¹ See the UN sponsored investigation report about human rights violations by the El Salvadoran, Truth Commission, Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad 1992–1993, De la locura a la esperanza: La guerra de 12 años en El Salvador (San Salvador; Arcoiris, 1993), pp. 57f.Google Scholar In comparison to the high numbers of other victims of state repression in the period between 1977 and 1992, the murder of 25 church people seems relatively limited—if one wants to apply comparative measures to morally incomparable cases of murder. The victims were Archbishop Oscar Romero, 22 foreign and Salvadoran Catholic priests and nuns, one seminary student, and one Lutheran minister. Between 1971 and 1990, forty priests and nuns, as well as one archbishop, were killed in Central America. Half of the murders took place in El Salvador, the great majority between 1977 and 1980. See Peterson, Anna, Martyrdom and the Politics of Religion: Progressive Catholicism in El Salvador's Civil War (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1997), pp. 2, 63.Google Scholar See also Lernoux, Penny, Cry of the People: The Struggle for Human Rights in Latin America—The Catholic Church in Conflict with U.S. Policy (New York: Penguin, 1982).Google Scholar

² It is important to note that the majority of the church-related killings occurred before the beginning of the civil war in 1980; see Whitfield, Teresa, Paying the Price: Ignacio Ellacuría and the Murdered Jesuits of El Salvador (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1995), p. 119.Google Scholar Between January 1981 and November 1989, when six Jesuit professors of the Universidad Centroamericana (UCA) were slain by Salvadoran soldiers, no priest or nun was murdered, although during these years many Christian lay activists were killed and religious workers harassed; see Peterson, , Martyrdom, pp. 63–66.Google Scholar Leading progressive religious voices were in exile or took more moderate stances and progressive orders such as Maryknoll had left the country after members had been killed.

³ Livezey, Lowell W., “US Religious Organizations and the International Human Rights Movement,” Human Rights Quarterly 11 (1989), pp. 14–81, p. 14;Google Scholar in Human Rights and United States Policy Toward Latin America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), Lars Schoultz stresses the central role of the religious groups within the U.S. human rights movement. See pp. 74 ff., especially p. 86.

⁴ Hofrenning, Daniel J., In Washington but Not of It: The Prophetic Politics of Religious Lobbyists (Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 1995), p. 5.Google Scholar

⁵ Torres-Rivas, Edelberto, Repression and Resistance: The Struggle for Democracy in Central America (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1989), pp. 5ff.;Google Scholar Weaver, Frederick S., Inside the Volcano: The History and Political Economy of Central America (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1994), p. 192.Google Scholar

⁶ Torres-Rivas, , Repression and Resistance, pp. 5ff.Google Scholar

⁷ Missionary societies and Catholic orders were not the only U.S. groups involved in the social affairs of El Salvador. Eight religious and secular relief agencies had contributed to U.S. development projects in the 1960s. The religious relief agencies were Catholic Relief Services (CRS), Church World Service (CWS), and the Christian Children's Fund. The U.S. Episcopal Church and World Vision entered the scene in the 1970s. The list of the operating organizations for the 1960s and early 1970s is in U.S. Non-Profit Organizations: Voluntary Agencies, Missions and Foundations Participating in Technical Assistance Abroad: A Directory 1964 (New York: TAICH, 1964), pp. 527–529; and U.S. Non-Profit Organizations in Development Assistance Abroad: 1971 (New York: TAICH, 1971), pp. 842–845. Small NGOs that represent the liberal and “peace” wing of U.S. Protestantism like the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), the Mennonite Central Committee (MCC), and the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) tend to operate programs with very few federal subsidies (one to four percent) or are independent from government contract-services overseas. CRS was the recipient of the largest federal subsidy, receiving approximately 75 percent of its total income between 1975 and 1983 from the U.S. government. At the other extreme in the Catholic community was Maryknoll, getting no U.S. government funds in those years. The mainline Protestant CWS received between 14 and 44 percent from the government, and Lutheran World Relief around 25 percent or less in the same period. “A Giver's Guide,” The Other Side 19:3 (March 1983), pp. 8–29.

⁸ LaFeber, Walter, Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America (New York: W. W. Norton, 1993), chapter 3.Google Scholar

⁹ While Vatican II symbolizes the Church's new self-understanding universally, the second Latin American episcopal conference in Medellín, Colombia, called for an even more radical shift toward social reform and (civic) responsibility of the Latin American Catholic Church in 1968. Berry-man, Phillip, The Religious Roots of Rebellion: Christians in Central American Revolutions (New York: Mary-knoll, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁰ Dries, Angelyn, The Missionary Movement in American Catholic History (New York: Maryknoll, 1998), p. 155.Google Scholar

¹¹ Peterson, , Martyrdom, p. 54;Google Scholar Mission Handbook 1991–1992 (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Mission Association, 1992), p. 46; Dries, , Missionary Movement, p. 304, footnote 2Google Scholar.

¹² Maryknoll refers to the female and male congregations as well as the laity associated with Maryknoll missionaries. All of them are separate entities but belong to the Maryknoll family, a Catholic order with headquarters in the state of New York.

¹³ The Maryknoll Fathers started their work in El Salvador in 1960. Maryknoll Sisters joined their colleagues in El Salvador in 1969. Other Catholic societies were the U.S. Franciscan priests (Province of the Immaculate Conception), the Franciscan Sisters of Perpetual Adoration, and the Benedictine Fathers. Protestant missionary societies had arrived a century before. The oldest was the American Baptist Home Mission, which had been involved in educational work since 1820. Another was the Central American Mission, started in 1896.

¹⁴ Torres-Rivas, , Repression and Resistance, p. 7.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The most extensive and detailed history of religious groups’ involvement in the social uprising of Central America is Berryman, Religious Roots of Rebellion.

¹⁶ Peterson, , Martyrdom, pp. 49ff. Chávez was San Salvador's archbishop from 1939 until 1977.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Berryman, , Religious Rebellion, p. 134.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Quoted in Costello, Gerald, Mission to Latin America: The Successes and Failures of a Twentieth Century Crusade (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1979), p. 207.Google Scholar Bernard Survil was expelled from El Salvador in 1977.

¹⁹ Berryman, , Religious Roots, p. 114;Google Scholar Peterson, , Martyrdom, p. 61;Google Scholar Whitfield, , Paying the Price, pp. 62ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ Peterson, , Martyrdom, pp. 52, 57.Google Scholar

²¹ Whitfield, , Paying the Price, p. 63.Google Scholar

²² Certain Protestant groups also reoriented their development work. See listings of U.S. nonprofit organizations operating in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaragua in footnote 7 of this article and in: Rutgers University, Manuscript Collection, American Council for Voluntary Agencies Abroad Papers 655, Box 141, Folders: Country File/El Salavdor/1976; Country File Guatemala; Nicaragua. The mainline Protestant Church World Service (CWS) moved from operating its own service programs to cooperation with local organizations. The Unitarian Universalist Service Committee (UUSC) for example, a small interdenominational organization that sought to “promote human rights and social justice worldwide,” operated on a small-scale basis in El Salvador. In 1973, it helped the Salvadoran clergy to publish Justicia y Paz, a newsletter offering self-help and literacy skills for the poor. UUSC was founded in 1940. The UUSC is the social service agency of the community of Unitarian Universalists. It is a small religious association of 138,110 members in 1984. The Unitarian Universalists are “Christian.” They do not necessarily belong to the mainline Protestant denominations, but are categorized with the liberal family of American Christians. Because of their progressive-liberal positions, they are often grouped with the peace churches (Quakers, Mennonites). See <http://www.uusc.org> (10 October 2000). In short, U.S. faith-based organizations had moved into community work in Central America before other, secular NGOs followed in the 1980s.

²³ Sister Madeline Dorsey concerning missions in El Salvador, June 1976-May 1981 (no date), and “Maryknoll Sisters History—Colonia, Santa Lucia, Ilopongo, San Salvador, 1969–1974,” 15 December 1973, in: Maryknoll Mission Archives, Maryknoll Sisters (hereafter MSA), History Papers H3.4, Guatemala: Box 5, Folder: Sister Ministry in ES— History/Background/Csp. Articles 1969–1993.

²⁴ Dries, , Missionary Movement, pp. 221ff.Google Scholar

²⁵ Letter by Estelle Coupe, 1 December 1978, in: MSA, H3.4, Nicaragua: Box 1, Folder: Sister Estelle Coupe's Letters/Reports from Nicaragua, 1944–1978.

²⁶ Maryknoll 73:6 (June 1979).

²⁷ A list of the groups operating in Guatemala is in U.S. Non-Profit Organizations in Development Assistance Abroad (New York: TAICH, 1971), pp. 845–858.

²⁸ More on the history of the SIL can be found in Stoll, David, Fishers of Men or Founders of Empire? The Wycliffe Bible Translators in Latin America (Cambridge, MA: Cultural Survival, 1982)Google Scholar and Stoll, David, “The Controversies over the Summer Institute of Linguistics,” in The Church and Society in Latin America: Selected Papers from the conference at Tulane University, New Orleans, Louisiana, 29–30 April 1982 (New Orleans: Center for Latin American Studies, Tulane University, 1984), pp. 343–359.Google Scholar

²⁹ Letter from Raymond Lane, Superior General of the Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America (Maryknoll) to President Harry Truman, 12 October 1949, in: Maryknoll Mission Archices, Catholic Foreign Mission Society of America, Inc. (Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers — hereafter MFBA), Justice and Peace Office, Box 2: Misc. Csp.: 1974–1984/U.S. Congress; President: 1949–1984, Folder: U.S. President/State Department Csp., 1949–1950.

³⁰ Stoll, , “The Controversies,” p. 344.Google Scholar

³¹ Brett, Donna and Brett, Edward, Murdered in Central America: The Stories of Eleven U.S. Missionaries (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1988), pp. 12ff.Google Scholar

³² Maryknoll 76:7 (July 1982).

³³ For the case of a U.S. priest who joined revolutionary guerillas see Carney, James G., To Be a Revolutionary: An Autobiography (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), p. 109.Google Scholar Another earlier case of U.S. missionaries involvement in guerilla activities, is the so-called Melville affair. In late 1967 six Maryknoll missionaries stationed in Guatemala, decided that an alliance with guerrilla forces was a legitimate course for Christians in the struggle against the desperate socio-economic conditions in the country. For further information see, report by Marian Pahl (one of the Maryknollers involved in the case), 18 June 1988, in: MSA, H3.4, Guatemala: Box 4, Folder: Sister Marian Pahl's Story and Csp. about Maryknollers Joining Christian Guerrilla group in Guatemala (The Bradford - Melville - Case 1967–1995); Report by Mildred Fritz (1991), in: MSA, H3.4, Middle America Region: Box I, Folder: Mexico-Guatemala-El Salvador History Project from 1955–1991/Dated 1991-1993. See further The New York Times, 19 and 21 January 1968; Chandler, Ralph Clark, “Guerrilla Priests,” Commonweal 88 (9 August 1968), pp. 525–528;Google Scholar The Washington Post, 4 February 1968, Sunday Outlook Section; National Catholic Reporter, 31 January and 2 February 1968.

³⁴ Berryman, , Religious Roots, p. 338.Google Scholar

³⁵ Whitfield, , Paying the Price, p. 141.Google Scholar

³⁶ In 1980, the various peasant unions, grassroots and popular groups joined forces with former Christian Democratic leaders who had been in the government to become the Frente Democrático Revolucionario (FDR).

³⁷ At the time, Romero's killers were not immediately identified. The investigation was controversial. The judge who investigated the case fled El Salvador after attempts to assassinate him failed. Most people assumed the government or one of the closely allied death-squads to be responsible. El Salvador's Truth Commission confirmed that the former National Guard intelligence officer and founder of the extreme right-wing and anti-communist Nationalist Republican Alliance Party (ARENA) Roberto D'Aubuisson gave the order to kill the Archbishop. See Informe de la Comisión de la Verdad 1992–1993, De la locura a la esperanza, p. 180.

³⁸ In Nicaragua and to a lesser extent in Guatemala, devastating earthquakes in 1972 and 1976 became the crisis events that mobilized and accelerated existing discontent.

³⁹ U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Organizations, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador: Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 9 and 17 March 1977, p. 2.

⁴⁰ In January 1977, Roberto Poma, the head of the government tourist agency, was kidnapped and later found dead. In May 1977, foreign minister Mauricio Borgonovo was killed by the FPL.

⁴¹ See Berryman, , Religious Roots, pp. 117ff.Google Scholar

⁴² See Romero's, third pastoral letter “Iglesia y organizaciones políticas populares,” in: Sobrino, Jon et al. (eds.), La voz de los sin voz: La palabra viva de Monseñor Romero (San Salvador: UCA editores, 1980), pp. 93–121.Google Scholar

⁴³ Archbishop Romero maintained that his homilies tried to reflect the voice of the people and the voice of those that have no voice: “Estas homilías quieren ser la voz de este pueblo. Quieren ser la voz de los que no tienen voz.” (29 July 1979) in Sobrino, La voz de los sin voz, p. 453.

⁴⁴ Berryman states that the majority of priests and nuns, including those that did not work with CEBs were on the side of Archbishop Romero. Berryman, , Religious Roots, p. 137.Google Scholar A confidential report by the U.S. Department of State from 1977 also noted the “relative broad unity behind Romero.” See “The Catholic Church and Human Rights in Latin America,” Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, 25 October 1977, in: National Security Archive, Washington, D.C., El Salvador: The Making of U.S. Policy, 1977–1984, doc. # 00041.

⁴⁵ Berryman, , Religious Roots, p. 333.Google Scholar A tiny number of Protestant groups were also linked to the social protests in Central America. The Baptist Assembly, and the Lutheran and Episcopalian churches, for example, participated in the movements or aided victims of human rights abuses in El Salvador. Peterson, , Martyrdom, 34ff.Google Scholar For example, only two ordained pastors served in the Salvadoran Lutheran Church until 1982. One was murdered and two others left the country during the civil war. See <http://www.elca.org> (7 November 2000).

⁴⁶ Subcommittee, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador, pp. 56ff.

⁴⁷ These figures do not include most of the evangelical denominations. Kittlans, Paul, “The Churches’ Policy Advocacy,” Church and Society 71 (September/October 1980), pp. 24–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Letter, Christmas 1976, in: MSA, H3.4, Nicaragua: Box 1, Folder: Letters from Sisters about their ministries in Nicaragua 1976–1994.

⁴⁹ Brett, and Brett, , Murdered, p. 107;Google Scholar Berryman, , Stubborn Hope, p. 113.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Report by Sister Madeline Dorsey (no date), in: MSA, H3.4, Guatemala: Box 5, Folder: Sister Ministry in ES— History/Background/Csp. Articles 1969–1993.

⁵¹ Sister Bernice Kita to Gerry McGinn, 7 August 1981, in: Kita, Bernice, What Prize Awaits Us: Letters from Guatemala (Maryknoll, NY: Maryknoll Sisters, 1998 [1988]).Google Scholar

⁵² Report by Maryknoll Sisters in El Salvador, 29 March 1980, in: MSA, H3.4, Guatemala: Box 5, Folder: Sister Ministry in El Salvador—History/Background/Csp. Articles 1969–1993.

⁵³ Wipfler, William L., “Remembrances of a vivid ecumenical gesture,” commemoration of the martyrdom of Archbishop Oscar Romero (24 March 1999) at Christ the King Seminary, East Aurora, New York.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ The members of the delegation were Father Alan McCoy, a Franciscan and the President of the Association of Major Religious Superiors of Men, Thomas Quigley of the Latin America Department of the USCC, Elizabeth Nute, Vice-President of the Society of Quakers, Ronald Young, International Affairs Director of the American Friends Service Committee, and William Wipfler.

⁵⁵ Wipfler, “Remembrances of a vivid ecumenical gesture.”

⁵⁶ Mission Handbook 1991–1992, pp. 34, 46. See Mission Handbook 1978 (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Mission Council, 1978), p. 21; Mission Handbook 1984–1985 (Washington, DC: U.S. Catholic Mission Association, 1985), p. 30.

⁵⁷ Mission Handbook North American Protestant Ministries Overseas (Monrovia, CA: Missions Advanced Research and Communications Center, 1986), pp. 382ff; Mission Handbook USA/Canada Protestant Ministries Overseas (Monrovia, CA: Missions Advanced Research and Communications Center, 1989), pp. 324ff.

⁵⁸ Levine, Daniel and Stoll, David, “Bridging the Gap Between Empowerment and Power in Latin America,” in Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber and Piscatori, James (eds.), Transnational Religion and Fading States (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1997), p. 71.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1949), p. 498.

⁶⁰ Statement of John J. McAward, UUSC in: U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, 95th Cong., 1st sess., 21, 29 July 1977, p. 63.

⁶¹ The documents of the hearings in Congress include a list of all the priests assaulted in the early year of 1977: Subcommittee, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, p. 82. The expellees were two Maryknoll priests, Lawrence McCulloch and Bernard Survil, and Benedictine John Murphy.

⁶² A number of sociologists and political scientists have interpreted this phenomenon—the increasing interaction of two or more non-state actors from different societies—as the global civil society or globalization of civil society. Theories, however, stress different themes and comprise various visions. Laura MacDonald analyzes the theme for the Central American context in “Globalizing Civil Society.” Reinhart Kössler and Henning Melber take a specific look at the implications of a global civil society in the context of North-South relations: Chancen Internationaler Zivilgesellschaft (Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 1993).

⁶³ Political means that had been used in Latin American host countries ranged from participation in local guerrilla activities to covert cooperation with the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. For a discussion of these issues, see Costello, , Mission, pp. 192–205.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Letter by a Maryknoll Sister, Christmas 1977, in: MSA, H 3.4, Nicaragua Box 1, Folder: Letters from Sisters about their ministries in Nicaragua 1976–1994.

⁶⁵ Quoted in Costello, , Mission, p. 207.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Rudolph, Susanne Hoeber, “Introduction: Religion, States, and Transnational Civil Society” in: Rudolph, and Piscatori, , Transnational Religion, p. 2.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ “Salvadoran Pastoral Letter: The Situation Today,” 5 March 1977, in: Latin American Bishops-Discuss Human Rights (Washington, DC: USCC, 1981), pp. 55–61, p. 56.

⁶⁸ Ibid., p. 59.

⁶⁹ McGlone, Mary, Sharing Faith Across the Hemisphere (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1997), p. 157.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ “Regional Report of the Panama-Nicaragua-El Salvador Region, prepared for the 10th General Assembly of the Maryknoll Sisters 1974,” in: MSA, H3.4, Middle American Region: Box 1, Folder: Panama-Nicaragua-El Salvador Region: Background, Reports, Handbook 1974–1980.

⁷¹ Quoted in Costello, , Mission, p. 201.Google Scholar

⁷² Religious associations provide structure and meaning to human relations, create communities, and facilitate collective action in world politics. See Rudolph, , “Introduction” in: Rudolph, and Piscatori, , Transnational Religion, pp. 1–24.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Archbishop Joseph Bernadin, President of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, 6 July 1977, in: Subcommittee, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, p. 70.

⁷⁴ Statement of Thomas J. Liggett, President of Christian Theological Seminary, Indianapolis, after a visit to El Salvador on behalf of WCC and NCC, ibid., p. 67.

⁷⁵ Hehir, Bryan, “View From the Church,” Foreign Policy 43 (Summer 1981), pp. 83–88, 85ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The political scientists Margaret Keck and Kathryn Sikkink stress “principled ideas” and “values” as the central motivating force for activists and NGOs in the field of human rights, the environment, and women's rights. See Keck, and Sikkink, , Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1998), chapter 1.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ See U.S. Congress, Committee on International Relations, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights in Chile, 94th Cong., 1st sess., 9 December 1975, pp. 26f.

⁷⁸ Subcommittee, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, p. 7., Father Inocencio Alas founded one of the first Christian base community in El Salvador. He sought asylum in the United States after repeated attacks and threats against his life in 1977.

⁷⁹ Letter by Raymond Hill, Superior General of the Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, James Connor, President of the U.S. Jesuit Conference, Anthony Bellagamba, Executive Secretary of the U.S. Catholic Mission Council, Betty Ann Maheu, Secretary General of the Maryknoll Sisters, and Bryan Hehir, Director of the Office of International Justice and Peace of the USCC, to Congressman Fraser, 15 March 1977, in: Subcommittee, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador, p. 57.

⁸⁰ Letter, December 1977, in: MSA, H3.4, Nicaragua: Box 1, Folder: Letters from Sisters about their ministries in Nicaragua 1976–1994.

⁸¹ Wipfler, William, “Violation of Human Rights,” in Jacomy-Millette, Annemarie et al. (eds.), Église et Système Mondial: La position des églises vis-à-vis des grands problèmes internationaux/The Church and World System: The Position of the Churches in International Affairs (Québec, Xie Congrès des Relations Internationales du Québec, 1979), pp. 13–18, 17.Google Scholar

⁸² Keck, and Sikkink, , Activists Beyond Borders, p. 12.Google Scholar

⁸³ U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, International Protection of Human Rights: The Work of International Organizations and the Role of U.S. Foreign Policy, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., 1 August; 13, 19, 20, 27 September 1973; 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, 18, 24, 25 October; 1 November; 7 December 1973; p. 210.

⁸⁴ Until 1979, WOLA was entirely funded by religious sources. In the 1990s, only one-fifth of the general budget came from church sources. See Bouvier, Virginia M., The Washington Office on Latin America: Charting a New Path in U.S.-Latin American Relations (WOLA, [1990]).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Hertzke, Allen D., Representing God in Washington: The Role of Religious Lobbies in the American Polity (Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee Press, 1988), pp. 86–87;Google Scholar Schoultz, , Human Rights, p. 78.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ WOLA By-Laws in: MFBA, Office for Justice and Peace, Box 3: Washington Justice and Peace Office, 1974-85, Folder: Washington Office, Csp. 1977–81.

⁸⁷ Ibid.

⁸⁸ See e.g. the first set of hearings on human rights in Central America: Subcommittee, Human Rights in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador: Implications for U.S. Policy, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 8 and 9 June 1976.

⁸⁹ James Abourezk, Congressman from New York, to Raymond Hill, 22 July 1975, in: MFBA, Office for Justice and Peace, Box 2: Misc. Csp.: 1974–84, U.S. Congress, President 1949-84, Folder: U.S. Congress, Csp. 1971–80.

⁹⁰ Subcommittee, Human Rights in Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador: Implications for U.S. Policy, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 8, 9 June 1976, pp. 2f. As a cadet at West Point, Somoza was assigned to Murphy's company in 1944–1945.

⁹¹ Ibid., p. 3.

⁹² According to the term “boomerang pattern” used by Keck and Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders, pp. 13ff.

⁹³ Testifying before the Fraser Committee, Napoleón Duarte says: “At this moment I want to say that in my country they will start a terrible propaganda against us because we are here. Yet we are sure that by being here, and by saying what we have said, we are helping our people.” Subcommittee, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador, p. 67.

⁹⁴ Subcommittee, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador, pp. 19–29,

⁹⁵ Duarte was president of the Christian Democratic Organization of America at the time.

⁹⁶ Subcommittee, The Recent Presidential Elections in El Salvador, p. 61.

⁹⁷ Subcommittee, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, p. 25.

⁹⁸ Since World War II, most Latin American countries had received military assistance from the United States, including military training and education.

⁹⁹ Subcommittee, Religious Persecution in El Salvador, p. 25.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., p. 22.

¹⁰¹ Press release of Jesuit Conference from 11 July 1977, in: ibid,, pp. 72f.

¹⁰² Ibid.

¹⁰³ “Salvador Looks to PR to Mend Human Rights Rift With U.S.,” The Washington Post, 23 July 1977, A7.

¹⁰⁴ “33 Jesuits Defying Terrorists’ Death Threat in El Salvador,” The Washington Post, 21 July 1977, A15.

¹⁰⁵ “Salvador,” The Washington Post, 23 July 1977, A7. It has been suggested that the congressional hearings in Washington, which began a day after the ultimatum terminated, might have been the reason. McClintock, Michael, The American Connection: State Terror and Popular Resistance in El Salvador (London: Zed, 1985), p. 186.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ McClintock, , The American Connection, pp. 186, 191.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ “33 Jesuits,” The Washington Post, 21 July 1977, A15.

¹⁰⁸ McClintock, , The American Connection, p. 191.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ “Church Persecuted By El Salvador, Rep. Drinan Says,” The Washington Post, 20 January 1978, C6; “U.S. Human Rights Policy: Has It Worked?” Latin America Update (January 1979), p. 7.

¹¹⁰ “U.S. Human Rights Policy: Has It Worked?" Latin America Update (January 1979), p. 8.

¹¹¹ Ibid., p. 9.

¹¹² See (October 2000). <http://www.uusc.org>

¹¹³ Ibid. Between 1978 and 1992, UUSC organized 20 Congressional fact-finding missions to El Salvador.

¹¹⁴ “Church Persecuted By El Salvador, Rep. Drinan Says” The Washington Post, 20 January 1978, C6.

¹¹⁵ Devine, , Embassy Under Attack, p. 53.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 50–52.

¹¹⁷ “Church Persecuted By El Salvador,” ]The Washington Post, 20 January 1978, C6.

¹¹⁸ Among them Congressmen Joseph Kennedy and Tom Harkin, see: Arnson, Cynthia, Crossroads: Congress, the President, and Central America, 1976–1993 (University Park PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1993), p. 29.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Department of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research, “The Catholic Church and Human Rights in Latin America,” Confidential Report No. 869, 25 October 1977, in: National Security Archive, El Salvador, 1977–1984, doc. # 00041.

¹²⁰ Ibid.

¹²¹ Schoultz, , Human Rights, p. 96;Google Scholar “Groups Trying To Sway Latin America Policy,” New York Times, 18 November 1981, A24.

¹²² “Groups Trying To Sway Latin America Policy,” New York Times, 18 November 1981, A24.

¹²³ Ibid.

¹²⁴ Devine, , Embassy Under Attack, p. 45.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Schoultz, , Human Rights, p. 105.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ See ibid., pp. 105–108; Ray, Philip L. and Taylor, J. Sherrod, “The Role of Nongovernmental Organizations in Implementing Human Rights in Latin America,” in Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 7:477 (Summer 1977), pp. 477–506, 498f.;Google Scholar Forsythe, David, Human Rights and World Politics (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), pp. 127–153.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Letter from Tom Marti, Maryknoll, to John McAward, UUSC, 7 February 1979, in: MFBA, Justice and Peace Office, Box 7: Csp./Rpts.: 1973-1985/Chile-El Salvador-Guatemala-Nicaragua-Peru-Venezuela, Folder 2.

¹²⁸ Regarding Carter's human rights policy in El Salvador, see Hartmann, Hauke, Die Menschenrechtspolitik unter Präsident Carter: Moralische Ansprüche, strategische Interessen und der Fall El Salvador (Frankfurt: Campus, 2004).Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Schoultz notes that human rights became a fundamental component of the Carter administration's foreign policy in those cases where U.S. national security was not threatened. See Schoultz, , Human Rights, p. 4.Google Scholar See also Arnson, , Crossroads, pp. 24f.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ “The Situation in El Salvador,” Press Conference by President Reagan, 6 March 1981, in: American Foreign Policy Current Documents 1981 (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1984), p. 1284.

¹³¹ Pastor, Robert A., “The Centrality of Central America,” in Berman, Larry (ed.), Looking Back on the Reagan Presidency (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. 33–49, 35.Google Scholar

¹³² Klaiber, Jeffrey, The Church, Dictatorships, and Democracy in Latin America (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1998), p. 4.Google Scholar