Archbishop Romero's sainthood cause has been under study at the Vatican for several years. Sources have said the Vatican is satisfied that the archbishop's writings, homilies and speeches were free of doctrinal error, but a remaining question is whether it was the archbishop's faith or his politics that led to his assassination.
When the pope, cardinals or bishops publicly comment on issues being debated by legislators they are not interfering in politics, but exercising their obligation as pastors and their rights as citizens... "That which the secularists call interference the church calls 'the right to speak about the moral problems that today trouble the consciences of all human beings, particularly legislators and jurists,'" the editorial said, quoting Pope Benedict XVI.
Romero spoke out about injustice, and that inevitably led him into politics. When leaders speak out in public, they become part of the political debate. And that's a good thing - they have a right and a duty to do so. It doesn't seem right, though, to encourage our bishops to speak out and as a result become part of the public political debate, only to hold it against them when they are gone. I wonder if that sort of mixed message is what keeps some bishops rather silent, when they are called to be prophetic?