Thursday, October 4, 2018

ROMERO’S CONVERSION IN CONTEXT

This is a draft of a paper written in 2005 and delivered at a panel of the American Academy or Religion. I offer it here in anticipation of Romero's canonization, October 14, 2018. I hope to revise and update it in the next few months.



      The legacy of Monseñor Oscar Romero has assumed heroic dimensions in the twenty-five years since his assassination on March 24, 1980.

      Part of the mythology of Romero in North America has been the account of his “road to Damascus” conversion on the road to Aguilares after the assassination of Fr. Rutilio Grande, S.J, on March 12, 1977. After this event, the myth goes, he became the voice of liberating faith in El Salvador and “revitalized the Church of El Salvador.”[1]

      Yet the real story of Romero’s commitment to the poor, his transformation into the “voz de los sin voz” – the voice of the voiceless – and his pastoral approach is much more complex and more interesting for an understanding of the transformative role of the church in Latin America in the 1970s.

      In this paper I will first treat Romero’s process of conversion to the cause of the poor and secondly how this fit into the projectory of an already existing liberating pastoral approach of the Archdiocese of San Salvador.

Romero’s Transformation

       Romero’s transformation is evident in at least two areas: his ecclesiology and his analysis of poverty. The death of Rutilio Grande was truly a catalyst for Romero and represents a turning point in his life, but Romero was slowly moving toward a liberating pastoral approach.

     From the beginning of his pastoral work in San Miguel, Romero had an openness to the poor and those in need. His work with Caritas, his largesse with the poor who came asking for help, his visits to prisoners were just a few of the ways he kept in contact with those at the margin of society.

      From its founding as a hospital for indigent cancer patients in 1966, Romero had a close relationship with the Divina Providencia hospital where he was killed. From 1974 to 1977, while bishop of Santiago de María, he would stay at the hospital when he visited the capital for meetings.[2]

      But Romero’s approach to the poor was rooted in the somewhat paternalistic understanding of charity that was characteristic of the pre-Vatican II church. In the early 1970s, Romero’s approach lacked the radical critiques of society found in the documents of the Latin American Bishops 1968 conference at Medellin. In fact, Romero was wary of Medellín and the projects undertaken in its name by pastoral workers in El Salvador.

      It seems that in the early 1970s, while auxiliary bishop of San Salvador, Romero became more conservative than he had been. His first response to conclusions of the Interdiocesan Pastoral Week in 1970 was somewhat open; but he turned against them when they were criticized in the Bishops Conference and in Rome.[3]

      During this time, he seems to have had less direct contact with the poor and the misery of the campesinos. Ignacio Ellacuría suggested that his pastoral practice appealed “to some small elite groups, served by Opus Dei, or to the classic groups of the Christian Family Movement. But the pain and misery of the people scarcely spoke to him…”[4]

      But, under a number of influences, Romero did move from a hierarchically-based understanding of his ministry to a more liberating pastoral approach, from a paternalist and individualistic approach to poverty to one that included an analysis of social sin.

      Part of this transformation can, I believe, be attributed to the influence of a number of the priests he knew and with whom he worked who opened his eyes to see more clearly the misery of the people. These include José Inocencio Alas, Fr. Rutilio Grande, S.J., and several the priests in the diocese of Santiago de María, especially Fr. Juan Macho, C.P., and others involved in the training center at Los Naranjos.

      Romero had known Inocencio [Chencho] Alas since they both worked with the Cursillos de la Cristiandad in the early 1960s. The Cursillo movement in El Salvador in the 1960s attracted many of the elite and powerful, including the Salvadoran president. Alas moved away from the Cursillos in 1967 and began working more with the poor. He however maintained contact with Romero.

      In July 1974 Romero accompanied Inocencio Alas back to Suchitoto after Inocencio and his brother Higinio had fled, because their liberating pastoral practice had enraged local authorities. At the Mass in the plaza in front of the church that day during the celebration Romero whispered to Higinio, “I see how you are being persecuted. But the people are with you. Continue forward, but be careful.”[5] Nearly thirty years later Higinio saw this as one of the first signs that Romero was turning toward a more radical commitment to the poor.

      As Inocencio Alas recalled later:
      Romero preached the sermon and, though he was still somewhat conservative, used the sermon to analyze the national situation and to invite the people to continue struggling for justice, peace, and freedom.[6]

     Less than three months later, Romero was named bishop of Santiago de Maria. Romero later remarked that during his time there, from December 1974 to February 1977, “En Santiago de María me topé con la miseria – In Santiago de Maria, I ran into misery.”

      During his first year, on June 21, 1975, six campesinos – all of whom were catechists – were massacred in Tres Calles in his diocese. His visit there and his talks with the families provoked him to make a call for redress of grievances; however, he intervened with a deferential private letter to his friend, Colonel Molina, the president of El Salvador. Romero still thought that redress of grievances meant a personal appeal to authorities who were often his friends, not advocacy for structural changes.

      In Santiago de Maria, Romero began to realize the structural exploitation of the campesinos. Seeing the coffee workers sleeping in the square in Santiago de Maria, he opened diocesan offices for them. But Fr. Juan Macho pointed out to him that some coffee workers were not being paid the wages mandated by the government.[7]

      In the November 28, 1976 issue of the diocesan newspaper, El Apóstol, Romero addressed this fate of coffee workers and lamented the lack of fair wages, but his article lacked his later social analysis and expressed his hope that the landowners would not be selfish.

      However, in response to President Molina’s 1976 call for agrarian transformation, Romero brought Rubén Zamora to the diocese to give a three-day workshop on agrarian reform for priests, religious and laity. Romero attended all sessions, sitting in the front row, taking notes.[8] Though the minimal reform suggested by Molina was never implemented, Romero had begun to look at systemic approaches to injustice.

      During this time, Romero was still wary of what he saw as the politicization of the clergy.  In a confidential memorandum to the Vatican in November 1975 he was highly critical of many of the liberation initiatives in the Salvadoran church. This critique of activist priests came to a head in late 1975 as the pastoral training center for campesinos at Los Naranjos in his diocese was threatened with closure. Only a series of intense correspondence and meetings between Romero and the priests in charge saved the center.

      However, Romero was becoming more open to the liberating pastoral practice of many in his diocese, moved by observing it in practice on several occasions.

      During a visit to the Los Naranjos center he sat in on a course by Fr. Davíd Rodríguez. At the end of the class he stated, “If this priest is a communist, I’m Chinese.”[9]

      During a pastoral visit to Jiquilisco, a campesino’s commentary on the Gospel led Romero to remark, “I had prepared a homily for today but after all I’ve heard, all that I could add is to quote the words of the Gospel: ‘I give you thanks, Father, because you have revealed these things to the simple and they have been hidden from the wise and the experts.’”[10]

      During his time in Santiago de María, Romero seems to have been growing in his ability to listen to the others and to have begun to expand his Episcopal motto, “sentir con la iglesia – to feel with the church” to mean that he had to listen to the whole People of God and not merely the institutional hierarchy. At his first meeting with clergy in the diocese he asked them, “Help me see clearly and to react and act correctly.”[11]

      Yet he still remained suspicious of the new theology, especially Jon Sobrino’s Christology, subtly attacking it in his August 6, 1976 Transfiguration day homily in the San Salvador cathedral.[12]

      And yet he remained cautious. On February 10, 1977, a few days after his appointment as archbishop he told an interviewer from La Prensa Grafica, “We must keep to the center, watchfully, in the traditional way, but seeking justice.”[13]

      But upon his taking over as archbishop of San Salvador on February 22, 1977, Romero proceeded – at first slowly – to appropriate as his own the liberating praxis already at work in the archdiocese.

      Romero’s actions served to deepen and to expand the work of his predecessor, Monseñor Chávez y González. Romero supported, sustained and promoted the growth of the institutions of the archdiocese. He also proceeded to continue and expand the consultation processes in the archdiocese that had been nurtured by the pastoral study weeks in 1969 and 1975. He initiated and maintained dialogue with the more radical members of the clergy. During one of his first meetings of the clergy, on March 1, he urged them to continue their post-conciliar pastoral ministry.

      The death of Grande must be seen as catalytic in Romero’s subsequent commitment to a liberating pastoral. Salvador Carranza, who worked with Grande has written, suggests that the death of Romero’s friend Rutilio Grande and the way the people had been moved by him removed any doubts Romero might have had about Grande’s liberating pastoral method.[14]

      Several events, I propose, must also have influenced him, including the fraudulent elections of February 20, the attack on demonstrators in the Plaza Libertad on February 28, the resistance of most of the other bishops, and the continuing attacks on churches and church workers in early 1977.

      Thus, from the time of Rutilio Grande’s death, Romero was moving in a trajectory of a liberating pastoral approach which put the church of the archdiocese of San Salvador even more radically on the side of the poor and oppressed.

The archdiocesan context     

      Romero’s transformation and the strong advocacy for the poor of his episcopacy must also be seen in the context of a liberating pastoral approach already existent in the archdiocese.

     Romero’s predecessor, Monseñor Luís Chávez y González, initiated a number of projects, supported others, and permitted others.

      From the1950s Chávez had supported and help initiate a number of major projects for the development of the poor.

      He had been promoting the formation of cooperatives, specially loan and credit coops (ahorro y credito), sending priests to Canada to study cooperative theory and practice. He formed the Pius XII Institute to teach cooperativism and Catholic social teaching; in 1958 he supported the formation of a section on cooperatives in the Social Secretariat.[15]

      He also promoted a number of other efforts to help the rural poor. In 1961 the Escuelas Radiofónicas, rural Radio Schools, were founded to promote literacy for campesinos in remote villages. At one point there were as many as 10,000 campesinos studying in these small groups.[16]

      In the 1970s the archdiocese developed a Centro Rural Itinerante which gave courses in rural and urban areas.[17] This was another tool used to evangelize campesinos in the countryside and encouraged the formation of small base communities.

      Concerned about the workers Chávez y González saw to it that there was a program for workers on YSAX, “En marcha, obreros – Go forward, workers”

      In the early 1970s, the archdiocese also encouraged women religious to go to the countryside and work with the poor.

      Chavez’ approach was close to the social democratic approach of the Christian Democrat Party, founded in November 1960 in the Hotel International in San Salvador.[18] Six year later, in August 1966, Monseñor Chávez’s thirty-seventh pastoral letter, “The Responsibility of the Laity in the Ordering of Temporal Life,” aroused massive opposition because it was seen as supportive of the PDC. [19] The themes developed in this letter, controversial for the times, flowed from a centrist vision of Catholic social teaching: “the duty of the church to denounce injustices; the injustices which the Salvadoran people is suffering; the causes of these injustices which have their origin in the disorder provoked by the accumulation of riches in the hands of very few.”[20]    Communications was important for Archbishop Chávez. He founded a Catholic radio station and the diocesan weekly newspaper Orientación. The Archdiocesan Pastoral Commission published a journal Búsqueda, which in the early seventies included articles by the exiled Chilean theologian Segundo Galilea, who had also been brought into the country for programs for priests.

      Recruitment and education of Salvadoran clergy was important for Chavez. He sent priests to study abroad, not only in Europe, but later to IPLA, Instituto Pastoral Latinamericana, a center connected with the liberating pastoral approach of Ecuadoran Bishop Leonoidas Proaño and Chilean bishop Manuel Larraín.

      Archbishop Chávez had attended the Second Vatican Council and was proud of having attended every session. Later he initiated reforms in the archdiocese in conformity to Vatican II and the 1968 meeting of Latin American bishops at Medellín.

      He initiated pastoral study weeks – first a nation-wide week in 1970 and later an archdiocesan one in 1975.

      The First National Pastoral Week, June 22-26, 1970, was called to discuss how to implement Vatican II and Medellín in El Salvador.[21] This meeting, sponsored by the National Bishops Council, came up with a series of proposals. Many of these were not included in the final report which was written for the bishops by a commission headed by Bishop Oscar Romero, then auxiliary bishop of San Salvador.[22]

      The second pastoral week in January 1975 was organized by the archdiocese. Inocencio Alas was chosen by the priests for the team which would pull together the conclusions of the meeting. 306 priests, religious and laity of the archdiocese took part and even laity – professionals and campesinos – were given opportunities to speak.

      The archbishop permitted and supported programs that were more radical.

      In March 1972, Fr. Fabián Amaya, other priests, and campesinos initiated a mimeographed bulletin, Justicia y Paz. Under the auspices of the Social Secretariat and the Justice and Peace Commission[23] it served to raise the consciousness of the campesinos and promote rural organizational efforts. Its editorial board included several priests and campesinos from Suchitoto and other parishes.

      He also supported the efforts of Fr. Inocencio Alas in Suchitoto.

      In March 1969 Chávez came to the parish and officially commissioned the celebrators of the Word whom Alas had trained. These celebrators brought the Eucharist to their rural communities each Sunday and led weekly celebrations of the Word there. Their training was founded in the theology and pastoral practice of Vatican II and Medellín and included a study of scripture from the perspective of community.

      Two months later he visited Inocencio Alas in Suchitoto during a critical period, staying overnight in the parish house. At the end of the Sunday Mass, he expressed his support for the demonstration which local campesinos were planning on land use that afternoon; After the final blessing, he said, “I hear you have something planned. Go and do it! God bless you.” More than five thousand attended the demonstration in the plaza outside the church, despite the blockade of the city by the National Guard.

      In January 1970 the National Assembly convened the Agrarian Reform Congress; governmental, nongovernmental, labor, and business groups were invited to participate. The archdiocese participated and Archbishop Luís Chávez y González handpicked a progressive group of priests and laity to represent the church and chose Inocencio Alas to present the church’s position on the issue.

      The archbishop provided financial support of many of Inocencio Alas’s efforts including the agricultural school in Suchitoto, which was later named in the archbishop’s honor.

      In July 1974, Chávez supported and harbored Inocencio Alas and his brother Higinio when a warrant was issued for their arrest. He declared, “When a priest preaches what the Gospels and the documents of the church contain, you cannot conclude that he is preaching subversion or irreverence. The Gospel and the doctrine of the church will certainly always defend justice, truth, and human rights.”

      His support of the very controversial organizing efforts of workers and campesinos is evident from remarks in his March 1975 pastoral letter: “The Inflation in El Salvador and Christian Consciousness.” An important paragraph read:

      “The poor also ought to form associations, agrarian leagues, cooperatives, unions of campesinos and of marginalized persons to control the activities of the multinational and national companies which sow hunger in our country, reducing over and over again the land used to produce basic foodstuffs (grains)  in order to dedicate them to produce goods for international consumption which bring in cash.”[24]

      Because of his support of popular organizations and progressive priests he was called a Marxist and Communist and campaigns in the newspapers defamed the archbishop.

      Thus when Romero assumed his role as archbishop of San Salvador, there were already existent institutions and even a ‘mystique’ of liberating social practice.

The real legacy of Romero      

      Jon Sobrino has written, “The martyrdom of Father [Rutilio] Grande, the support of the majority of the clergy, and. above all, contact with the suffering of the people – all these changed him [Romero].”[25]

      But Romero’s change and the pastoral approach he embodied must be seen in an even wider context, including the influence of friends and of the institutional approach to pastoral practice in the San Salvador archdiocese.

      In analyzing Romero’s process of transformation in context we find that an environment of friends who were liberationists and an institution that had taken the side of the poor were major factors in his unfolding pastoral practice. This suggests that what has happened in terms of personal change has at times been due to a nexus of relationships that helped people like Romero move from a hierarchical view of church and society and a paternalistic and individualistic approach to poverty and social change.

      This analysis will not diminish Romero’s importance as a catalyst for the church in El Salvador but brings to the fore the crucial role of institutional support that made efforts at a liberating pastoral approach possible in many parts of Latin America. The lack of institutional support is but one of the causes of the diminishment of a liberating pastoral in Latin America and throughout the world.

      To understand the roots of Romero’s conversion and his relation to the institutions and pastoral plan already existent in the archdiocese of San Salvador can help researchers and pastoral workers understand what is needed for an effective liberating pastoral practice, in terms of formation of both personnel and institutional structures.

      The future of a liberating pastoral practice in the Catholic Church thus needs to learn from Romero’s experience the importance of personal transformation and institutional support.

      Romero’s significance is thus not that of a bolt of lightning out of a blue sky but of a catalyst who deepened the tradition of pastoral work in the archdiocese and moved it into a more open liberating praxis with strong institutional support. Rather than seeing him as exceptional it is important to see the framework of his transformation.




BIBLIOGRAPHY
                                 
“The Catholic Church in El Salvador,” El Salvador Bulletin 2 (December 1982): 1-8.
Alas, José Inocencio, 2003. Iglesia, Tierra y Lucha Campesina. Suchitoto, El Salvador, 1968-1977. San Salvador, El Salvador: Colección Cantera.
Brockman, James R., 1989.  Romero: A Life. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
Cáceres Prendes, Jorge, 1983. “Revolutionary Struggle and Church Commitment: The Case of El Salvador,” Social Compass XXX/2-3: 261 – 298
López Vigil, María, 1993.  Piezas para un Retrato.  San Salvador, El Salvador: UCA editores.
Maier, Martin, 2005. Monseñor Romero: Maestro de espiritualidad. San Salvador, El Salvador: UCA editores.
Sobrino, Jon, 1985. “A Theologian’s View of Oscar Romero,” in Archbishop Oscar Romero: Voice of the Voiceless: The Four Pastoral Letter and Other Statements (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books): 22 – 51.
Swedish, Margaret (1999), “Archbishop Romero and His Commitment to the Church,” in  Monsignor Romero: A Bishop for the Third Millennium, edited by Robert S. Pelton, C.S.C., (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004): 51-64.
Vega, Juan Ramón. 1994. Las Comunidades Cristianas de Base en América Central: Estudio Sociológico. San Salvador, EL Salvador: Publicaciones del Arzobispado.
Zacarías Diez y Juan Macho, 1995. Mons. Romero: “En Santiago de María me tope con la miseria.”





END NOTES

[1] Swedish, 52
[2] When Romero was named archbishop he first lived in a room off the chapel and later in a small house built for him on the hospital grounds.
[3] Meier, 35-6
[4] Cited in Meier, 99.
[5] Interview with Higinio Alas, July 201, in Costa Rica
[6] J. Alas, 2003: 214
[7]  López Vigíl, 66
[8] Ibid., 64
[9] Zacarias & Macho, 138; López Vigíl, 67-68.
[10] Ibid.,  153; Meier, 44.
[11] Cited in Meier, 34. Romero’s growing openness to dialogue is another factor in his transformation. Romero had chosen “Sentir con la iglesia” as his Episcopal model in 1970. In the retreat before his Episcopal ordination he had written “I have to discover in dialogue with bishops, priests, and laity, what God wishes.” (Meier, 34)
[12] Jon Sobrino, Jesuit professor of theology at the Universidad Centroamericana (UCA), the Jesuit university in San Salvador, became one of Romero’s trusted advisors while Romero was archbishop of San Salvador.
[13] Brockman, 4
[14] Meier, 110
[15] The Interdiocesan Social Secretariat was formed in 1958.
In the 1960s Chávez assisted the formation of FUNPROCOOP (Foundation for the Promotion of Cooperatives) as a separate organization.
[16] Vega, 1993, 76.
[17] One of these teams, led by Msgr. Urioste and Sister Joyce Blum was instrumental in the spiritual formation of the community of Santa Anita, which in the 1970s and 1980s was situated near Cojutepeque. About 1990. the community bought land and moved to a site near Montepeque in the municipality of Suchitoto. The community is notable for its commitment to nonviolence which it held from the 1970s.
[18] Two factions were involved in the formation of this centrist party: one with more social democratic leanings connected with Rubén Zamora, and another more pragmatic faction was connected politically with José Napoleon Duarte.
[19] ES Bulletin, 3.
[20] Vega, 1994: 72.
[21] Cáceres 1983: 269
[22] The fundamental options of the Week included:
1/ The animation of CEBs [church communities of the base] as the bases of a new type of parish;
2/ The promotion of a new type of ministry incarnated in the concrete reality of the local community to represent the church there, ... responsible persons who give themselves to the integral development of the human person and the formation of communities;
3/ To achieve the unity of pastoral workers based in a Latin American theology and a continued reflection on the Salvadoran reality. (Vega 1994: 82)
[23] It was funded by the German Catholic aid agency Miserior.
[24] Cited in Justicia y Paz, Abril de 1975, 7.
[25] Sobrino, 36

Friday, April 22, 2016

The Joy of Love - some poor translations

About a year and a half ago, I wrote an article on the way Pope Francis was being translated. Again I find myself frustrated by the English translation of a writing of Pope Francis. This time it’s his Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia.

Since I read and understand English much better than Spanish, I first read the document in English and then began comparing the passages I liked in English with their Spanish parallels.

I found, in some cases, that the English translation is quite mundane when compared with the Spanish translation. In other places, it seems to soften the edge of the Spanish and miss the poetry. If anyone knows Italian, it would be useful to see how that language puts these passages.

Here are some passages I found most problematic.

Paragraph 183 reads:
"For their part, open and caring families find a place for the poor and build friendships with those less fortunate than themselves."

I was very taken aback by the term “less fortunate” which is not found in the Spanish.
"En cambio, las familias abiertas y solidarias hacen espacio a los pobres, son capaces de tejer una amistad con quienes lo están pasando peor que ellas".

The Spanish is hard to translate but here's my attempt: 
"On the other hand, families that are open and [live in] solidarity make a place for the poor, they are able to weave a friendship with those who are passing worse than they are."

Note that the English version has families "finding" a place for the poor where the Spanish has them "making" a space. The English also talks about "building" friendships where the Spanish uses a different analogy - "weaving".

But the one phrase that really disturbs me is the use of the term "less fortunate." This is a term that I really despise. For me this is a way to dismiss or put down the poor, defining them as "less fortunate." In addition, poverty is thus seen as the result of fortune (or fate).

But look at the Spanish. It sees the situation of the person as "going through" a worse situation; it does not define those experiencing poverty as "poor" or "less fortunate."

Paragraph 219 in English reads: 
"Young love needs to keep dancing towards the future with immense hope."

I like this translation. The English expresses the need for young lovers to keep dancing.

But the Spanish has a slightly different meaning:
La danza hacia adelante con ese amor joven, la danza con esos ojos asombrados hacia la esperanza, no debe detenerse.
  
This is not easy to translate but my literal translation from the Spanish shows something more pointed:
"The dance towards the future with this young love, the dance with astonished eyes toward hope, ought not to be held back."

There is a sense that at times this joyful and hopeful dancing encounters obstacles. These must be resisted.

In addition, the English misses the poetry of  “astonished eyes looking forward to hope.”

Paragraph 240 opens with a strong statement:
Many people leave childhood without ever having felt unconditional love. This affects their ability to be trusting and open with others.

But the Spanish is stronger.
Muchos terminan su niñez sin haber sentido jamás que son amados incondicionalmente, y eso lastima su capacidad de confiar y de entregarse.

I translate it this way:
Many end their childhood without ever having felt that they are loved unconditionally; this damages their ability to be trusting and giving of themselves.

Entregar” does not mean being open; it means handing oneself over. It is often used as a translation of the Latin “traditur” and in the Mass the words of the consecration of the Host include the words “por vobis tradetur”in Latin and “será entregado por ustedes” in Spanish. It is translated in English as “will be given up for you.”

Entregar” is a very strong word in Spanish. To say that someone is “entregado” is to say that the person is committed, has given his life for a cause. It is a far cry from being “open.” I think that Pope Francis might be suggesting that the lack of experiencing unconditional love as a child may diminish the capacity to commit oneself in marriage. 

Obcuring the point

Chapter four has a beautiful meditation on St. Paul’s reflection on love in 1 Corinthians 13 as well as some fine pastoral notes on marriage. But in several places the chapter headings are misleading.

Paragraph 101 begins the reflection on 1 Corinthians 13, 4, “it does not seek its own interests.”

The English translation entitles the section “Love is generous.” But the Spanish uses a stronger term: “desprendimiento”. This is a difficult word to translate but it can be translated as “detachment.” Interesting the Italian title is “Distacco generoso” which I think can be translated as “generous detachment.” Narrowing the title to generosity seems to miss the importance of putting the other first.

The section beginning with paragraph 123 is entitled “Lifelong sharing,” which expresses an important part of what marriage is called to be.

But the Spanish title is “Toda la vida, todo en común”, literally “All the life, everything in common.” The Italian reads, “Tutta la vita, tutto in commune” which seems to be the same as the Spanish.

Both the Spanish and Italian translations play on the word “all” – “todo”, “tutto” – which is hard to do in English. But the sense is more than sharing and recalls the passages in the Acts of the Apostles 4: 32, where the followers of Christ  are described as holding “everything in common.”

I have not had time to check other parts of this important document on the family, but I hope in the future that the translators are a little more accurate, open to the nuances of Spanish and Italian.