Speaking of Christ and Communism in Nicaragua: Meditations on an excerpt from “The Gospel in Solentiname”

“Mango tree in front of the church,” by Oscar Mairena, 1975, Oil on canvas. Ernesto Cardenal is depicted in his typical black beret and white shirt on the right leading a discussion. (source)

In the mid-to-late 1970’s, over a period of years, a group of campesinos (peasant farmers) in Solentiname, an archipelago in Lake Nicaragua, gathered together to read and discuss the teaching of Jesus. They focused on the beatitudes from the Gospel of St. Matthew. Below is a small excerpt from their larger discussion, facilitated by Ernesto Cardenal. This discussion occurred during the brutal dictatorship of the Somoza family and the long Nicaraguan civil war. In the end the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship.

Let’s go now to the southern islands of Lake Nicaragua and read from The Gospel in Solentiname.1

Comunidad fundada por Ernesto Cardenal en Solentiname (source)

Dichosos los que tienen espíritu de pobres,
porque de ellos es el reino de los cielos.

Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

ALEJANDRO: “[…] The poor who are bourgeois, who are opposed to revolutionary changes, they do not have compassion in their hearts, and they are not the poor of the Gospel.”

LAUREANO: “A perfect communism is what the Gospel wants.”

PANCHO, who is very conservative, said angrily: “Does that meant that Jesus was a communist?”

JULIO said: “The communists have preached what the Gospel preached, that people should be equal and that they all should live as brothers and sisters. Laureano is speaking of the communism of Jesus Christ.”

And PANCHO, still angry: “The fact is that not even Laureano himself can explain to me what communism is. I’m sure he can’t.”

[Ernesto Cardenal] said to PANCHO: “Your idea of communism comes from the official newspaper or radio stations, that communism’s a bunch of murderers and bandits. But the communists try to achieve a perfect society where each one contributes his labor and receives according to his needs. Laureano finds that in the Gospels they were already teaching that. You can refuse to accept communist ideology but you do have to accept what you have here in the Gospels. And you might be satisfied with this communism of the Gospels.”

PANCHO: “Excuse me, but do you mean that if we are guided by the word of God we are communists?”

[Ernesto]: “In that sense, yes, because we seek the same perfect society. And also because we are against exploitation, against capitalism.”

Ernesto Cardenal: poet, revolutionary, priest, sculptor, and activist (source)

REBECA: “If we come together as God wishes, yes. Communism is an equal society. The word ‘communist’ means community. And so if we all come together as God wishes, we are all communists, all equal.”

WILLIAM: “That’s what the first Christians practiced, who had everything in common.”

PANCHO: “I believe that communism is a failure.”

TOMAS: “Well, communism, the kind you hear about, is one thing. But this Communism, that we should love each other…”

PANCHO: “Enough of that!”

REBECA: “It is community. Communism is community.”

TOMAS: “This communism says: Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”

PANCHO: “But every communist speaks against all the others. That means they don’t love each other.”

ELVIS: “No, man. None of them talk that way, man. They do tell us their programs. And they’re fine.”

Increasingly, I’ve come to see the Gospels in a way similar to these Nicaraguans do. I used to think somewhat similarly to Pancho, who can only see equating Christianity and communism as outrageous. But I now see there is a kind of communism at the heart of the good news of Christ. In fact, I’m inclined to think it’s the communism; all others are imitations in degree, some very dark indeed, but others have been closer to the Gospel. But Christ must be the center and all other things ordered to Him, that is, to love itself. And unlike some Catholic apologists who publicly argue that a person cannot be both Catholic and a socialist (which is provably false), I’m inclined to go the other way – to be Catholic is to be, in one way or another, a socialist and perhaps even more specifically a communist (a distinct form of socialism). One can argue that without Christ at the center any form of communism will fail, but also one can argue that with Christ at the center then communism is inevitable. In this I empathize with Cardenal who did not waver in his conscience or commitments after being publicly reprimanded by Pope John Paul II:

“Christ led me to Marx,” Father Cardenal said in an interview in 1984. “I don’t think the pope understands Marxism. For me, the four gospels are all equally communist. I’m a Marxist who believes in God, follows Christ, and is a revolutionary for the sake of his kingdom.”2

Although I don’t call myself a Marxist (yet) because I don’t like overly loaded terms and I don’t want to be labeled an “ist” anything, I do find the use of Marxism as a social science useful in helping us get at the roots of economic inequalities and forms of alienation that both plague our societies today and are what Jesus preached against. And I find many of the core goals of communism at least interesting in the light of the Gospel. Long before communism came into existence as an ideology, I find Scripture pointing in that direction, especially in terms of liberation and freedom. In short, “liberation theology is nothing other than theological reflection on oppression and on the people’s commitment to freedom from this oppression[.]”3 I find this a fundamental and essential Catholic pursuit. But who am I? I’ve still got so much to figure out.

The Gospel in Solentiname has been a revelation for me. Jesus and His disciples were more like the Nicaraguans in Solentiname than the Americans in my neighborhood or parish. The insights from these campesinos, I believe, are closer to the kinds of insights one would expect from those listening directly to Jesus, or those of William Herzog in his book, Parables as Subversive Speech, than those spoken in a homily on the beatitudes in the tradition of Christendom. They are earthy, human, sensitive to the struggles of liberation, arising from a place of poverty, and more concerned with how to love one’s neighbor than in one’s interior spiritual attitude or a personal psychological definition of faith. In other words, they don’t overly “spiritualize” the Gospels but, in fact, more clearly preach the Gospel as it was delivered and heard two thousand years ago.

I am not willing to say the insights found in The Gospel in Solentiname are unproblematic, but they are refreshing in their frankness and challenging in their non-bourgeois perspective. They also highlight something important that I think many of us have lost—that basic human need to read and discuss the Scriptures with others in a kind of dialectical circle of interpretations. We Catholics tended to be trapped in a prison house of pedigreed teaching and official interpretations that we fear stepping out and taking the risk of speaking our own interpretations born from our own lives. But if we step back we discover the Church (if not, for example, Catholic Twitter) has a rich tradition of multivalent perspectives and rarely provides singular interpretations of Scriptural passages. Personally, I long for a Solentiname discussion group. What a joy it would be.

Finally, the last member of the group to speak was a person named Elvis. I believe this is Elvis Chaverría, a member of the Solentiname community and a revolutionary guerrilla in the fight for freedom. On October 13, 1977…

Nicaragua’s leftist guerrillas, the Sandinista National Liberation Front (F.S.L.N.), thought to have been decimated by years of repression, launched a new military offensive against the Somoza regime, attacking National Guard barracks at Ocotal in the north and San Carlos in the south, losing two rebels but killing two dozen soldiers.4

One of those two rebels killed was Elvis Chaverría who was involved in the attack at San Carlos. He “was captured during the raid on San Carlos, taken up the Río Frío, and shot in the head.”5 That attack precipitated the beginning of the end for the Somoza regime. Elvis is remembered as a hero and a martyr of the revolution. He gave his life in the struggle to bring about a more just society for his neighbors.


1Ernesto Cardenal, The Gospel in Solentiname, trans. Donald D. Walsh (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2010), 122-123.

2Elia E. Lopez, “Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaraguan Priest, Poet and Revolutionary, Dies at 95,” The New York Times (The New York Times, March 1, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/01/world/americas/ernesto-cardenal-dead.html.

3David Inczauskis, “Once I Discovered Liberation Theology, I Couldn’t Be Catholic without It,” America Magazine, June 4, 2021, https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/06/04/liberation-theology-catholic-faith-240599.

4“National Mutiny in Nicaragua,” The New York Times (The New York Times, July 30, 1978), https://www.nytimes.com/1978/07/30/archives/national-mutiny-in-nicaragua-nicaragua.html.

5Sarah Gilbert, “Revolutionary Trails in Nicaragua,” Wanderlust, accessed July 6, 2022, https://www.wanderlust.co.uk/content/travels-in-nicaragua/.

“Stravinsky is waiting…”

I love this video clip. It is of a moment when Julian Bream has maneuvered himself into a meeting with Stravinsky. As you can see, one had to catch Stravinsky whenever and wherever one could, and Bream takes what opportunity he could find.

The apparent psycho-emotional dynamics of this meeting are also interesting. Bream, who is undoubtedly a master musician, is still nervous and desirous of approval from someone of such eminence as Stravinsky. And Stravinsky gives some “story” of always being too busy in order to not commit anything. But then he shows real interest in Bream’s playing. Kudos to Bream for being so bold.

The Host’s Puzzle

The following fun puzzle is from The Canterbury puzzles: and other curious problems by Henry Ernest Dudeney published in 1908.

6.—The Host’s Puzzle.

Perhaps no puzzle of the whole collection caused more jollity or was found more entertaining than that produced by the Host of the “Tabard,” who accompanied the party all the way. He called the pilgrims together and spoke as follows: “My merry masters all, now that it be my turn to give your brains a twist, I will show ye a little piece of craft that will try your wits to their full bent. And yet methinks it is but a simple matter when the doing of it is made clear. Here be a cask of fine London ale, and in my hands do I hold two measures—one of five pints, and the other of three pints. Pray show how it is possible for me to put a true pint into each of the measures.” Of course, no other vessel or article is to be used, and no marking of the measures is allowed. It is a knotty little problem and a fascinating one. A good many persons to-day will find it a by no means easy task. Yet it can be done.

The Solution

The puzzle propounded by the jovial host of the ” Tabard” Inn of Southwark had proved more popular than any other of the whole collection. “I see, my merry masters,” he cried, “that I have sorely twisted thy brains by my little piece of craft. Yet it is but a simple matter for me to put a true pint of fine old ale in each of these two measures, albeit one is of five pints and the other of three pints, without using any other measure whatsoever.”

The host of the ” Tabard” Inn thereupon proceeded to explain to the pilgrims how this apparently impossible task could be done. He first filled the 5-pint and 3-pint measures, and then, turning the tap, allowed the barrel to run to waste, a proceeding against which the company protested, but the wily man showed that he was aware that the cask did not contain much more than eight pints of ale. The contents, however, do not affect the solution of the puzzle. He then closed the tap and emptied the 3-pint into the barrel; filled the 3-pint from the 5-pint; emptied the 3-pint into the barrel; transferred the two pints from the 5-pint to the 3-pint; filled the 5-pint from the barrel, leaving one pint now in the barrel; filled 3-pint from 5-pint; allowed the company to drink the contents of the 3-pint; filled the 3-pint from the 5-pint, leaving one pint now in the 5-pint; drank the contents of the 3-pint; and finally drew off one pint from the barrel into the 3-pint. He had thus obtained the required one pint of ale in each measure, to the great astonishment of the admiring crowd of pilgrims.

>Considering businesses flying government flags

>

I am curious. What is it with businesses and flags?
There is some sense in a state capitol having a state flag out front, or the U.S. Capitol building having the Stars and Stripes waving out front. But why is it necessary for a business to have a U.S. flag, a state flag, and even a flag with the business’s name or logo on it? I ask this, in part, because government flags in front of buildings have become so ubiquitous that we barely notice them, and when we do we never ask why are they there.
I suppose most people would give a quick unthinking kind of answer, a kind of “isn’t it obvious?” answer. But stop for a moment and wonder if it really is so obvious, or should be so obvious.
What are flags anyway?
Flags are symbolic representations of something bigger. The Stars and Stripes “stand” for the United States of America, all that is good and all that is bad. That is why some people salute the U.S flag, yeah even get tears in there eyes at it presence, and others burn the flag, even get tears in their eyes as well, but for other reasons.
When a business flies a flag it is showing us a symbol for something that represents that company. So a U.S. flag, in this sense, stands not only for the country but for the business as well. The business is “claiming” the symbol as being meaningful to the business. 
Personally I find flags interesting, but troubling as well, especially when the flag represents a state or government. People have fought and died for the Stars and Stripes. That’s a big deal for a lot of people. For that reason alone it seems almost demeaning to the flag (and those who have died) for any business – like a car dealership – to wave the flag outside as a means of advertising their business. On the other hand, I find it sad and problematic that anyone would willingly or unwillingly die for a state (in this sense a nation state). Flags are part of the ongoing problem we call humanity and what emerges from that humanity is sin (among other things). People get tribal, power hungry, territorial, and vain. People kill each other and even like doing so. Governments, such as the violent and all too self-righteous U.S. government, wave flags and create mythologies around those flags. Government flags are about power. The U.S. is a great country in many ways, but it is also a country of countless problems and even atrocities. For that reason it is also troubling to fly the flag in front of a business.
It is better to not fly the flag. There is no need to do so and probably several excellent reasons not to. Anyway, as I stated at the beginning, I am curious.

>The Crisis Now: Harman & Harvey on our (re)current economic troubles

>Given our current economic crisis (haven’t we been here before?) maybe this would be a good time to see what the communists have to say.

Here is Chris Harman speaking on how we got into this stinking mess:

Harman references several times the talk given by David Harvey. Here is Harvey:

I have to say I like a lot of what they say (in fact I think they are often spot on), but at times they come across a little too simplistic and a little too much like they are preaching to the choir (but Harman is a hoot, ain’t he). This is where some good reading will help. This last weekend I spent about ten hours on American Airlines reading Das Capital. It’s both great and a slog. Many pages left to get through that beast. Then on to other books and more perspectives. Bye for now comrades.

>my new obsession (add it to the list)

>I want an Alleweder.

This is a human powered vehicle – in other words one pedals to make it go. The chassis is aluminum. The first one was designed and handbuilt in the 1980s. Since then several models have been developed, including one with a carbon fiber chassis. They are built in Europe, but kits can be ordered to build one yourself. Unfortunately, they are far too expensive for my budget, but I can dream can’t I?

I would smile too if I had an Alleweder.

>The Flight of the Gossamer Condor

>I just wrote a post on bicycle speed records and the really cool human powered streamliners. That got me remembering to my childhood and one of the most amazing accomplishments that got my attention – human powered flight and specifically the Gossamer Condor. I want a plane like that.

That was in 1977. It’s amazing how far we’ve come in technology in general since those days, yet the Gossamer Condor still look state-of-the-art.

>How fast can a bicycle go?

>I remember when John Howard broke the land speed record for a bicycle in 1985. I thought that was the coolest thing ever at the time. He did it by having a modified car tow him up to a minimum speed so his high gearing could begin to work and having the car block the wind for him while he pedaled in the still air just behind the car. He reached an amazing 152.2 MPH. That record was broken later by another cyclist using the same basic technique.

But what if no fossil fuels were present? What if one had to start from zero without being pulled up to a ‘starting speed,’ and then continue pushing through the wind yourself? That is the real test for bicycle and human powered vehicle speed records.

82.3 MPH on a bicycle:

Trying to break the record:

I have to say I would LOVE to ride in one of these bikes. Years ago I once rode a recumbent. It was a lot of fun, but a little strange too. Nowadays I see lots of recumbents and human powered vehicles. But it would be so cool to pedal a streamliner bicycle, even if there’s not much practical application beyond mere speed.