1915
Published by "Las Novedades" (New York, NY)
Accessed on HathiTrust:
https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015020206648

The Religious Question in Mexico

Luis CabreraSecretary of Finance of the Mexican Government

The question of the Church in Mexico has not been well understood in the United States, because the conditions of the Mexican Catholic Church differ vastly from those of the Catholic Church in the United States.

In Mexico, ninety-nine per cent of the population profess the Roman Catholic faith, and, therefore, the influence of the Catholic clergy in religious matters has no counterbalance of any sort.

In the United States there are other Churches which counterbalance the influence of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, the Catholic Church in the United States does not hold unlimited sway over society, nor can it attain uncontrollable political power; the very education of the American people has prevented Rome from exercising so far the influence which it exercises in other countries.

Before the war of the Reform (1856 to 1859), the Catholic Church was the strongest temporal power existing in Mexico, and the laws of the Reform enacted during that period all tended to deprive the Church of its power and bring about the absolute independence of Church and State.

The laws of the Reform are a collection of rules passed previous to 1860, with the aim of depriving the Catholic Church of its temporal power; and these rules have remained effective, because the conditions which then demanded their enactment still prevail and still make it necessary that the laws should remain in force.

The aim of the Revolution of Ayutla, from 1856 to 1859, was to deprive the Church of economic power and of its social influence, and it had to place the Church in a condition which, apparently, is disadvantageous and unjust, but which in reality was and continues to be the only possible manner of reducing the Catholic clergy to impotence.

The principal laws enacted previous to 1860, for governing the Church and stripping it of the temporal power which it enjoyed, are the following:

1. Separation of the Church and State.
2. Incapacity of the Church to possess landed property.
3. Abolition of convents.

These laws, which are called laws of the Reform, were established in Mexico after a revolution which may be considered the most bloody that Mexico has ever witnessed—a revolution which affected the country more deeply than even the present revolution is doing. The clergy defended themselves desperately against the laws which stripped them of power, and on finding themselves defeated, they resorted in 1860 to the intervention of foreign Powers (Spain, France and England), which attempted to intervene with the pretext of the fulfilment of the financial obligations of the Juarez Government.

The treason of the Clerical party had as a result French intervention only, but the laws of the Reform enacted against the clergy were of such importance and so necessary, that the Emperor Maximilian himself did not dare to undo what had been done in the time of Juarez.

The French troops being withdrawn and the Constitutionalist Government of Mexico reestablished, the laws of the Reform were not only maintained, but in 1874 they were incorporated in the political Constitution.

At the present time, there are precepts contained in the Mexican Constitution which correspond to those laws of the Reform, and, according to that Constitution, all the laws and all the authorities of the country must enforce the fulfilment of those laws.

It becomes necessary at this moment to distinguish between the real aims of the Constitutionalist Government regarding the religious question, and that part of the actual happenings which is merely a deplorable consequence of the attitude assumed by the Catholic clergy since 1910 against the revolutionary movement.

The aim of the Constitutionalist Government, with regard to the Mexican Catholic Church, is to enforce the strict observance of the laws known as laws of the Reform, which up to the present time have been disregarded. The Constitutionalist Government demands the fulfilment of these laws, because they form an integral part of the Mexican Constitution. These laws must be maintained because the causes which demanded their enactment are still prevalent in the country.

A brief analysis of the principal laws of the Reform will further clear up the matter.

The Separation of the Church and State.

According to the Mexican Constitution, there must be absolute separation between the Church and State. This signifies that the Church is to lack all temporal power and that, as an organized institution, it is not to participate in the political affairs of the country.

It has never been intended to deny Mexican Catholics either the exercise of their religion, or their right to take part in the political affairs of Mexico. We Constitutionalists are Catholics; the Villistas are Catholics; the Zapatistas are Catholics. Ninety-nine per cent. of the Mexican population is Catholic, and, therefore, the Constitutionalist party could not in the present struggle attempt to deprive the Catholics, who form the totality of the Mexican people, of their right to profess their religion, or of their right to take part in political questions.

The Catholic clergy and the Church in general abstained for a long time from interference in the political problems of Mexico. During the time of General Díaz, the Catholic clergy made no attempt to organize themselves for political campaigns, but appeared to maintain themselves in strict obedience to the law, in the belief, perhaps, that they could avail themselves of other indirect proceedings for exercising their influence in the political affairs of the country.

On the retirement of General Díaz from the Government, and on Francisco de la Barra's accession to the Presidency, the Catholic clergy of Mexico believed the moment had arrived to organize themselves for the political struggle, and to that effect a political group was formed, under the patronage of the Catholic clergy, made up chiefly of big land-owners. This group took the name of "Catholic Party", with deliberate intention of taking advantage of the religious sentiments of the population to induce it to vote in conformity with their directions. The Catholic clergy started to make propaganda in favor of the Catholic party, first in a discreet manner, bringing moral preassure to bear upon the ignorant masses, who were unable to discern clearly where their duties as Catholics ceased, and where began their rights as citizens.

The Catholic party is, in a nutshell, the political organization of the Catholic Church of Mexico. This single fact constitutes a peril for democratic institutions, and was naturally bound to be looked upon with great disfavor by the anti-reelectionist party, first, and later by the Constitutionalist party.

At the time that de la Barra was President, the Catholic party attempted to rob the Revolution of the fruits of its triumph, designating de la Barra as its candidate for the Presidency of the Republic. The considerable prestige which Madero enjoyed at that time frustrated this attempt of the Catholic party, which had to limit its pretensions to the Vice-Presidency of the Republic, resigning itself to have as President, Madero, a man sprung from the Revolution; and as Vice-President, de la Barra, a man perfectly well known as being of the ancient régime and and the principal leader of the Catholic party.

In the elections of October, 1911, the formula of the progressive Constitutionalist party triumphed over the Madero-de la Barra formula; which was that of the party of the principal enemies of the Catholic Government; but from that moment that of the enemies of the Government of Francisco I. Madero.

In the elections for deputies and senators of 1912, the Catholic party succeeded in obtaining a considerable number of deputies, amounting to almost thirty per cent, of the Lower House; whilst the Senate, which was almost completely made up of Porfirista elements, was only renewed by half and scarcely obtained eight or ten senators as followers of the new régime.

The Catholic clergy of Mexico, directly and through the intermission of the Catholic Party, were one of the principal factors in the downfall of Madero, and although perhaps Huerta was not the candidate designated to replace him, the fact is that the Clerical chief, de la Barra, formed part of the Cabinet which resolved upon the murder of Madero and Pino Suarez.

Subsequently, the party obtained important posts for its principal leaders in the Government of Huerta, and finally supported the candidacy of Federico Gamboa.

It is unnecessary to enter into details regarding the decided assistance lent socially by the clergy, and the political support given by the Catholic party, to Huerta, with both their men and money. But the principal assistance given by the Catholic clergy to the Government of Huerta was contained in the efforts made by their principal dignitaries and other members of the high clergy to create an opinion, if not favorable to Huerta, at least very unfavorable to Constitutionalists.

This end was accomplished, not through the individual means that any citizen is at liberty to place at the disposal of a political party, but by taking advantage of the religious influence exercised by the Catholic clergy over the faithful, from the pulpit and in the confessional.

During the war against Huerta, one of the things which most greatly surprised the Constitutionalists was the extremely hostile and unjust opinion encountered by them in each of the towns which they came to occupy. It was in the nature of a paradox.

The strongest armed resistance that the Constitutionalist party encountered in the cities, in the form of social defence, was not an opposition caused by the sympathy which the residents of the cities might have experienced in favor of Huerta, but was originated in the antipathy which had been created against the Constitutionalist forces, whom the Catholic clergy on all occasions represented as bandits who were intent on seizing the towns solely for purposes of plunder, theft, violation of women, and murder. This opinion had its source in sermons, in the confessionals, and in an extensive correspondence, proofs of which have been secured.

The work done by the clergy in creating an opinion antagonistic to the Constitutionalist troops explains, if it cannot justify, many of the acts of aggression, and even attempts of Constitutionalist soldiers against members of the Catholic clergy.

Since the triumph of the Revolution, there has been on the part of the Constitutionalist Government no other aim with regard to the clergy than that of restricting them within the limits of their faculties and of their spiritual mission, that of making effective the separation of the Church and the State, and of keeping the clergy from taking any participation, as a religious institution, in our political questions. But a political struggle having developed, it is natural that the military groups should experience strong displeasure, especially on laboring under the effects of the clerical propaganda against the Revolution, and that, instead of limiting themselves to restrain the clergy within due bounds, they should overstep this limitation and even, on some occasions, attempt to interfere in matters of a purely religious character. The restriction of religious services in some places and the destruction of the confessionals are instances of this. The destruction of confessionals has been the most ostensible manifestation of the ill will with which the revolutionary troops have regarded the use that the Catholic clergy have made of the sacrament of confession as a weapon of political strife.

If the Catholic clergy had maintained themselves within their religious attributes, without interfering in the struggle, and, what is more, if they had not put in action the advantages which they derive from their capacity of intellectual directors of the masses, the counter-effects on the part of the Revolutionary troops would not have occurred.

It is unnecessary to repeat that the Constitutionalist Government itself has never pretended to interfere in religious matters, or to restrain in any manner the religious liberty of the Mexican people. The Constitutionalist Government does not propose to establish laws which affect religion, nor does it in any way propose to restrict religious practices.

The course of action followed by the Constitutionalist Government justifies this statement, since, owing to the influence of the First Chief of the Revolution, Vemustiano Carranza, the military acts which were considered restrictive of religious liberty have been diminishing in number and in gravity.

Properties of the Church.

The Mexican Constitution and the laws of the Reform determine that neither the Catholic Church nor any other religious corporation, regardless of character, denomination, duration or object, can own landed property.

The reason for this ordinance is that the Catholic clergy constituted, previous to 1856, the strongest economic power existing in the country.

In 1856, an attempt was made to disentail the properties of the clergy, that is, to destroy the mortmain, compelling the clergy to alienate their landed property. This was the tendency of the laws of disentailment.

The clergy vigorously resisted this law, believing that their economic power was thus considerably reduced, and with this motive started the struggle called the War of the Reform or Three Years' War.

The laws of 1856 did not expropriate the clergy, but in view of the latter's completely rebellious attitude, in 1859 Benito Juarez issued in Vera Cruz a law called "Nationalization of the Lands of the Clergy," by which was expropriated all the landed property of the Catholic clergy who had resisted and struggled against the disentailment of these lands.

In virtue of this law, the temples became national property, the titles of ownership remaining in the hands of the State, but the usufruct of the same being reserved to the Catholic Church. As to the clergy's landed property and real estate investments, these were turned over to the nation and awarded to individuals.

The vital point of the laws of the Reform regarding the Catholic clergy lies in the declaration of civil incapacity of religious corporations to own lands. This measure, though it may appear extreme, was absolutely necessary in 1859, in order to deprive the clergy of their temporal power. The measure still continues to be absolutely indispensable, because if religious corporations were at this moment permitted to acquire landed property, a considerable mortmain would immediate be created, from which a great amount of power would again be derived by the Catholic Church, who would thus recover their temporal power, which all countries have admitted should not be tolerated. Moreover, it can be said that the reason for which the Catholic Church of Mexico has taken, as a Church, participation in the political struggle, and attempts to recover its influence and its temporal power, is that for several years past it has been successfully evading the law in so far as regards the possession of lands.

According to the Mexican law, the Catholic Church is incapacitated from acquiring lands, by which is understood not only landed property, but also capital invested in real estate.

The Mexican law also prohibits the feoffments which might cause the property to appear in the hands of an individual, when it really belongs to the Church, or is used exclusively for the benefit of the Church.

Feoffments from bishop to bishop are not permitted in Mexico, and the states owned by members of the clergy are considered as their personal property, to be freely transmitted to the voluntary or legal inheritors of the owners.

The estates of a bishop in Mexico, when not acquired through agreement or bequest, are to be transmitted to his legal inheritors.

For a long time past, Mexican bishops, rectors and even a number of laymen have been owning lands which apparently are their personal property, but the products of which in reality are destined to be turned over to the Church. These lands effectually constitute a mortmain, because their owners, before dying, have to bequeath them to the persons previously designated by the Church, whether to the succeeding bishop or to any other person especially designated to that effect.

That is how the Church has, against the law, been acquiring a large amount of landed property having the appearance of private property.

But, in practice, the lands personally owned could not always be taken over without difficulties by the new trustee designated by the Church, and experience showed that from time to time properties were lost to the Church which were claimed by the legal inheritors of the owner apparent.

These losses emphasized the advisability of finding other means to tie up the property to the Church, without ostensibly violating the laws of the Reform. In some places stock companies have been organized, without any determined mercantile end, but solely for the purpose of managing the estates which might be entrusted to these companies. The capital of the companies was made up of contributions by the members of the clergy or by individuals; the shares of the company, and therefore, its management, being retained by the bishops. Notable instances of this can be had in the bishopries of Durango, Puebla, and several other parts of the country.

Briefly, it can be said that the Catholic Church, transgressing the law which prohibits it from acquiring landed property, has found means of necessary, just and legal appearance for possessing lands, which have served it to recover little by little its political influence.

The confiscation of the lands illegally possessed by the Catholic Church of Mexico is a necessary, just and legal confiscation, and in that sense, all the confiscations of lands pertaining to the Church are legitimate, for which reason the Constitutionalist Government is in the right in continuing the same policy, not only confiscating the properties which are openly in the ownership of the clergy, but also investigating those properties which apparently belong to individuals, but which, through the history of their former owners and through the form of their administration, can be clearly distinguished as properties of the Church.

As regards the temples, since the passing of the laws of the Reform, the ownership has been retained to the State, their use being reserved to the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church has for many years used the temples without restriction of any kind and without paying rents, pensions or contributions of any sort.

The limiting of the number of temples which are needed in each place for religious services would have to be left to the judgment of the Church, but as the Catholic clergy of Mexico exercise absolute control in religious matters, without intervention of any kind by the community, that is, by the parishioners, in the administration of the estates or in the management of the temporal interests of the parishes, or still less in the organization of the religious services, there is nothing to serve as a basis for determining the number of temples required by a certain parish or a certain city.

It is, therefore, with State alone that the Church can come to an understanding regarding the number of temples to be reserved for the service, and the Government, as administrator of the nation's property, has the unquestionable right to dispose of the temples, when required for uses which, in its estimation, are of higher importance than the religious service, and above all, when, because of the abundance of temples in a single city, the number of those available for religious services is considered excessive.

Up to the present time, the Government has not made use of this right.

Immediately after the passing of the laws of the Reform, and principally since 1867, the Juarez Government took over some of the many temples in existence, for the purpose of turning them to public uses, so that in the principal cities of the country. it may be seen that the libraries, universities, hospitals, and many other charitable institutions occupy buildings which originally were temples. Since 1876, the Catholic Church has enjoyed unmolested the possession of a great number of temples, and the Government up to the present had not tried to make use of its right to consolidate the property of some of them, nor had there been any occasion to discuss the number of temples necessary for religious services.

The truth of the matter is that in some cities of Mexico the number of temples open to public service is considerably excessive, in proportion to the religious needs. A population of 10,000 inhabitants has enough with one or two temples open for worship; however, there are towns, such as the City of Cholula, in which the number of churches is so great in proportion to the population that a source of real curiosity is found by tourists in the vast number of temples, all of which are open for service, all affording occupation to priests, and, therefore, signifying a strong contribution on the part of the faithful.

Puebla is a city of 100,000 inhabitants, and it is curious to note that, until the time of its occupation by the Constitutionalist Army, it had nearly 200 temples open to the public.

Merida is a city of 60,000 inhabitants, and it has enough with twelve temples, that is, one for each 5,000 souls.

The city of Vera Cruz has a normal population of 50,000 inhabitants, and three churches have always sufficed for religious services.

Up to the present time, the number of temples destined for public service in each place has been unlimited. The Government notwithstanding its unquestionable right to dispose of the buildings and to determine which are those that should be reserved for religious services and which can be destined for other purposes, had not limited the number of temples which the Catholic Church controlled.

Lately, however, the attitude assumed by the clergy against the Constitutionalist Revolution brought about the closing of certain temples to religious services by a number of military chiefs and State Governors, on their capturing towns.

This could be regarded as an act of hostility, or as a sort of reprisal against the Catholic clergy, but in reality, and even supposing that such were the case, the closing of some of the temples, which never reached the extent of the total closing up of all the churches in a town, does not constitute an illegal act and is not censurable except in so far as regards the occasion on which it occurred, which, on the other hand, was elicited by the attitude of the clergy themselves.

In substance: as regards goods and chattels, the Catholic Church has full capacity to acquire and handle property. But in so far as landed property is concerned, the Mexican Constitution forbids the Catholic Church to own real estate or capital invested in the same, and the only right granted the Church by the laws is to maintain the temples immediately or directly destined to religious service.

Concerning the temples open for worship, which are the property of the State, their number is considerably greater than is required to fill the demand, and the Government is not occasioning a damage, but simply exercising a right, when it consolidates the property of those temples which it is not essential should remain in the power of the Church.

Convents.

The laws of the Reform established the abolition of all convents and of all religious essociations of monastic life. The monastic orders existing in Mexico, not only those of a merely contemplative nature, but also those of an educational and charitable nature, were abolished in virtue of these laws.

In 1874 they even went so far as to abolish the charity institution known as "Sisters of Charity," and the other regular orders, especially those of the Jesuits, were then expelled.

The abolition of the monastic orders in Mexico was a measure clearly taken in defence of human liberty, which was found to be threatened by them.

This was especially so in regard to women, whose education was still very deficient, so that they were not in a condition to defend their liberty when the tremendous moral pressure of parents and relatives was brought to bear upon them in order to force them to enter a convent.

The Mexican woman, particularly the one who possessed riches in her own right, was always exposed to the danger of seeing her liberty restricted by her entrance into a convent, where it became impossible to prove that her permanence there was not absolutely voluntary.

The Mexican woman has not, like the American woman, an education which enables her personally to look after her own liberty, and before the passing of the laws of the Reform, experience taught that the existence of convents was a constant threat to feminine liberty.

Even subsequently to the passing of these laws, rich heiresses have always been the object of suggestions inducing them to take the religious vow in a foreign country.

The laws of the Reform completely abolish the monastic orders, and within the principle established by them, all religious congregations of a monastic character must be dismembered.

At the time of General Díaz, however, a policy of toleration was initiated in favor of religious orders, first in regard to charity institutions, later in regard to educational orders, finally winding up by assuming the same tolerant attitude toward the contemplative orders, which, although illegal in their existence, were not effectually proceeded against by the judicial authorities.

The conditions prevailing in Italy after 1870; those which have been prevalent for a long time in Spain, since the considerable excess of monastic orders made necessary the positive deportation of persons bound by monastic vows; and the conditions recently created in France for monastic orders, especially for those of an educational character, since 1906:—all this has led a great number of foreign nuns and monks to take refuge in Mexico and settle there with the character of monastic orders.

The existence of these orders was tolerated in the time of General Díaz. Many of them constituted an open violation of the law; others, chiefly the French educational orders, tried to conform themselves to the laws of public instruction and acquired greater freedom of action in their work.

On the fall of General Huerta and the inauguration of the Constitutionalist Government in the principal cities of the Republic, several monastic orders were abolished, and as the members of these were mostly foreigners, the majority voluntarily expatriated themselves.

It is not true that the nuns were made victims of such offences as have been attributed to the members of the Constitutionalist army. The only occurrence has been the dispersion of several religious groups, whose members have withdrawn to foreign countries.

Resume.

The religious question in Mexico can be summarized as follows:

1. The aims of the Constitutionalist Government regarding the Catholic Church are not such as might be inferred from the isolated acts which, as a consequence of the war, and above all, of the intervention of the clergy in our political contentions, the Catholic Church has on several occasions had to undergo.
2. The conditions of the Catholic Church in Mexico are totally different from the conditions of the same Church in the United States.
3. The laws of the Reform establish a determined condition for the Catholic Church in Mexico, which is totally different from the condition which it has according to the laws of the United States.
4. The said laws of the Reform correspond to a situation which is peculiar to Latin America, and the laws in question are absolutely indispensable in order to deprive the Catholic Church of the temporal power which it had before the War of the Reform.
5. These laws must subsist at the present time, because the social conditions which made them requisite are still prevalent.
6. During recent years the Catholic Church in Mexico was entirely lawless, transgressing the regulations of the Mexican Constitution and of the laws of the Reform.
7. The intervention of the clergy in political matters, the possession of landed property on the part of the clergy, and the existence of convents, are acts wholly illegal and violative of the Constitution.

Briefly; whatever abuses or excesses which, without the knowledge and without the consent of the Government, may have been committed, are far having the importance which is attributed to them, and are nothing more than a consequence of the conditions in which the same Catholic Church placed itself on taking an active part in the struggle against the Constitutionalist Revolution.

The Constitutionalist Government has tried and continues trying to reduce to a minimum the possible reprisals against the Church. The Constitutionalist Government intends, at the same time, to maintain the absolute separation of the Church and State, and, therefore, it is not to be wondered at that it enforces all the measures which tend to deprive the Catholic clergy of the temporal power which it is attempting to recover; and it declares, if necessary, the incapacity of the religious corporations to organize political groups; and that it proceeds to confiscate those properties which are illegally in the hands of the Church, or of which, even when owned by individuals, the usufruct can be proved to be reserved to the Church.

The Constitutionalist Government finally proposes to make effective the abolition of the monastic orders existing in Mexico, and, above all, of those of a merely contemplative character.

To sum up, the Constitutionalist Government proposes to give full guarantees in religious matters to the exercise of any cult, but strictly enforces the observance of the laws of the Reform and of the Mexican Constitution.