Samuel Ruiz García | |
|---|---|
| Bishop of Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas | |
 Bishop Ruiz in 1996 | |
| Diocese | San Cristóbal de las Casas |
| Retired | 13 Mar 2000 |
| Successor | Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel |
| Orders | |
| Ordination | 2 April 1949 |
| Consecration | 25 January 1960 |
| Personal details | |
| Born | (1924-11-03)3 November 1924 Guanajuato, Mexico |
| Died | 24 January 2011(2011-01-24) (aged 86) Mexico City, Mexico |
| Denomination | Catholic |
| Alma mater | Gregorian University (PhD) |
Samuel Ruiz García (3 November 1924 – 24 January 2011) was aMexicanCatholicprelate who served asbishop of theDiocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas,Chiapas, from 1959 until 1999.[1] Ruiz is best known for his role as mediator during the conflict between theZapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) and theInstitutional Revolutionary Party (PRI), a Mexican political party which had held power for over seventy years, and whose policies were often disadvantageous to theindigenous populations of Chiapas. Inspired byLiberation Theology, which swept through theCatholic Church inLatin America after the 1960s, Ruiz's diocese helped some hundreds of thousands of indigenousMaya people in Chiapas who were among Mexico's poorest marginalized communities.[1]
Samuel Ruiz García was the first of five children, born on 3 November 1924 inGuanajuato, Mexico, to Guadalupe García, who worked as a maid for upper-class families, and Maclovio Ruiz Mejía, an agricultural worker.[2]: 20 Ruiz grew up as a Catholic in a modest family during theCristero War, a time in which the Church was being persecuted and many were killed or assassinated in Mexico by the anti-Catholic ruling government.
At the age of fifteen, Ruiz completed high school andseminary at León in Guanajuato.[3] He continued his studies at the JesuitGregorian University inRome where he focused onSacred Scripture, earning his doctorate in 1952.[3] In 1949 he wasordained to thepriesthood.[2]: 21
After receiving his doctorate inphilosophy andtheology from Gregorian University, Ruiz returned to Guanajuato where he taught at the León seminary.[3] In 1960, Ruiz was consecrated bishop of the Diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas of Chiapas Mexico, where he remained until he retired in 2000.[4] San Cristóbal de las Cases is made up mostly of thehighlands of Chiapas, comprising largely poor, indigenous communities who speak a variety ofMayan languages.[5]
In his early years as bishop, Ruiz subscribed to traditional views of the Church andevangelization.[4]: 111 Ruiz's firstpastoral letter acknowledged the dangers ofcommunism developing in Mexico, reading "Behind a creed that flaunts a banner of social justice, communism has been sneaking in falsehoods,hypocrisy,deceit, andcalumny.”[2]: 21 Earlier methods of evangelization within the diocese were largely top-down practices that focused onWestern methods of social change. Often catechists communicated messages ofpassivity to the indigenous communities rather than fostering consciousness-raising, which was consistent with government policy at the time, often in the name of "development" and “civilizing” theIndians.[6]: 72
Not long after arriving in San Cristóbal, Ruiz set out on a mule to tour his diocese, visiting every town and village over which he heldjurisdiction. During his travels, he discovered the incrediblepoverty andmarginalization that communities in his diocese were inflicted with, realizing what the true reality was for many indigenous communities in Chiapas.[4]: 111 His 1993 pastoral letter reflects this experience, in which Ruiz comments on the past actions taken by him and his diocese, admitting that they were culturally destructive and explaining that "We only had our ownethnocentric criteria to judge customs. Without realizing it, we were on the side of those whooppressed the indigenous".[2]: 23 Ruiz began to slowly identify and challenge the structures of oppression, questioning the structure of the government andmilitary, as well as figures within the church who were furthering these systems. He encouraged indigenous communities to take charge of their own lives, and openly voiced that the poor of Chiapas were victims ofstructural oppression andinstitutionalized violence. Gradually, Ruiz underwent a series ofconversion experiences, leading him to take up the cause of the Mayan indigenous population in his diocese and to develop aninculturated approach to indigenous Catholicism and evangelization.
Ruiz "learned to speak fourMayan languages."[7]
In 1962, theSecond Vatican Council (1962–1965) convened, focusing on thesocial responsibility of Christians and on opening the Church to theological development and dialogue. Vatican II encouraged that sermons be translated and read to communities in their local languages and that the Church be more involved in addressing social problems,[8] such as those occurring in Central and South America.[9] For Ruiz, his participation in the Second Vatican Council allowed time for reflection on the decisions and actions carried out under his administration, which brought him a long way from the somewhat naïve enthusiasm which he'd had during his first years as bishop.[2]: 25 It was Vatican II which inspired Ruiz to translate scripture into local indigenous languages and into practice, with an emphasis on inculturation.
In 1967, Bishop Ruiz became the president of the Mexican Bishop's Committee on Indigenous Peoples (CEPI), and in 1968 he was named the president of the Department of Missions ofThe Conference of Latin American Bishops (CELAM), also called theMedellín Conference. This was a position which he held until 1972 when elections for secretary general choseArchbishopAlfonso López Trujillo, who proceeded to replaceprogressive department heads, such as Ruiz, with his ownconservative allies.[2]: 25 Out of this conference, held in Medellín,Colombia, in 1968, emerged a consensus that the root of poverty and oppression in Latin America was asystemic problem, one which grew out of the ethic of expansion anddevelopment by United Statesimperialism.[6]: 72 Ruiz found some convergence between the bishops' growing concern for the poor anddisenfranchised andMarxist approaches toclass analysis, which emphasized that the great conflict between "capital" and “labor” had its origins in theexploitation of workers by "the entrepreneurs following the principle of maximum profit,"[10] Such analysis also found support independency theory, the idea that the economies of certain countries are conditioned by the development or expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected.[6]: 72 Many in the Catholic Church condemned these ideas as communism, claiming that they undermined the Church's mission and reduced theGospel to a purely earthly one.[11] The United States and Latin American governments also responded with threateninghostility. The United States supported Latin American militaries in their methods of assassinating those who subscribed to liberation theology and conductinglow-intensity warfare againstguerrilla groups.
The diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas (Chiapas), under Samuel Ruiz's direction, began to redefine evangelization methods and to abandon the traditional approach ofEuropeanizing indigenous peoples, insteadincarnating the gospel in the local culture of each community. Catechists no longer delivered the Word of God to the communities with which they worked, but incorporated the Gospel within the cultural traditions and day-to-day lives of the indigenous.[6]: 73 This meant committing themselves to learning the culture and languages of Chiapas, organizing services and discussions in indigenous languages, and inculturating local customs that could be integrated into the Word of God.[4]: 114 By doing so, and by translating the Bible into indigenous languages, this work allowed for the poor of San Cristóbal to begin identifying parallels between their own experiences of oppression with those in Biblical passages, most notably theExodus.[2] Rather than focusing only on the religious affairs that they had once been restricted to, catechists began fostering discussion of economic and political matters that impacted people's daily lives.[6]: 72 Passivity was replaced by these new methods of catechists, and through the development ofbase communities, which built the framework for reflection andcollective action.[6]: 72 Indigenous poor no longer accepted the "low wages they earned on plantations, the lack of security in their land titles, the corruption of government agencies, and the abuses of merchants and landowners", instead using "their religious faith and interpretation of the Bible to create concrete solutions to immediate problems".[9]
In 1989, Bishop Ruiz founded the Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas Rights Center to push back against increasing violence against indigenous and campesino activists in his diocese.[12]
Thistheology of liberation, however, appeared threatening to government structures and those with political and economic power, and in some cases oppression of rural and urban poor in Mexico and other areas of Latin America grew worse. Areas which practiced these new ways of interpreting the Bible and encouraged the poor to fight for theirhuman rights were labeled Marxists and, often under government orders,para-militaries conductedcounter-insurgent campaigns using low-intensity warfare to target civilians who supported theseresistance movements. The indigenous started to realize that the cause of their poverty was their lack offreedom anddemocracy, arepression that grew out of the policies of the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) government.
On 1 January 1994, the date thatNAFTA came into effect, a group of several hundred indigenous guerrillas occupied several transit routes and government offices in San Cristóbal de las Casas and other cities in the highlands. These occupations, a response to increased marginalization of Indians at the hands of their government, were carried out under the name of the previously unheard of Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN), a name inspired byEmiliano Zapata, a leading figure during theMexican Revolution who stood as a powerful symbol of the equity and social justice that the men and women of Mexico's rural south demanded of their government.[4] The Mexican government, who for years had silenced protests in Chiapas in order to create the political and economic conditions needed to ensure its admission into NAFTA, was outraged and blamed Ruiz's pastoral practices and consciousness-raising techniques as one of the roots of theZapatista Uprising.[13] The PRI, which hadmonopolized power for nearly 70 years, attempted to respond to the uprisings with military pressure – implementing strategies of low-intensity warfare to terrorize the civilian population that supported the Zapatistas.[2]: 47
Reflecting on these events, Bishop Ruiz later explained that "It became clear that the diocese could not be absent from the situation. Our job was neither to represent the Zapatistas to the government nor to represent the government to the Zapatistas, but rather to offer a mediation in which there could be mutual confidence in talks".[13] The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) attracted national and international attention as negotiations with government authorities were underway, for which Ruiz was electedmediator and during which the guerrillas demanded not onlyconstitutional recognition, butreformation of the state and systemic structures which were the root of their oppression.[13]
OnceSubcomandante Marcos was identified asRafael Guillén, on 9 February 1995, in a counterproductive turn of events, PresidentErnesto Zedillo made a series of decisions that completely broke with the strategy and action plan previously defined and the agreements he authorized his Secretary of Interior LicEsteban Moctezuma to compromise withMarcos just 3 days before in GuadalupeTepeyac.Zedillo sent the Mexican army to capture or annihilateMarcos without consulting his Secretary of Interior, without knowing exactly whoMarcos was, and only with thePGR single presumption thatMarcos was a dangerous guerrilla. Despite these circumstances, PresidentErnesto Zedillo decided to launch a military offensive to capture or annihilateMarcos.[14] Arrest warrants were issued againstMarcos,Javier Elorriaga Berdegue, Silvia Fernández Hernández, Jorge Santiago, Fernando Yanez, German Vicente, Jorge Santiago and other Zapatistas. At theLacandon Jungle, the Zapatista Army of National Liberation was then under theMexican Army military siege. ThePGR was after them.Javier Elorriaga got captured on 9 February 1995, in a military garrison at Gabina Velázquez that is inLas Margaritas, Chiapas, town and later taken to the Cerro Hueco prison inTuxtla Gutiérrez, Chiapas.[15]On 11 February 1995, thePGR reported that they made an operation in the State of Mexico, where they captured 14 persons presumed to be involved with the Zapatistas, of which 8 had already been turned in to the Judicial Authorities, and they'd seized an important arsenal.[16] ThePGR repressive acts got to the extreme of arresting the San Cristóbal de Las Casas, Chiapas, Catholic Bishop,Samuel Ruiz García, for aiding to conceal the Zapatistas guerrilla activity. Yet, this activity was public years before the uprising, reported inProceso (magazine), among Mexico's most important magazines, and it was theMexican Government who was for years trying to disguise it.[17][18] There was also no consideration of the political consequences of, with no legal reason, hurting the already seriously damaged, recently restoredMexico–Vatican Diplomatic relations.[19] hurt by the 24 May 1993, political assassination of a Prince of the Catholic Church, the Guadalajara, Mexico CardinalJuan Jesús Posadas Ocampo, that precisely that Agency, thePGR, had left it unresolved.
Marcos' resolve was put to the test when the Zapatista Army of National Liberation was under theMexican Army military siege, in their camp and at theLacandon Jungle.Marcos' response was immediate, sendingEsteban Moctezuma the following message: "See you in hell". Conflicting signals got strengthened in favor of a fast military solution. The facts seemed to confirmManuel Camacho Solis' 16 June 1994, accusations that the reason for his resignation as the Chiapas Peace Commissioner was due to sabotage done by the then presidential candidateErnesto Zedillo.
Under heavy political pressure of a highly radicalized situation, Mexico Secretary of the Interior Lic.Esteban Moctezuma believed a peaceful solution was possible. He championed to reach a peacefully negotiated solution to the1995 Zapatista Crisis betting it all on a creative strategy to reestablish theMexican Government Zapatista Army of National Liberation dialog to search for peace by demonstratingMarcos' natural peace vocation and the terrible consequences of a military solution. Making a strong position against the 9 February actions against peace, Secretary of the InteriorEsteban Moctezuma, defender of a political solution to the1995 Zapatista Crisis, submitted his resignation to PresidentErnesto Zedillo, who does not accept it but asks the Secretary of the InteriorEsteban Moctezuma to try the improbable task of restoring the conditions for dialog and negotiation. For these foregoing reasons the Mexican army eased actions, giving an opportunity thatMarcos capitalized on to escape the military site in theLacandon Jungle.[20] Faced with this situation,Max Appedole andRafael Guillén, childhood friends and colleagues at theJesuit CollegeInstituto Cultural Tampico, asked for help fromEdén Pastora, the legendary Nicaraguan "Commander Zero", to prepare a report for under-Secretary of the InteriorLuis Maldonado Venegas, the Secretary of the InteriorEsteban Moctezuma, and the PresidentErnesto Zedillo aboutMarcos' natural pacifist vocation and the terrible consequences of a tragic outcome.[21] The document concluded that the marginalized groups and the radical left that exist inMexico have been activated with the Zapatistas movement, whileMarcos maintains an open negotiating track. Eliminate Marcos and his social containment work will cease, giving opportunity to the radical groups to take control of the movement. They will respond to violence with violence. They would begin terrorist bombings, kidnappings, and belligerent activities. The country would be in a dangerous spiral, which could lead to very serious situations because there is discomfort not only inChiapas but in many places inMexico.[22]
During the investigative stage to identifySubcomandante Marcos, theMexican government speculated that he was a dangerous guerrilla fighter. This theory gained much traction at the end of 1994, after the dissident Zapatista Comandante Salvador Morales Garibay gave away the identity of his former fellow Zapatistas to theMexican government, among themMarcos identity.[23] They all were indicted for terrorism, warrants were issued, and arrests were made in a military action. TheMexican government alleged some Zapatistas to be terrorists, among themMarcos.[24] There was a storm of political pressure for a fast military solution to the1995 Zapatista Crisis. On 9 February 1995, in a televised special Presidential broadcast, PresidentErnesto Zedillo announcedSubcomandante Marcos to be oneRafael Sebastián Guillén Vicente, born 19 June 1957, inTampico,Tamaulipas, toSpanish immigrants, a former professor atUniversidad Autónoma Metropolitana School of Sciences and Arts for the Design. After the government revealedMarcos identity in January 1995, asRafael Guillén, an old friend and classmate with theJesuits at theInstituto Cultural Tampico, directly intervened in the conflict:Max Appedole played a major role with theMexican government to avoid a military solution to the1995 Zapatista Crisis. He demonstrated that contrary to the accusations announced by PresidentErnesto Zedillo,[25]Rafael Guillén was no terrorist.Max Appedole recognized his literary style in allMarcos' manifestos that were published in the media, and linked them to their forensic debates organized by theJesuits in which they competed in Mexico. He confirmed that he had no doubt thatMarcos was his friendRafael Guillén, a pacifist.[22][26][27][28]
National and international support of the Zapatistas' demands increased and in 1996 theSan Andrés Accords were signed by the EZLN and the federal government. This committed the parties to basic respect for the diversity of the indigenous population of Chiapas, granted the right to participation in determining their development plans, control over administrative andjudicial affairs, andself-government. However, the proposal for the implementation of these conditions was accepted by EZLN, but refused byPresident Zedillo. Time showed that the effort against a military solution to the conflict and for the strategy to achieve a peaceful solution to the1995 Zapatista Crisis was legal, politically and honorably correct, and saved many lives in Mexico.[2]
In 1998, Bishop Samuel Ruiz resigned from his position as peace mediator, accusing the government of “simulating” apeace process, and the committee disbanded.[13] Ruiz continued to act as a protector and supporter of Chiapas and to advocate for human rights for the indigenous until his death in 2011. Following his resignation, he was succeeded by Bishop Felipe Arizmendi Esquivel, a socially progressive supporter.[29]
On 24 January 2011, at the age of 86, Samuel Ruiz García died at Hospital Ángeles del Pedregal inMexico City, due to respiratory failure and other complications, including high blood pressure and diabetes.[29][30] During theMass in Mexico City which commemorated Don Samuel, other bishops described Ruiz as "a person whose actions were discussed and condemned by a section of society, but for the poor and for those who worked with him, Don Samuel was a bright light".[31] Don Samuel, known as jTatic Samuel, was buried in San Cristobal de las Casas, in the cathedral, after a heartfelt and jubilant celebration of his life and ministry.
In 1996, Samuel Ruiz received thePacem in Terris Peace and Freedom Award for his fight against injustice and institutionalized violence inflicted on the poor and oppressed of his diocese of San Cristóbal de las Casas.[32]
In 1997, Ruiz received theMartin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders.[33]
Samuel Ruiz was awarded theSimon Bolivar International Prize by UNESCO in 2000 for his work to defend the indigenous peoples of Chiapas, for his role as mediator between the government and theZapatista Army of National Liberation, and for his commitment to the promotion of human rights and social justice for Latin America peoples.[34]
Samuel Ruiz was also nominated for theNobel Peace Prize in 1994, 1995, and 1996 by, among others,Rigoberta Menchú andAdolfo Pérez Esquivel.[1][35]
