Abstract
The 1989 handbook of the University of Central America (UCA), incorporating a key 1979 document, affirms, “The UCA seeks to be an institutional university response to the historical reality of the country. . . . It does this in a university manner and . . . with a Christian inspiration” (65–66). Part I of Lassalle-Klein’s study offers a detailed and well-documented account of the gradual emergence, especially on the part of the Jesuits, of a full embrace of Medellin’s “preferential option for the poor.” He structures the book throughout with Ellacurίa’s three fundamental dimensions for a theological method that confronts the historical reality of El Salvador: “(1) grasping what is at stake in reality [el hacerse cargo de la realidad]; (2) assuming responsibility for reality [el cargar con la realidad]; and (3) taking charge of, or transforming, reality [el encargarse de la realidad]” (94–95 and n. 207, following Sobrino’s translation). Thus, the first subsection (covering the years 1965 to 1969) is an account of the gradual conversion of the Central American Jesuits (not without some opposition) from the concept of development to liberation for the poor, culminating in a retreat (December 1969) that defined the horizon of the Jesuits as “the preferential option for the poor” and the struggle for liberation and justice . . . [it] implies” (50). The second subsection on the years 1969 to 1979, when UCA assumed responsibility as a university, deals with the leadership of Ellacurίa and the lay president, Ramón Mayorga, in crafting a dynamic vision of a different kind of university, one that uses its institutional influence through research, teaching, and social outreach for the liberating transformation of society, with special concern for the poor. The third subsection covers the years 1979 to 1989 when, under the inspiration of Archbishop Romero, UCA committed itself to do what he did in a pastoral way: be in solidarity with the poor and to empower them “to become active participants in shaping their future” (156).
Part II explores the influences on Ellacurίa’s fundamental theology: (1) the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius; (2) the philosophy of Xavier Zubiri on “sentient intelligence”; (3) Romero’s conversion to the poor in his confrontation with the misery of the people following Rutilio Grande’s assassination; and (4) Rahner’s transcendental metaphysics. The proper object of philosophy and theology is the historical reality of the crucified people. The reciprocal interaction of “sentient intelligence” and “the primacy of reality” results in Ellacurίa’s “historical realism” (212) that “moves beyond Zubiri when he argues that the process of apprehending ‘real things as real has a triple dynamism,’ and when he asserts that the actualization (or historicization) of the human subject will have to pass through these same steps” (224, emphasis original). However one judges the further developments of the thought of Zubiri and Rahner, the idea of “historicization” (repeated frequently) is key and has its primary exemplification in Romero. For Ellacurίa, Romero “became an exceptional example of how the power of the gospel can become a transformative historical force” (249–52).
Part III reprises Ellacurίa’s “Christian historical realism” and Sobrino’s “saving history” Christology. The point is that salvation takes place within history, not outside it. The historical reality of Jesus is “the fullest revelation of the Christian God” (302) that includes not only his historical life but also his continuing impact on history. Jesus is “the defining sign of the Word made flesh,” so that his saving historical reality is correlated with crucified people everywhere (307–8). For Sobrino, we gain access to the Christ of faith by reenacting the practice of Jesus: “The most historical aspect of Jesus is his practice, and . . . the spirit with which he engaged in it, and . . . imbued it” (317). The encounter with the risen Jesus is an event perceived in history that demands a response (324) in the Latin American context as “a praxis of love that takes the crucified people down from the cross” (328, emphasis original). This finally is “an act proper to God Himself” (333–35, citing Rahner), a work of the Trinity.
In the final analysis, the book is about a “Christological spirituality” that recognizes Jesus in the crucified people of El Salvador (345–46). It offers a dynamic vision of a different kind of university, but “in a university manner.” Ellacurίa engaged the reality of civil society on all levels, as was the case with the national debate of 1988 (172–74) and his attempted dialogue with President Alfredo Cristiani (349–50). The focus on the poor cannot mean the exclusion of those with power and authority. To be effective, conversion to gospel values must occur on all levels of society and with each person in his or her concrete situation.