Nicaragua
The Catholic Church in Nicaragua: Break-off or Break-through?
Envío team
In December 1983, envío published a chronology of the most important events to have transpired within the Nicaraguan Catholic Church since the Sandinistas came to power. Accelerated changes in the country’s social and political circumstances have altered the analysis with which we concluded at that time.
The theme of the Church in Nicaragua—the “persecuted Church,” as it’s often called—frequently makes international press headlines. Of most concern is the persistent reference to this theme in President Reagan's electoral campaign declarations and in statements by members of his administration.
In our judgment, a chronology of the main events over the last nine months (December 1983 to August 1984), accompanied by an interpretive analysis, is a necessary starting point from which to assess the accusations leveled against the Nicaraguan government by both religious and political sectors. In doing so, we provide continuity to our December report, this time focusing principally on the most publicized area: Church-State relations.
Before beginning the chronology, in which conflict and tension are the predominant factors, let us glance at church life in a broader sense: the everyday life of ordinary Christians and their participation in pastoral work and Christian Base Communities all over the country. Their perspective, which rarely appears in the news, is not based on the dichotomy of a “break-off” or a “break-through,” as are official Church-State relations. Lately, at the base level, the reality of the present situation, with all its difficulties, has been more important than ideological polarization. This has not always been the case. The communities are growing and maturing, neither entirely absorbed by the conflicts nor completely oblivious to them.
Although the importance of this is impossible to evaluate scientifically, some activities, such as the celebration of the anniversary of Archbishop Romero’s death (Managua, March 24), the Third National Encounter of Christians (Managua, May 20), and the Christian Celebration of the Fifth Anniversary of the Revolution (Estelí, July 14) demonstrated a new vitality and an ability to overcome unnecessary polarizations within the Church. At the same time, these activities prove that, at the base level, the Church is developing new forms of prayer and celebration and deepening reflection on what Christian commitment means in Nicaragua today. They also demonstrate that the Church is learning to provide prophetic criticism in this new society.
A Stumbling Block: The Schlaefer CaseIn early December 1983, the general climate of tension in most spheres of national life, including that of the Church, had lessened considerably. The restoration of dialogue between the Bishops' Conference and the government (November 9, 1983) raised new expectations. Also in December, amnesty was decreed for Miskitu Indians and peasants involved with the armed counterrevolutionary groups; the electoral calendar was announced; and control was loosened on the national press media—all this while a large part of the country was suffering from contra attacks.
During this month, the most important event concerning the Catholic Church was the case of the bishop of the Atlantic Coast, Salvador Schlaefer.* This case produced bewilderment among government leaders, who felt that relations with Schlaefer had greatly improved in the recent past. Especially perplexing was the fact that the case came soon after the amnesty decree for the 307 Miskitus imprisoned for counterrevolutionary activities and the government's offer to extend that amnesty to those in Honduras and Costa Rica who wished to return to the country. Attending the December ceremony at Managua’s Plaza of the Nonaligned Countries, where the amnesty was proclaimed, were Bishop Schlaefer, Monsignor Goebel, (the Secretary of the Apostolic Nuncio), and Moravian Bishop John Wilson.
_____________________________
*See the January 1984 envío for a more detailed report on the Schlaefer case and events surrounding it.
On that occasion, Bishop Schlaefer stated: “It is important for the future that the people know there is forgiveness. I believe this is a very important step in building peace, and above all, in solving the internal problems of Nicaragua.” Goebel declared: “It is a gesture that we, the Church, support because it is a step toward reconciliation. This has been our theme this year.” (He was referring to the Holy Year of Reconciliation, celebrated by the whole Church in 1983.)
Soon to follow was the well known “exodus of the Miskitus” from Francia Sirpi, accompanied by the bishop. Among the various reactions of the Bishops' Conference was the following interpretive statement, which appeared in their second communiqué on December 22: “The spiral of violence has once again descended upon our country, closing off the channels through which our people can express and organize themselves in the tasks of promoting and developing personal and collective human rights.”
Upon Schlaefer's return to the US, by which time many of the confusing details had been cleared up, Archbishop Obando commented, “He wanted to play the role of Moses, who accompanied his people through the desert.”
Most speculation surrounding the case was quelled with a January 20 government communiqué published shortly after the bishop's return to Nicaragua and after the authorities were able to speak with him and hear his point of view. Although it received little publicity outside the country, the communiqué, which was approved by Schlaefer, explained these basic points: 1) The bishop and the priest did not know previously of the kidnapping prepared by the counterrevolutionaries; 2) the counterrevolutionaries did not force him to accompany them, though they did warn that the bridges back to Puerto Cabezas were dynamited; 3) at no point did the bishop or the priest lead the march. They only accompanied the people on their wearing journey; 4) there were no armed encounters or bombings on the way; 5) Bishop Schlaefer has never stated that the Miskitus live in “Nazi-type concentration camps” and 6) the government assures him full guarantees to carry out his pastoral work.
The improvements that had been achieved in Church-State relations were put to the test over the Schlaefer case. As events unfolded, errors in the information released by the government without careful scrutiny of sources (such as the report that Schlaefer had been killed) were interpreted by some sectors of the hierarchy as deliberate deceit or manipulation. However, the official media had treated the case, including Schlaefer's ambiguous declarations on his arrival in Honduras, with moderation. Although the incident did not stir up national controversy to the extent that other cases have, it did further erode relations between the hierarchy and the government. Suspicions of US complicity in the incident were raised when it became apparent that the US embassy knew of Schlaefer's whereabouts before the Nicaraguan government did.
From December to April: Open forum for the bishopsThe government's desire to defuse tensions with the hierarchy was evident in the national media. It had been a long time since so many interviews and statements by bishops were seen in the newspaper or heard on the radio. There was obvious freedom for the Church hierarchy to express its views regarding the national situation. Bishop Vega, as president of the Bishops' Conference, and Archbishop Obando were the most outspoken. At this stage, many of the bishops' statements were made in relation to the upcoming elections. (On December 4, the government announced that elections would be held in 1985; later, on February 21, another announcement moved the date up to November 4, 1984.)
Some of the statements made by Bishop Vega during this period are significant because of his position as president of the Bishops' Conference (a post he has held since September 1983) and the strong reaction his words produced. They have two points in common with public pronouncements by other bishops:
1) The situation in Nicaragua must be analyzed within the context of the East-West conflict.* The hierarchy tries to place itself in a neutral position. Therefore, it has never denounced US intervention or the CIA-orchestrated mining of Nicaraguan ports in March and April, when this act was the object of world condemnation.
_________________________
*The position held by The Latin American Bishops’ Conference (CELAM) was slightly different. At the meeting held in Bogotá (February 21-23), its president and directors stated: “We lament the persistent conflict that Central America suffers. Central America is at the center of North-South, East-West tensions; i.e. there is an imbalance in justice and liberty that is complicated by geopolitical interests.”
2) The electoral process is treated by the bishops with indifference and skepticism. They insist strongly on creating the “necessary conditional.”
The following quotes express these basic tendencies in Vega’s thinking, as well as the level of freedom enjoyed by the bishops to state their points of view publicly:
-“There are interventions from two sides. We are currently caught between two great power blocs that are competing for world control.” (Barricada, December 27)
-“The Church is neither for the right nor for the left. The Church is concerned with values.” (La Prensa, March 7)
-“Why should we go from an economic imperialism to one that is even worse; one that is ideological and totalitarian and unites all the vices of absolutism and liberalism under a totalitarianism that is completely depressing?” (Ibid.)
-(Referring to the mining) “is like dealing with the symptoms and not wanting to deal with the cause. It is a very delicate issue, and I do not want to be partial at any time. I would like to approach it in all its complexity.” (Press conference, April 11.) Vega did not address the subject later.
-“We are caught in the middle of an intrigue between two empires. There is a pistol pointed at us from both sides.” (El Nuevo Diario, late April)
-“It is not a matter of denouncing all cases of aggression against the country but of trying instead to focus on the real source of all the problems, both partial and extreme.” (El Nuevo Diario, late April)
-“The Nicaraguan Church is undergoing active ideological persecution by the Sandinista regime. There are many degrees and types of persecution of the Church in Nicaragua, but we have faced them all.” (Honduran newspaper La Prensa, December 29)
-“We are not just dealing today with a simple election of individuals or of new government programs. The elections today affect fundamental issues that the Church cannot overlook.” (La Prensa, February 20)
-“I doubt that the conditions exist for a normal electoral process.... [The problem of elections] is secondary.” (La Prensa, March 1)
-“The problem of elections in Nicaragua has been the motivating force of this revolution.” (La Prensa, April 12)
-“The important thing is not that the elections take place, but that conditions exist for them to occur.” (AFP, La Prensa, March 1)
-“In Nicaragua, they speak of the sovereignty of the people, but they mean the sovereignty of those governing and the sovereignty of the party, not the sovereignty of human rights, which are above any party interests.” (La Prensa, March 7)
The first day of March, Bishop Vega announced that the bishops would publish a Pastoral Letter on the subject of elections. Expectations grew as statements and counter-statements were made in a climate of mounting tension. On March 29, after a week-long meeting, the Bishop's Conference published a short communiqué in which it reaffirmed “some general principles of Church doctrine concerning the subject.,” They mentioned the following:
1) Voting is a responsibility. For it to have meaning and for one to vote conscientiously, an ability to discern and a climate of freedom must exist.
2) A Christian cannot, in good conscience, vote against the principles of freedom that his faith demands.
3) No one can be forced to vote against the people in order to benefit a particular group. Parties exist for the people and not for themselves nor for the domination of the rest of the citizenry.
4) No one can be forced to vote against his or her own conscience.
5) If voting is just an act of obedience, then there simply is no election.
The Bishops' Conference made these same points in 1974, when Somoza was preparing his reelection, which the opposition parties boycotted. When asked about the likeness in the two pronouncements, Archbishop Obando stated that the principles were repeated because, like the Commandments, they always remain the same, regardless of the context.
The bishops are still expected to publish an extensive document, explaining their position on the elections. Aside from declarations such as those above, which did not appear to lessen tensions, relatively few Church-related incidents occurred in the first four months of the year.
Toward the end of January, an incident arose at a Managua high school run by the La Salle Christian Brothers. Disagreements within the La Salle order concerning the revolution resulted in the decision to replace some of the more progressive lay teachers with new staff. The decision was made without complying with procedures established by the Ministry of Education for the hiring and firing of teachers.
The more conservative members of the order, supported by a sector of religious who teach in Managua’s private schools, together with the Bishops' Conference, publicized the problem internationally, interpreting it as part of a hostile policy toward religious education in the country. The finesse with which the Ministry of Education resolved the case helped avert a prolonged crisis. The incident clearly showed certain bishops' deep conviction that there is a government policy against Catholic education.
In mid-March, the Nicaraguan government issued an urgent international denunciation of stepped-up US aggression. During these critical weeks, the country underwent the largest infiltration to date of counterrevolutionary troops into Nicaraguan territory. In addition, the mining of Nicaragua’s ports began during this period.
The Pastoral Letter causes a breakHoly Week passed without incidents. Radio Católica broadcast the archdiocesan liturgical celebrations of Holy Thursday and Holy Friday without interference. The Holy Friday “Blood of Christ” procession, in which the image of the crucified Christ is carried slowly through the streets, attracted thousands of people, as it has for years. However, President Reagan and the US press described the traditional procession as a massive anti-government demonstration.
During the procession, Archbishop Obando called on Catholics to rebuild the Managua Cathedral. The 1972 earthquake left the cathedral standing but irreparably damaged. The government offered Obando land on which to build a new cathedral, but the archbishop did not accept the proposal. Now, he and the Curia are insisting on rebuilding the ruined cathedral, ignoring the architectural unfeasibility of the plan and the fact that it is located on a seismic fault.
Holy Week ended with a bombshell. On Easter Sunday, the Bishops' Conference published the long-awaited Pastoral Letter. It was signed by the nine bishops and its theme was reconciliation. It did not even mention the elections. In one of the most controversial paragraphs, the document calls for a dialogue among all Nicaraguans, even those who have taken up arms against the government, and says that, without such a dialogue, peace in the country is impossible.
Particularly offensive was the absence in the letter of any reference to the attacks launched against Nicaragua, especially the mining of the ports. However, this phrase did appear: “Materialist and atheistic education is mining the consciences of our youth.” (our emphasis)
A week after the document's publication, official and unofficial reactions were so critical that a formal break occurred between the government and the hierarchy. Verbal confrontation reached its highest point in the last five years. This intense reaction is a result of the critical war situation, the glaring omissions in the Pastoral Letter's analysis of the national situation (no mention of the amnesty decree, the peace initiatives of Nicaragua and Contadora or the US-backed aggression), and the coincidence between the bishops' proposals and those of the more reactionary political parties and the Reagan administration.
Dialogue with the armed counterrevolutionary leaders as a precondition to any solution has been a demand of Reagan administration officials. This position has caused debate within the Contadora group and has been a demand of the rightwing opposition political parties since December 1983. Recently, Arturo Cruz based his decision not to run in the elections on this point.
With the exception of the pope's visit, no single religious issue has sparked such intense political controversy in the last five years. Two national newspapers exacerbated the controversy by attacking the bishops themselves with comments and cartoons. The press actually catalyzed the sharp criticism leveled at the bishops by many social sectors. Not long thereafter, Jaime Wheelock centered his May 1 International Workers' Day speech on the bishops' statement. This was the government's last public reference to the Pastoral Letter.
Progressive sectors of the Church held hundreds of grassroots meetings throughout the week. They published and distributed their reflections as a response to the Pastoral Letter, concentrating on the important themes presented by the bishops, such as forgiveness, reconciliation and love of one's enemies. These sectors also expressed the need they see for a dialogue within the Church itself, which was left even more polarized by the crisis.
The Pastoral Letter was not censored, but a note from the Ministry of the Interior preceded it: “[This document will be published] despite the fact that it contains violations of our country's laws and positions of open confrontation with the revolution.”
For several days, the two newspapers sympathetic to the government published photographs taken years ago of bishops Obando, Barni, Vega and Schlaefer appearing with Somoza or at Somoza's ceremonies. Sharply critical comments about the bishops' attitudes at those times accompanied the photos. The criticisms centered on Archbishop Obando, as they have on previous occasions. (Barricada, the official FSLN newspaper, printed a picture of Obando embracing Somoza and reproduced a flattering speech given by the Archbishop to Somoza's National Guard on May 8, 1980.)
Among the many critical documents published during this time were those of the Nicaraguan Jesuits and Dominicans. In addition to criticizing the bishops' Pastoral Letter, both also disapprove of the excessive berating by the national press and of certain attitudes on the part of the government.
The following are excerpts from statements by two Nicaraguans: Mario Barreda, the son of activist Christian parents from Estelí who were tortured and murdered by FDN counterrevolutionaries; and the mother of a young girl named Suyapa killed by the explosion of a mortar shell launched by counterrevolutionaries from Honduras in April 1983. For many people, these deaths symbolize the suffering experienced by people in the border towns of Teotecacinte and Jalapa:
“The killers did not engage in dialogue with our parents; they simply tortured them to death. The counterrevolutionaries do not talk with the peasants organized in cooperatives; they kill them. The Catholic bishops do not confer with Catholics at the grassroots level; they avoid them. On what, then, do the bishops base their call for dialogue with criminals?”
“How can we talk with those people? The bishops have not suffered what some of us have. They must even be afraid to visit here, so close to the border.”
These words sum up the feelings of confusion and pain with which part of Nicaragua’s Christian population reacted to this document. For these Christians, the hierarchy has lost its moral authority. For others, excessive official criticism boomeranged, sowing confusion or rebuke in its wake.
For the bishops, who maintained an almost total silence during the outcry, the polemic meant a clear break. Bishop Vega affirmed this, saying: “This is a good opportunity for us to speak clearly. Now, after all the sweet talk, I think we know what they really mean. Many comandantes have a mentality that reflects totalitarian power.”
May and June:
The cases of Luis Mora and Father PeñaTwo days after the publication of the Pastoral Letter, Archbishop Obando received an “urgent call” from the Vatican and left the country. His trip gave rise to much speculation. From Rome, the archbishop repeated his call for reconciliation and spoke for ninety minutes with the pope. Neither the pope nor the Vatican gave any public indication of support for or rejection of the Pastoral Letter or any explanation of Obando's trip.
During Obando's absence, La Prensa announced that the archbishop had been named to the Sacred Congregation of the Clergy, suggesting this as the reason for his trip. However, the appointment had been made public even before the publication of the Pastoral Letter. La Prensa exaggerated the importance of the appointment: “With this new post in the government of the worldwide Catholic Church, the Nicaraguan archbishop will cooperate directly with the pope in administering Church affairs in all countries.”
In July, a press leak in the US revealed that the archbishop, on his return from Rome, had requested funds from the W.R. Grace Company for the formation of lay leaders in Managua. W.R. Grace has financed many traditional Catholic projects in different Latin American countries and has ties with the CIA-tainted American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD).
The following is an excerpt from the internal memorandum from a W.R. Grace Company consultant, John J. Meehan, to J. Peter Grace, summing up a meeting between the former and Archbishop Obando: “The archbishop needs help and if we believe he is right, we should help him materially as he appears to be able to handle this opposition successfully. If the Church is nullified, there is no other solid opponent in place in Nicaragua which can claim so much local support. Even if the armed rebels succeed in overthrowing the present Government, there will always be a need for well-formed citizens to support and protect any future administration that will try to be truly democratic.”*
_________________________
*Nicaraguan news media have given broad coverage to the contents of this memo. At first, the diocesan office denied its existence. Later, however, Archbishop Obando himself admitted having had the meeting and discussed the topic of opposing the Nicaraguan government.
Toward the end of April, while Obando was out of the country, a reporter from La Prensa, Luis Mora Sánchez, was arrested and charged with criminal activities in connection with the counterrevolutionary group ARDE. In a televised statement, Mora spoke of his involvement in numerous activities. One of those was to plan with ARDE collaborators and Obando the use of the traditional May 1 Mass to instigate an open confrontation between opposition labor unions and the police.
The diocesan office denied the accusations and referred to “methods that have always been used to extract this type of declaration.” On his return to the country on May 20, Archbishop Obando said that the “only purpose [for Mora’s declarations] was to divide the Church.” In August, Luis Mora was convicted and sentenced to nine years in prison.
The May 1 Mass, celebrated by Bishop Vega, was attended by only a thousand people, despite all the expectations raised by the Mora incident and the heated national controversy over the Pastoral Letter.
In early June, during his Sunday homily, Obando condemned the attempt on Eden Pastora’s life. The archbishop has never denounced the counterrevolutionary attacks that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
On June 16, in the church in El Sauce (Chinandega), the Bishops' Conference celebrated the closure of the liturgical Holy Year of Reconciliation. The anticipated attendance was thirty thousand, but only six thousand people showed up. Nevertheless, it became a very controversial celebration, not only because of the slogans shouted by those inside the church (“Obando! Obando!” was the one most often repeated) but also because the peasant Delegates of the Word in that zone—representing progressive sectors of the Church—were not allowed to enter the church. Later, the Bishops' Conference described the events, saying: “Partisan mobs profaned the liturgical celebration with their slogans and shouts of protest.” Vega’s homily was very critical of the revolutionary process. “Our people went from being marginalized to being absorbed into faceless masses.” He added: “Our country, our right to the land and our right to free participation have been, for our people, only a yearning, a nostalgia and a past with no hope of returning.”
A few days later, a major crisis arose, and its repercussions are still being felt. Father Peña, one of the priests closest to the archbishop, was accused by State Security of counterrevolutionary activities, including the trafficking of arms and explosives. Before the charges were made public, Interior Minister Tomás Borge met with the secretary of the Papal Nuncio, Monsignor Goebel, and with Bishop Vega to inform them what was happening, to show them the evidence and to ask that Father Peña remain in the Nunciature, without returning to his parish. In addition, Borge asked the hierarchy to publicly disapprove of the priest's activities. In turn, the government would treat the case as an isolated incident. Although Monsignor Goebel was more critical of Peña’s actions than Bishop Vega, both referred the case to Archbishop Obando. The latter refused to consider that Father Peña could be guilty.
Television viewers all over the country were able to see the video that is part of the government's proof of Father Peña's complicity with the FDN counterrevolutionaries. What is most unbecoming in the film is the language used by Father Peña. Those who know him recognize this as typical of Peña.
The following are excerpts from the conversation between the priest and his contact: "At eight in the morning of the 21st I’ll celebrate Mass, and we’ll leave from there. Yes, they’re waiting for me. The market's all set. Let's hope to God they don't nail us. But if they do get in our way, our people are ready; that's what counts. I don't care if people get killed... I hope to God it's not just talk. We need to fill one of those sons-of-bitches with bullets” (referring to the revolutionary leaders). “Believe me, there have already been deaths, and we'll get more of those bastards. If I can knock off two or three of them, the panic will spread... We have to talk about peaceful resistance, but we know that, when the time comes, nothing gets done peacefully here in Nicaragua. When all this blows apart, one of the first things the Church will have to do is set up Christian leadership because we're the majority in all sectors. We have to destroy the CDSs so they won't butt in. Things will be better with just Christians.”
The Bishops' Conference issued a statement that, without mentioning the Peña case, recounted recent “outrages and abuses against individuals and Church institutions.” Father Peña made his own declaration: “I am the victim of a frame-up.” The contradictions in the concrete details of his explanation were exposed by a second film that was made public. Archbishop Obando denied everything, absolved Peña of any guilt and declared that “the Church is a victim of a tremendous plot. We know those methods. The Sandinistas are con artists.... It is a well prepared frame-up, using technological tricks.” When the government offered to allow him to examine the video in a laboratory with the help of audiovisual experts, he refused to do so. In addition, there were demonstrations in front of Peña's parish to demand that the hierarchy send him out of the country.
The case seems to have become less a focus of attention, and it was agreed that the priest would remain in the seminary until his trial. However, the Peña affair evolved into a crisis of even greater proportions.
The latest and still unresolved crisisOn July 5, international news cables and the Voice of America radio broadcast announced that “the first anti-Sandinista demonstration in five years” would take place in Managua on July 9. It was to be led by Archbishop Obando and 30 priests in solidarity with Father Peña. The VOA repeated the announcement for three consecutive days.
Upon hearing this, the Ministry of the Interior asked the Papal Nuncio’s office to convince Archbishop Obando to call off the march. The Nuncio’s secretary responded that he was “incapable of influencing him.” On July 9, the ministry published a communiqué stating that the march was a violation of the law and that, if it took place, Obando would be responsible for the repercussions.
Despite the warnings, the march was held. Some 15 to 20 priests accompanied Archbishop Obando, along with 200 to 300 other people, at least a third of whom were foreign journalists. During the Mass he celebrated with Father Peña, Obando stated: “If we had called for people to come, we would have had more than 200,000 here.” (The march had been announced in many churches on Sunday and in all the newspapers.)
Within a few hours, the “consequences” were known. In response to the archbishop’s defiant and illegal actions, the government canceled the residency visas of 10 foreign priests from the Managua diocese. (Under the State of Emergency Law, which was in effect until July 19, 1984, all public demonstrations without previous authorization were prohibited.) Some sectors of the Church felt that the government's response was hasty and disproportionate to the circumstances. The measure revealed, not only to the Nicaraguan Church but to all of Latin America, a disconcerting differentiation between national and foreign priests. (Following the expulsion, the Voice of America no longer referred to the march as an “anti-Sandinista demonstration” but as a “religious procession.”)
Worldwide reaction—from the pope and from almost every Latin American Bishops' Conference, among others—was very negative. Nonetheless, it seems evident that the government was aware of the costly international repercussions its measure would entail and was not trying to demonstrate a general hard-line policy toward the Church. On the contrary, the government's policy has favored dialogue over confrontation. The measure represented a warning to Obando that he cannot violate the country's laws with impunity, challenge the legitimacy of its authorities or provoke conflicts between the government and the Church.
Even though the Managua diocesan office protested and demanded that the government allow the priests to return—a request echoed by the pope—none of the other bishops made any declaration in support of Obando. Nor was there any controversy in the press, as there has been in the past. The news was reported in a very straightforward manner.
In the midst of this conflict, it was announced that the Holy See had appointed Father Paul Schmitz, the superior of the Capuchins in Central America, as bishop of Southern Zelaya. Father Schmitz is generally perceived as a man open to dialogue and his appointment was interpreted as a positive sign from the Vatican. The prelate of Jinotega, Pedro Vílchez, was made a bishop at the same time.
On July 13, Daniel Ortega made two important announcements during the weekly “Face the People” event. The first: that Father Peña would be tried before the War Tribunals for counterrevolutionary crimes. (There had been speculation that he might not be tried out of deference to his priesthood.) The second announcement, presented as a sign of the government's regard for the clergy in general, was the appointment of Fernando Cardenal as minister of education.
A few days later the controversial issue of priests in government once again became international news. It was reported that the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) had given Father Cardenal an ultimatum, forcing him to choose between his new position and the Jesuits. Father Cardenal, who has already begun his new ministerial duties, stated that, in faithfulness to his conscience, he will continue to serve the people in the tasks the revolution assigns him. He considers this role perfectly compatible with his priesthood. “If I make mistakes, let them be in favor of the poor. For centuries, Christians have been making mistakes in favor of the rich.”
On July 19, during the ceremony honoring the fifth anniversary of the revolution, Daniel Ortega asked the 300,000 people present for their opinion regarding the case of Father Cardenal.
“This is the revolution of the just, because it was carried out and is defended by the people. This is a revolution that respects the religious sentiments and practices of the people and affirms that the people of God are the Church. They say that God speaks through the voice of the people…”
“This revolution wishes to nominate a Minister of God who has chosen not to remain inside the temple beating his chest. Are you, the people of Sandino, the people of Christ, in agreement with the nomination of Father Fernando Cardenal to direct the education of our youth? Lest there be doubts, raise your hands and wave your banners!”
“May there be those who do not turn a deaf ear to the voice of God's people in Nicaragua and their ceaseless cry: We want peace!”
July ended on a tense note. Without a doubt, it has been one of the most densely packed months in the revolution's short history with regard to the Church.
Internationally, the government paid a high price for the deportation of the 10 priests and repercussions continue. In July, the situation with the Church clearly underwent important changes that could possibly lead to an even deeper split. Some sectors of the Managua diocese appear to want to deepen the confrontation. However, the events could lead to a renewed push for sustained dialogue, given the urgency of the situation. Clearly, this latter option would most benefit the Nicaraguan people, who want peace in both their country and their Church.
Christian participation in a revolutionary process is an important historical event. Since it is a new phenomenon, there are no other experiences with which to compare it. Previous relationships between Christianity and revolutions have been difficult, at best. A sector of the Nicaraguan Church hierarchy is running the risk of contributing to the failure of a promising experiment by basing its attitudes on two assumptions 1) the inevitable identification of the Nicaraguan revolution with totalitarianism, and 2) the notion that the revolution is reversible. Both assumptions appear to be false, and even the uncompromising US administration may have to face this.
However, the constant friction between the Church hierarchy and the revolution may be taking its toll on the Sandinista leadership. The lack of any historical precedent heightens this ongoing confrontation and facilitates suspicions and rigid attitudes toward religion. Within the FSLN today, there would appear to be some controversy, if not sharp differences, over the kind of policy to pursue with respect to the Church.
These two poles—the refusal by some members of the Church hierarchy to recognize the legitimacy of the revolution and the lack of understanding of the religious sector on the part of certain revolutionary leaders—are dangerous and could lead to a collision. From the Rockefeller Report on Latin America (1968) to the Santa Fe Document (1980), political forces in the US have maintained the position that a Christian Church committed to the needs of the poor is incompatible with western civilization; and that western civilization can only be expressed via the Church if it remains tied to traditional power and the wealthy elite.
It is crucial for the entire American continent that Christianity and the revolution find a way to work together in Nicaragua. The Nicaraguan revolution continues to be the hope of the poor in Latin America, as well as of an important sector of progressive Christians in the US. However, if present misunderstandings between the Church and the state solidify, if distrust wins out over dialogue and if the incompatibility between a sector of the hierarchy and the revolution intensifies, then hope will be dimmed, not only in Nicaragua, but on the entire continent. Much is at stake for the oppressed peoples and believers who aspire to build something new, beginning in Nicaragua.
|
a monthly magazine of analysis on Central America