Uiūs regiō, eius religiō is a Latin phrase that means that the religious confession of the prince is imposed on all citizens of his territory.
Vatican Dilemma: Restore relations with the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship or wait for its end?
Analysis from Rome on the role and approach of Pope Leo XIV regarding the systematic persecution by the Ortega-Murillo regime against the Catholic Church in Nicaragua
The insurrection of critical consciousness, manifested in the mass marches of 2018, and the brutal repression of the regime against an defenseless population resulted in massacres perpetrated by the Police at the service of the OrtegaMurillo family dictatorship. These events not only marked a turning point in the recent history of the country, but also awakened a profound awareness in pastoral agents, priests, bishops, and lay people committed to the mission of the Church.
That change was first expressed in the **opening of temples to welcome citizens persecuted and threatened** by repressive forces, and second, in the progressive **distancing**—and in many cases the rupture—of relations previously harmonious between the clergy and the government. Said harmony had been promoted for years by the leaders of the Sandinista power. From then on, the Church began to explicitly address in its sermons topics such as the **defense of human rights, freedom of expression, and the right to peaceful demonstration**, thus converging with the demands of the protesters.
This posture provoked an angry reaction from the presidential couple, translated into verbal attacks against the Catholic Church, direct persecution of its most visible leaders, and a systematic siege of the Catholic community in general. Far from abating, this repressive strategy has intensified steadily over the past seven years.
An analysis of presidential discourses allows for a clear identification of the thought that the regime intends to impose on society. Both Daniel Ortega and Rosario Murillo have expressed a frontal opposition to the presence and leadership of the Catholic Church, especially in its most representative figures: the Pope, cardinals, and bishops, and, at a lower level, priests and laypeople committed to pastoral care.
The regime justifies this opposition by claiming that the Holy See, as representative of the universal Church, has historically legitimized imperial power, particularly during Spanish conquest and domination, imposing—under the pretext of evangelization—an ideological dominance that spread Western Christian culture to the detriment of the worldviews, traditions, and cultural expressions of indigenous peoples. According to this narrative, such cultural imposition was overwhelming and systematically marginalized indigenous identities; therefore, they maintain, it must be overcome and eradicated.
From this logic, the Ortega-Murillo couple promotes **two complementary strategies**. The first consists of **controlling the leadership of the Catholic Church**—from the Pope to the bishops and priests—, subjecting it to the regime’s ideological principles or neutralizing those who resist.
The Church, especially since the conciliar renewal more than sixty years ago, has promoted through its social pastoral the defense of human rights, the rule of law social state, and democracy. These principles, identified by the regime with the political culture of the West—the United States and Europe—are perceived as a threat. In line with the severance of relations with organizations that embody those values, such as the OAS, the regime considers the Vatican as a key institution in the dissemination of a culture that questions its authoritarian model.
Consequently, **Managua is attempting to negotiate with the Holy See agreements that would allow it to move towards a sort of “religious independence,”** proposing the appointment of bishops aligned with its ideology and the promotion of priests close to the regime, with the ultimate goal of controlling clerical thought and leadership and, through that, driving a cultural transformation subordinate to political power.
The regime has already taken concrete steps in this direction. It has **prohibited** religious **manifestations outside of temples**—such as the processions of La Purísima or San Jerónimo in Masaya—except when coordinated by government agents, as happens with Santo Domingo in Managua or La Merced in León. Simultaneously, while restricting public expressions of faith in parishes, it promotes altars and celebrations organized by state institutions, widely disseminated by official media.
The Holy See thus faces **an uncomfortable** and risky decision: re-establishing diplomatic relations with a dictatorship that has systematically persecuted the Church or maintaining a critical silence that prudently accompanies a persecuted and decimated clergy. The Vatican, with a long tradition of diplomacy, has so far opted for a strategy of caution, headed by Cardinal Pietro Parolin, Secretary of State. This line has imposed an almost absolute silence on bishops and priests in exile, not only out of fear of reprisals against those who remain in the country or against their families, but as part of a tactic aimed at reopening the Apostolic Nunciature closed in 2022 and re-establishing channels of dialogue.
However, the regime appears to aspire to something deeper: the formation of a national church subordinate to political power, detached from the leadership of the Pope and the universal tradition of the Church, in order to control its thinking and neutralize its cultural influence.
The second major strategy of the regime is the instrumentalization of popular religiosity. It is convenient to distinguish between Catholic piety —centered on practices such as praying the rosary— and popular religiosity, in which a strong syncretism between indigenous traditions and elements of Catholicism is expressed. Celebrations such as Santo Domingo in Managua, with deep pre-Hispanic roots, illustrate this dynamic, where cultural and ritual expressions predominate that are foreign to properly said Catholic devotion.
Rosario Murillo, moreover, exhibits a markedly esoteric view of religion. The so-called “trees of life” and other symbolic expressions promoted by the regime reflect this worldview, which seeks to rescue and resignify ancestral cultural elements to construct an alternative national identity to the colonial and Western Christian heritage. To this end, the regime has attempted to co-opt patron saint festivals and traditional brotherhoods, infiltrating them with Sandinista cadres and progressively displacing the role of the clergy.
Finally, another recurring practice has been the **economic co-opting of priests and bishops**, through the offering of resources for pastoral activities or even for personal use. This strategy has generated internal divisions and forced exile on those who refused to subject their ministry to material interests.
Facing this scenario, the **Vatican’s dilemma** persists: **to make a pact** with a regime that seeks to subject faith to political power **or to wait**—with almost monastic patience— for the biological and political exhaustion of an octogenarian dictator to finally open a real possibility of change for Nicaragua.
**Pedro Lanzas**
Pedro Lanzas is the pseudonym of a Nicaraguan religious figure who, out of fear of persecution, does not provide his own name.
English version translated with AI