coordinator for a national formation program for the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU) known as the Ignatian Colleagues Program http://ignatiancolleagues.org/. He has published nationally and internationally on philosophical hermeneutics, liberation theology, Jesuit martyrs and Catholic social thought. His most recent book is When the Gospel Grows Feet: Rutilio Grande, S.J., and the Church of El Salvador (Liturgical Press, 2013). Table of Contents Chapter 1: To Evangelize We Must See: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and Social Analysis Translation of: Violencia y Situación Social, translated Violence and the Social Situation ECA, Vol. 262 (1970)262 1970, pp. 369-375. Commentary: Will focus on the use of the social sciences by pastoral ministers immediately following Vatican II. Within this article, Rutilio shows the beginnings of “social analysis” to frame the ministry of the church. Chapter 2: To Evangelize We Must Judge: Rutilio Grande, S.J. Speaks to Power Homily on the Solemnity of the Transfiguration of the Lord Cathedral of San Salvador, August 6, 1970 Translation of: XXV Aniversario de Rutilio Grande. Sus Homilias. Eds. Salvador Carranza, Miguel Cavada Diez, Jon Sobrino, Centro Monsignor Romero-UCA, #10, 2002, 39-51. I am grateful to Father Carlos Alvarez for editing parts of this translation. Commentary: Will focus on the ability to concretize abstract biblical-theological insights into the life and ministry of the Church in El Salvador. Chapter 3: To Evangelize We Must Act: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and the Mission to Aguilares (Year 1) “Aguilares: An Experience of Rural Parish Evangelization” Translation of: Rutilio Grande, Aguilares: Una Experiencia de Evangelización Rural Parroquial, In Búsqueda, Organ of the Pastoral Commission of El Salvador, Vol. III, No. 8, March 1975 21-45. Commentary: Will focus on the critical choices that Rutilio and the mission team made in terms of mission, method and evaluation in concrete ministry to the poor and marginalized. Chapter 4: To Evangelize We Must Act: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and the Mission to Aguilares (Year 2) “Aguilares: An Experience of Rural Parish Evangelization” Translation of: Rutilio Grande, Aguilares: Una Experiencia de Evangelización Rural Parroquial, In Búsqueda, Organ of the Pastoral Commission of El Salvador, Vol. III, No. 8, March 1975 21-45. Commentary: Will focus on the critical choices that Rutilio and the mission team made in terms of mission, method and evaluation in concrete ministry to the poor and marginalized. Chapter 5: Servant Leadership and the Empowerment of Lay Ministers: Homily on the Third Festival of Corn Translation of: Homilía en el tercer festival del maíz, in XXV Aniversario de Rutilio Grande. Sus Homilías, Eds., Salvador Carranza, Miguel Cavada Diez, Jon Sobrino, Centro Monseñor Romero, UCA, San Salvador, 2007, 57-72. Commentary: Will focus on the role of servant leadership as distinctively different from leadership from above. This homily and accompanying liturgy to validate the lay ministers in the community is a classic example of how the Church of Latin America empowered its own people with a substantive lay ministry. Chapter 6: The Violence of Love: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and the Final Homily at Apopa Translation of: Homilía de Apopa, in XXV Aniversario de Rutilio Grande. Sus Homilías, Eds., Salvador Carranza, Miguel Cavada Diez, Jon Sobrino, Centro Monseñor Romero, UCA, San Salvador, 2007, 73-86. Commentary: Will focus on the role of non-violent resistance that Rutilio promoted shortly before his death. A theology of the “violence” of love will be developed and explained as uniquely Christian. Chapter 7: “Let Us Embrace This Precious Inheritance:” Homily of Archbishop Romero at the Funeral of Rutilio Grande, S.J. Translation of: Homilia en la Misa Exequial del Padre Rutilio Grande, March 14, 1977. Commentary: Will focus on how Romero understood the meaning of the ministry and priestly life of Rutilio Grande as a model of servant-leadership in light of Evangelii nuntiandi and asked that his priests imitate this ministry. Conclusion What can Rutilio Grande’s life, ministry and death teach the contemporary Church in light of the message and pontificate of Pope Francis? Chapter 1: To Evangelize We Must See: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and Social Analysis Historical Context: El Salvador began to wrestle with the historical legacy of extreme unequal land distribution within the country in the late 1960’s and 1970’s. A mere 2% of the population owned 60% of the most fertile land in the country, and there was a division in the structure of land ownership.1 On one level, large estates used modern technology to produce highly efficient crop yields for export. On another level, small subsistence farmers used rudimentary farming methods on less fertile soil to scrape out a living. The plight of the rural agricultural worker became increasingly vulnerable and unstable as the decades progressed, with many resorting to selling their less fertile lands and renting from others. These workers and their families constituted somewhere between 50%-60% of the Salvadoran population in the late 1960’s. The first effort at land reform had been defeated in the National Congress in March of that year. As a result of this imbalance, violence emerged within and throughout the country. Following Vatican II and the Catholic Church’s new commitment to justice, many priests who ministered in these rural agricultural communities began to study the causes of the social reality in which they lived. No longer was it possible to simply give “charity,” a response that met the immediate needs of those who were poor. Charity only addressed the symptoms of a deeper problem. Getting at the causes of this deeper problem became the work of justice. In the following article, Violence and the Social Situation, Rutilio Grande, S.J. is reminding those in El Salvador that the Church had a social doctrine and that because of this tradition it was legitimate for the Church to weigh in on concerns that were “worldly.” The following article is an attempt to identify the causes of violence in El Salvador and was published in an academic journal based at the University of Central America (UCA). From Rutilio’s analysis, it is evident that unequal land distribution is Susan Ram, “El Salvador: Perspectives on a Revolutionary Civil War,” Social Scientist, Vol. 11, No. 8 (Aug., 1983), pp. 7-8, URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3517048 1 partly to blame for serious social problems that included both “institutional” and “armed” violence. “Institutional” violence would be state sponsored violence while “armed” violence would be the population arming itself and using violence to create social change. Violence and the Social Situation2 Rutilio Grande, S.J. Social Reality is also within the Competence of the Church The title of this article calls attention to what is known as the social doctrine of the Church. It appears within the title with great clarity, but is unknown by those priests who stay in the sacristy, who speak of love and charity, who teach doctrine to children, who give vouchers for the parish movie and who distribute alms to the needy among their faithful. Some say that a priest should be a good man who does not go where he is not called. And they are right; this is how a priest ought to be, among other things. But it happens that they do get called about very serious things and they become involved in things not mentioned above, and because of this, there are those who criticize and accuse these priests of meddling, of being revolutionaries, and so on. It is often said by some that the priest should not get involved in economic or social matters. If he does, he will be called a communist. They will give the following reasons: if you are an engineer you shouldn’t get involved with morality, in the same way a priest should not involve himself in economic or social matters. But the comparison is not valid, for while technical things pertain to the engineer and the economist, etc., social and economic realities are necessary to be human, they pertain to all people, and are thus a part of morality. What do the Supreme Pontiffs say about this? 2 Rutilio Grande, S.J. Violencia y la Situación Social in Estudios Centroamericanos, Vol. 262 (1970)262 1970, pp. 369-375. Bolded words or headings are from the original article. Since Leo XIII we have seen an insistence that questions of economics cannot be separated from questions of morality. And morality is completely within the purview of the Church. The Pope said in 1901: “Some say, and this error is fairly widespread, that the social question is a purely economic one, conversely, we are certain that the social question is principally moral and religious. For this reason, it should be settled in accordance with the laws of morality and religion.”3 Pius X stated, “The social question and the controversies surrounding it are derived from the nature and duration of labor, the level of wages, and workers strikes, and these are not only of an economic nature. For this reason, they cannot be resolved outside the authority of the Church.”4 We wish to indicate that the Church, long ago, emphasized the fact that the problems in question are not “purely economic,” but affect the moral life and therefore fall within its own competence. Pius XI insisted that the object of morality includes the object of the economy without invalidating the distinction between economic and moral science, and without negating the specification of the object of the economy. “It is an error to affirm that the economic order and the moral order are so distant from each other that the former has nothing to do with the latter.”5 Therefore, the same object is treated by two complementary points of view. Economic crises, unemployment, inflation and deflation, supply and demand, with consequences for the level of wages, these forces are all profoundly related economically, socially and morally. It is not possible to resolve these problems without reference to the person, and this falls squarely in the realm of morality. Economic weights and measures and their effects will never be exclusively economic, they will always be in relation to persons and therefore with morality. Lebret says in his work The Concrete Dynamic of Development: “We do not accept the separation of the economic from the human. . . What counts for us is the person.”6 Leo XIII, Graves de Communi, May 18, 1901. BAC-DS, p. 428, number 10. Pius X, Singulari Quadam, Sept. 24, 1912. BAC-DS, p. 513, number 3. 5 Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931. BAC-DS, p. 712, number 42. 6 Louis Joseph Lebret, O.P., Dinamica Concreta del Desarrollo, Editorial Herder, Barcelona 1969. Segunda edición ampliada. 559 pages (no page reference given by Grande). 3 4 And Paul VI: “Economics and technology have no meaning except in relation to the human person, whom they should serve.”7 “Development cannot be reduced simply to economic growth. To be authentic it should be integral, that is, it must benefit all people and the whole person.”8 For these reasons, the Church should also speak about social reality, not in a merely technical sense, but with regard to its implications for the human and moral dimensions of life. And so we see the Church articulating this through Leo XII, Pius X, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI and Vatican II. But for some, the priest that preaches these teachings is bad, for they have left the sacristy and no longer teach children to be obedient to their parents and not hit their little brothers and sisters. The Social Reality of Latin America The social reality of Latin America lends itself to multiple reflections, attitudes and reactions. We would like to reflect on this reality with objectivity, with a rational attitude and to react not only in favor of structural change, but also in terms of the conversion of people who will implement these changes with disinterest and solid technical knowledge. We need people convinced of the necessity of modifying the existing structures and who will do so despite the greatest enemy—human selfishness. To change the structures alone, would only promote a harmful revolution. People with preparation and disinterest have the capacity to change the necessary structures, but this must be a struggle for justice and development as well. The situation of Latin America is amazingly complex. Let us make some assumptions based on data.9 The rate of growth is approximately 2.9%, which indicates a population increase from about 200 million people in 1960 to about 690 million people in the year 2000. In 40 years the population will increase more than threefold. This continent is deprived of almost all possibilities for personal initiative and responsibility and includes living and working conditions unworthy of human beings. Paul VI, Populorum progression, March 26, 1967, number 34. Ibid., number 14. 9 Rutilio draws most of his information from the Salvadoran national census of 1960. 7 8 These realities do not have simple solutions. They show us the goal to be achieved. The road: great skill, new systems, people prepared and convinced to change what is necessary to bring about justice and love. The Social Reality of El Salvador The Population of El Salvador was 3,266,492 inhabitants with a density of 163.3 inhabitants per square kilometer. The rate of population growth is 3.4%. According to the 1961 census, 48.7% of the population was younger than 16 years old. Situating the age of 16 as the threshold of productive age, we have for every person working another person who is not. The reality is that one person works for every two who does not, so in 1961 only 32.1% of the population was really active. The youngest of our population suffer from problems related to food, housing, clothing, overall health and education, etc. The literate population 10 years and older, according to the 1961 census, equaled 50.8% of the population. This data is sufficient to understand the titanic force that is required in education to absorb the existing illiterate population which continues to grow every year. Per capita income is theoretically 703 colones (281 US dollars) a year, equally distributed among all. But practically speaking, 8% of the population receives half the income; while the other half, if distributed equally among the rest of the population, received 383 colones (153 dollars) annually. With this income, the maximum amount that a person can earn monthly is 32 colones (13 dollars). We know well that this distribution is largely theoretical since in practice there are still many inequalities, largely in the rural population which represents 61.3% of inhabitants. The urban housing deficit was calculated in 1969 at 178, 400 while the rural housing deficit was at 275, 000 units. If we assume an average of five people for each unit of housing, we have 1,377,000 people in the country living in homes that do not deserve that name. The problem of large and small estates is a fact, according to data from the second agricultural census of 1961. Farms of 100 hectares (250 acres) take up about 47.71% of the land, 754,498 hectares (1,886,245 acres) of all the cultivatable land which is 1,581,428 hectares (3,953,570 acres). 81.19% of the farms, which constitute land less than 5 hectares (12.5 acres), do not represent more than 15.64% of agricultural land, 247,376 hectares (618,440 acres). Properties of a thousand and more hectares are .05% of all holdings and cover 15.47% of all the land, 248,918 hectares (622,295 acres). The holdings of the .05% cover more land than the holdings of the 85.19% of the population. We should also remember that sometimes multiple large estates are owned by the same person. According to Gonzalez Luna Herrero M.E. in “Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry Zoning,” even with the scant surface area of 1,581,428 hectares (3,953,570 acres), according to the 1961 census, it should not be forgotten that in El Salvador 487,000 hectares (1,217,500 acres) are unused. The need for comprehensive agrarian reform has become urgently clear, especially in light of all this data and more like it related to seasonal and hidden unemployment in the countryside. This reform should include the use of uncultivated land, sanitation and better cultivation of existing holdings, the selection of crops, the overcoming of monoculture, the industrialization of agricultural products, the increase of national and international markets, the assistance of communication, money and credit for the agricultural industry and above all, the education of the rural agricultural worker and their professional formation. Further, they ought to study the best method for land distribution, one of the many elements of a comprehensive land reform, and something that is also very urgent. This distribution ought to be well studied from economic and social points of view. To sum up, the problem of El Salvador is highly complex. An elevated rate of population growth aggravates problems in education, housing and overall health. Additionally, low per capita income has great influence on El Salvador, the majority of the rural population is insufficiently paid for work, and there is high seasonal unemployment and underemployment. The population has little capacity for questioning their reality, there is a necessity to improve infrastructure and to create new jobs through strong investment. We understand that this overview is incomplete. We have only looked at part of reality. We recognize also the large and very effective forces of both private initiative and public entities. These can increase housing, make culture accessible, increase and improve infrastructure, augment business and production while creating new jobs and wealth. All of this is part of the highly commendable tenacity of El Salvador to overcome and improve the situation of its citizens. And this, in our judgment, is the road to solving our grave social problems. On the other side, despite many efforts huge social inequalities exist and it is urgent according to the obligations of justice to solve these. Without any desire to play upon emotions or stir up the common people, it has to be said that it is simply and counter-productively inefficient to distribute wealth in such a way and it is clearly evident that we need a more equitable distribution of income. Let’s see a few texts that relate to these matters from the Church. It is a grave error to promote the idea that the right to private property is unlimited. It limits the common good. On September 1, 1944 Pius XII said to us that “the Church has frowned upon, as contrary to natural justice, the assumption that private property is an unlimited right without any subordination to the common good.” In Populorum progressio, while speaking of the right of all people to the use of goods and how nothing should hinder this Paul VI said, “Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute and unconditioned right. No one is justified in keeping for their exclusive use what they do not need when others lack necessities.” 10 In Guadium et spes, Vatican II says: “By its very nature, private property has a social quality deriving from the law of the communal purpose of earthly goods.”11 Because of such expressions, it is thought that we are against strong capital—but we are not. What matters is the how and why of strong capital. Strong capital is necessary for development. But this same capital ought to have a social function; it ought to serve its own country in order to create work and to increase national income, ensuring that those working increase their income. It aims to promote development so that necessary goods reach as many as possible. We are not those who offer practical solutions to these problems. We are not development, economic or financial experts. We are those who only want to put their efforts in service to their country and all Salvadorans while searching for solutions to so many grave social problems. 10 11 Paul VI, Populorum Progressio, no. 23. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, Pastoral Constitution of the Church in the Modern World, no. 71. Bloody Violence and Institutionalized Violence We are living in Latin America amid continuing acts of savage violence. It goes without saying that we reject this violence. We cannot be in agreement with these systems so contrary to freedom and to the rights of the human person. We repeat what Pope Paul VI stated, “Violence is neither Christian nor evangelical.” When analyzing the complex fact of armed violence, we encounter a factor that we ought to study more closely: social injustice. It is obvious that actual violence is the following: [A] situation of injustice that can be called institutionalized violence when, because of a structural deficiency in the quantity of industry and agriculture, of national and international economy, cultural and political life, ‘entire populations lack necessities, live in such dependence that hinders all initiative and responsibility, as well as every possibility for cultural promotion and participation in social and political life,’ thus violating fundamental human rights. This situation demands all-embracing, courageous, urgent, and profoundly renovating transformations. We should not be surprised, therefore, that the ‘temptation to violence’ is rising in Latin America.12 This was expressed as such by the Second Conference of Latin American Bishops at their meeting in Medellín in August of 1968. We have a problem with violence on two levels: Institutional violence and armed violence. The two are unjust, the two are prejudicial to the rights of human beings, the two are contrary to peace, since “peace is, before all, a work of justice,” according to the Second Vatican Council in Gaudium et spes, (no. 78). In our history as a country, institutional violence by the State preceded the armed violence among the people and is one of the factors that produced the armed revolution. Conscious of the complexity of this issue, of the danger of arousing the passions of people over issues of violence which are susceptible to multiple interpretations, it should be said that in El Salvador there is no place for any type of violence. I want to argue from some data which can illuminate a national reality of “excessive” 12 CELAM, Final Document on Peace, Medellín, 1968, no.16. disproportion in the distribution of goods. All “excess” carries a derogatory meaning, and in our case is a sign of an unjust situation. The Plan of Development for 1956-59, Volume 1, page 46 states: “A recent study demonstrated that only 8% of all families have incomes of 400 colones (160 dollars) or more per month, while 60% of families earned less than 130 colones (52 dollars) monthly. Around 8% of the population receives approximately 50% of all income. 30% of the entire population of El Salvador, or approximately 750,000 people earn less than 12 colones (4.8 dollars) a month in consumer items: and the other 58% earn less than 24 colones (9.6 dollars) a month.” We recognize the necessity of capital that can strengthen work and of wealth, and never advocate a “joyful sharing of assets” (as communism does).13 We would like it if in El Salvador there was no armed or institutional violence. But we also recognize that according to the data given, there exists an “excessive” disproportion in the distribution of goods that could give occasion and explain, without defending, the armed violence as it does in other countries. And what matters most is not to destroy but to build. We are conscious of the complexity of the problems. We want to denounce this “excess,” not to stir up people but to ask those who influence national political and economic reality to make rapid and effective efforts to improve the unjust situation of our fellow citizens. ***End of Article*** Commentary This article was important for a number of reasons. First, it tried to outline clearly the role of the Church in the world by advocating possible solutions to social, economic and political problems even though it left concrete details to the “experts.” Previously the Church had been concerned mainly with sacraments and moralizing. Second, this was an early example of the Church in Central America using social analysis, albeit at a basic level, to better understand the situation to which it was ministering. Finally, in light of this article, a deficiency in the intellectual formation of diocesan priests in North America becomes apparent. The inclusion of sociology in their 13 Parentheses mine. formation would make social analysis possible. This could improve pastoral ministry in our own context. In this manner, an important aspect of priestly ministry could be strengthened. The Church and the World Prior to Vatican II (1962-65) and throughout the colonial period in Latin America (1492-1820) the Catholic Church and whatever State controlled a particular region agreed to a particular relationship where they were responsible for particular spheres of activity.14 This understanding of the Church-State relationship had the Church as the absolute authority over all things “spiritual” while the State had absolute authority over all things “material,” including social, economic and political policy in a given territory. Because the Church was dependent on the State for most, if not all of its privileges in the colonial period, (for example, the Church was the second largest landholder in Latin America) it generally accepted this division of labor and influence. Fr. Bartolomeo de las Casas, a famous advocate for native peoples in the early conquest period, once recounted a story where priests waited outside of a gold mine in order to baptize the slaves, many of whom would die that day. The concern of the priests was for the salvation of the slaves’ “souls,” not the suffering of their “bodies” undergoing death. This basic division of responsibility between the “spiritual” and “material” is vividly portrayed in the mines of Bolivia where the overwhelming majority of people worshipped in Catholic Churches above ground, but in the mines controlled by colonial powers below, a cult to “the devil” was employed to control workers and their production through fear.15 With the rise of the philosophy of Karl Marx in the 19th century and the growing power of labor movements in Europe, the Church finally weighed in on what was formally considered outside of its purview—the economy, the role of the State, private property and labor rights. Pope Leo XIII would begin this “social doctrine of the Church” with his encyclical titled Rerum novarum which translates as “of new things.” For a more complete argument on this see Thomas Kelly, When the Gospel Grows Feet: Rutilio Grande, S.J. and the Church of El Salvador (Collegeville, Liturgical Press, 2013). Chapters one and two develop this history and dualism in the colonial church. 15 For an excellent visual documentary on this see The Devil’s Miner (First Run/Icarus Films, 2005) 82 min. 14 Of course none of these things were “new,” what was “new” was the Church weighing in on them and effectively ending societas perfectas as it had been understood. This was not without some self-interest. Of great concern in Rerum novarum was the role of the State and private property. This was particularly important to the Church because the Papal States had been seized and incorporated into the state of Italy in 1870 and Church land was diminished to what today is known as Vatican City. In his article “Violence and the Social Situation,” Rutilio reminded Salvadoran society that the Church had a social doctrine which needed to be prophetically proclaimed. Note the tension in the article concerning different models of priestly ministry. There were those who “stay in the sacristy” and “speak of love and charity.” The implication was they were hiding from the world and engaging only the symptoms of much deeper problems. Giving “charity” failed to address the underlying causes of poverty and marginalization and consequently maintained the status quo. At the same time there were those who involved themselves in “economic or social matters” who were called “communists.” In addition to the stereotype of “communist” the more dangerous word “revolutionary” was used. This tension reflected divisions among the priests and bishops of El Salvador. The acceptance and application of Vatican II in the Salvadoran context was anything but easy. As early as 1970 there was tension between the social doctrine of the Church and those who resisted change to the social, economic or political realities of El Salvador. Rutilio tried to educate his audience on the history of Catholic social thought beginning with Leo XIII and ending with Paul VI. He began by establishing that economics cannot be separated from morality, because economics pertains to all people and this human connection makes it subject to morality. Thus, the first social encyclical of the Church, Rerum novarum, treated issues such as labor conditions, unions, just wages, private property and obligations of the rich. Pius X continued this emphasis on particular problems and issues including the nature and duration of labor, the level of wages and the right of workers to strike. Pius XI built upon this line of thought so that according to Rutilio one cannot separate economic “weights and measures” from people or morality. Finally Paul VI spoke of “integral development” where he echoed the official Church teaching of Vatican II in which we see the entire person as an integrated whole with legitimate needs pertaining to body and soul whether they are poor or rich. 16 Contrary to “spiritualists,” human needs and the material world were validated economically, socially, politically and culturally. Contrary to Marxism, the soul and spiritual growth were validated as essential to human development. Understood as an integrated whole, the human person grew and developed by having both physical and spiritual needs met. Thus, according to Catholic social thought, a “more fully human” person grows in all dimensions; a “less fully human person” lacks some or all of them. Christians are called to work for the full humanity of everyone and the whole person. The approach by Paul VI is quite different from the explanation given by the Church for many centuries prior to Vatican II. For centuries, poverty was understood to be the will of God and social positions were ordained by the same. A new perspective became possible with the ability to understand how and why social forces form social reality. Far from being “God’s will,” poverty and suffering emerged from social, political and economic realities that benefitted some and hurt others. The ability to analyze these social realities and understand why people suffered from poverty was very important for the ministry of the Church—especially if the purpose of the Church was to serve and build the Kingdom of God. One characteristic of the Kingdom of God was a world in which justice prevailed and every effort to alleviate poverty and suffering for the common good was taken up by all. Prior to Vatican II, the Kingdom of God was thought to be either heaven or the Church itself. The document Lumen gentium made it very clear that the Kingdom of God is both now and not yet. The Church works for a world consistent with God’s will as revealed in scripture and tradition, but only God finally completes this work. “Its [the Church’s] end is the Kingdom of God, which has been begun by God Himself on earth, and which is to be further extended until it is brought to perfection by Him at the end of time, when Christ, our life, shall appear, and ‘creation itself will be delivered from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the sons of God.’”17 In order to serve the Kingdom of God we need to understand the causes of the anti-Kingdom—i.e., any social, political or economic reality that dehumanizes people. For this reason, the 16 17 Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 14. Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium, no. 9, italics mine. social teaching of the church was and continues to be essential to its mission in the world. Social Sciences and Ministry Trying to understand the context within which one ministers is a difficult and complex undertaking. Beginning with a largely lay Catholic movement called Catholic Action in the early 1900’s, the need to understand the world and respond to it made its way into the Church’s teaching and ministry. Prior to Vatican II, John XXIII outlined this general approach to be used by the Church in the following passage from Mater et magistra (1961). There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: look, judge, act.18 It is to this first moment of the process of understanding the “look” or “see” moment that much of the Church of Latin America turned toward following Vatican II. This was made easier with encouragement from another Vatican II document, Gaudium et spes. “In pastoral care, sufficient use must be made not only of theological principles, but also of the findings of the secular sciences, especially of psychology and sociology, so that the faithful may be brought to a more adequate and mature life of faith.”19 When Rutilio was involved with the major seminary in El Salvador in the 1960’s he originated “immersion trips” to poor rural farming communities for seminarians. His insight was that contact with the poor, as part of priestly formation, was essential for ministers to be effective when they completed their studies. Most of these “immersions” were spent listening to the people and their experience of reality. The purpose was explained this way: “the first contact with the people was to be characterized by a human encounter; to try to enter into their reality in order to leave 18 19 John XXIII, Mater et magistra, no. 236. Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et spes, no. 62. with a common reality.”20 While this contact was essential to seminarian formation, it was not enough, social analysis was the next step. Social analysis an attempt to try to understand the causes of violence within El Salvador. Rutilio began his social analysis of El Salvador by admitting that Latin America “lends itself to multiple reflections” none of which were exhaustive in and of itself. In trying to get at the root causes of violence in the country, he analyzed the population and its level of inequality as a possible cause for violence. He clearly understood, contrary to Marxism, that changing structures alone would not change the reality of El Salvador. “To change structures, alone, would only promote a harmful revolution.” He was working from an understanding of integral development put forth by Paul VI in his encyclical Populorum progressio.21 Rutilio’s analysis began with census data which included population growth, demographics, per capita income, housing, land distribution, and the need for agrarian reform. Because the suffering and poverty rate of the rural, agricultural farming population were so much higher than the rest of the country, Rutilio would designate agrarian reform as particularly important. For justification of the redistribution of land and wealth, Rutilio would again look to Church teaching. Citing Pius XII, Paul VI, as well as Vatican II, he would argue that “capital ought to have a social function.” This is important. Rutilio never argued for the abolition of capital or for communism as the answer. Rather, he argued for a benevolent capitalism—one put in service to human beings—that would create work and increase income for the poor. In the end he made it clear that the Church does not have practical solutions to concrete problems. But indicating the problem and its possible causes is part of the solution. In a very delicate manner, Rutilio moved from an analysis of inequality in El Salvador, what he identified as “a national reality of ‘excessive’ disproportion in the distribution of goods” to the position that both “institutionalized violence” and “armed violence” emerged from this inequality. Through his use of social analysis, Rutilio named the cause of the violence in his context. The inequality present in El Salvador required State violence to maintain and in response to this, “armed violence” by the general population resulted. He argued that this “explains” without defending the 20 21 Cardenal, 105. Paul VI, Populorum progressio, no. 21. resulting “armed violence,” as both forms of violence violated Christian principles. Finally he appealed to his fellow citizens by denouncing the unjust inequality in his context and by urging a “just” non-violent resolution to the problem. Lessons for North America Once following a talk I gave at a parish, the pastor approached me to vent about a particular frustration. He shared with me an experience when he delivered school supplies to a family that was “struggling.” When he arrived at the home to donate those supplies he walked past a boat and large RV in the driveway on his way to the front door. Once inside, he fumed about the massive flat screen TV on the wall. “Why should I give people school supplies for their children when they blow their money on boats, RV’s and flat screen TVs?” he said. “Father,” I answered, “we live in an intensely consumerist society, their money is going to what they have been told should be their priorities.” He looked at me with confusion. After a lengthy discussion about the drive to consume in our society, he looked distinctly uncomfortable. What became clear to me was an inability to understand the social reality to which he was ministering. When he realized that in order to respond to this consumerism in his context, he would need to be “prophetic” in his preaching by challenging the cultural status quo, the conversation quickly ended. The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops publishes a guide titled the Program for Priestly Formation.22 If one searches this document for the word “sociology” the result is a failed search. In the ninety-nine paragraphs dedicated to “Intellectual Formation,” the overwhelming emphasis is on proper and correct theology and philosophy. The stated intent of this section is “to prepare a candidate who is widely knowledgeable about the human condition, deeply engaged in a process of understanding divine revelation, and adequately skilled in communicating this knowledge to as many people as possible.”23 The social sciences are mentioned as good preparation for a liberal arts education, but are seen as a precursor to theological studies, not as having value in and The document Program of Priestly Formation (fifth edition) was developed by the Committee on Priestly Formation of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). It was approved by the full body of bishops at its June 2005 General Meeting, received the subsequent approbatio of the Holy See, and has been authorized for publication. Accessed at http://www.usccb.org/upload/programpriestly-formation-fifth-edition.pdf 23 USCCB, Program of Priestly Formation, no. 138. 22 of themselves. The recommended major in seminaries is philosophy. “Philosophy has historically been considered the most appropriate area of concentration for college seminarians.”24 It becomes clear after reading through the suggested curriculum that after all the philosophy, theology, homiletics, canon law and catechetical studies, not much room is left for anything else. A typical M.Div. program at a major seminary has the following requirements, give or take some minor differences. Master of Divinity Requirements25 A. Biblical Studies and Homiletics (8 classes) B. Systematic Theology (8 classes) C. Church History (4 classes) D. Liturgy and Music (3 classes) E. Moral Theology (4 classes) F. Spiritual Theology (1 class) G. Pastoral Theology/Canon Law (8 classes) The emphasis, as one can see, is on the body of knowledge typically associated with “sacred studies.” What is lacking is the ability to analyze and understand complex social problems. (This is not a minor issue as the people to whom the Church ministers live in the midst of these complex social problems.) But it gets more interesting. In a section following “Intellectual Formation” is a section titled “Pastoral Formation.”26 According to this section, pastoral formation must include “a number of essential elements” such as proclamation of the Word, the sacramental dimension, the missionary dimension, the community dimension, skills for effective public ministry, personal synthesis for practical use, an initiation into practical pastoral experiences, cultural sensitivity, religious pluralism, and (finally) the poor among others.27 In the final line of the paragraph describing the “poor,” the document says, “They Ibid., no. 151. A number of program curricula were analyzed including Mundelein Seminary in Chicago and Mt. St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, MD. 26 USCCB, Program of Priestly Formation, no. 236. 27 Program of Priestly Formation, no. 239. 24 25 [seminarians] also need to become aware of the social contexts and structures that can breed injustice as well as ways of promoting more just contexts and structures.”28 Given the emphasis on “sacred” studies above, is it really any wonder that my local pastor did not understand the consumerism within which his parish was swimming? If the Church does not give seminarians the tools for social analysis, how can priests proclaim the Word of God in light of unjust immigration policies, the use of torture for national security, increasing income inequality, and the health care needs of the poor and uninsured? Could abortion rates and contraceptive use, for example, be related to income, health care, employment opportunities, pay inequality for women and child care availability? The overwhelming emphasis in North American parish life and spirituality is on an individual’s relationship with God and a commitment to charity as the best way to engage the world. Seminarians cannot use social analysis in their pastoral ministry until it becomes a required part of their intellectual formation. Religious orders that make coursework in universities part of priestly intellectual formation have been much more conscious of this, and for this reason tend to have more prophetic voices. Questions for Discussion: 1) Does your faith community embrace a “charity” or “justice” model of social engagement? How? 2) What has been your exposure to the social teaching of the Church in your local parish or Catholic school? 3) How might engaging in social analysis as a faith community change our approach to social problems? 4) Rutilio Grande, S.J. argued that “excessive” inequality can lead to violence. Do you see examples of that in your own context? 28 Ibid.