u ihe Facts Concerning The Mexican Problem WILLIAM F. MONTAVON, Director, Legal Dept. N. C. W. C. National Cathouc Welfare Conference 1312 Masgachussetts ATenue, N. W. WASHINGTON, D. €. CoPTRiaHT 1926 BY THE National Cathouc Welfare Conference THE BELVEDERE PRESS. INC. BALTIMORE, MD. INTRODUCTION ^^The Government of Mexico is now on trial before the world/’ declared United States Secretary of State, Kellogg in June, 1925. Thus, nearly a year ago, the Government of Mexico was haled before the bar of public opinion. Even at the time this challenge was issued, the patience of the American people was reaching the breaking point. What evidence has the Government of Mexico been able to produce to justify the claim that the ^ ^stability and prosperity”, as stated by Secretary Kellogg, of Mexico are being established and conserved? Under the pretense of enforcing law and restoring order, has the Government of Mexico persisted ^^in the violation of her obligations”? Are American citizens and their interests any more secure in Mexico today than they were a year ago? How does Mexico stand today before the bar of public opinion? The Government of Mexico has had no scruples in sup- pressing any evidence of hostility on the part of the public press in Mexico. Only a few months ago, President Calles appeared before the Seventh Annual Convention of the Labor Party of Mexico, to which he owes his election to office, and there, in bitter terms of reproach, he accused the public press which opposed his administration and charged that their only motive could be to bring about intervention in Mexican affairs by some foreign power. Calles could have referred to no other power than the United States. The shibboleth of American intervention has, throughout the history of Mexico, been held before the people of that Republic. It was the cry of Diaz when people objected to his arbitrary acts. It was the cry of Carranza when he sought to unite the insurgents under his standard. We have no more reason to believe that Calles 3 4 INTRODUCTION was in earnest on March 6th of the present year than were his predecessors. All of the Presidents of Mexico have known that our Government desired only to see stability established in Mexico so that, under a Government truly representative of the Mexican people, prosperity, security and independence might be maintained. It was pathetic, at the recent Pan-American Congress of Journalists, to listen to Senor Tablada, who represented the greatest daily paper published in Mexico and one of the most ably edited papers on the American Continent. In terms which did his paper credit, he defended the freedom of the press and declared that it was menaced in America. It was on his instance that that Congress passed a resolution condemning the Governments who deny to the press this natural right. Knowing the power, direct and indirect, which Calles and his supporters possess to suppress opposition, we are justified in going to the press of Mexico for the evidence on which the Government of Mexico is to be tried before the world. Space will not permit us to cover a long period. The recital of what occurred and was published in the press of Mexico during thirty days following the appeal of Calles to the Labor party of Mexico will be sufficient. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM A BILL OF PABTICULAR8 The following is a brief list of well authenticated facts which, taken together, make up the history of the persecu- tion of the Church under Calles during the period, February 12th to March 12th, 1926, as told in the daily press of Mexico City: February 12 th — A new Federal Bureau is created to administer church property to be seized. It is esti- timated that the value of property to be seized will exceed $11,000,000 — Mexican. Police officers are instructed to renew their vigilance and take summary action against Catholics. February 10th — Attorney General Romeo Ortega sent to all law officers throughout the Republic instructions to enforce the anti-religious clauses of the Constitution, that steps be taken to transfer to Government ownership all property of the clergy, and ordering them to exercise special zeal and energy in suppressing any members of the hierarchy or clergy, or any laymen who, in association with others or acting individually, take any part in a public protest or in any other manner oppose the carrying out of the Constitution of the Re- public. (^^El Universal,^^ February 11, 1926.) These instruction were re-issued two daya later, with special reference to Catholics. (^^El Universal,'^ February 12, 1926.) 5 6 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 13 th — Calles wires instructions to local authorities to enforce Articles 3, 27, and 130, of the Constitution. (These relate to education, propert}^ and religion, respectively.) February 15th — Governor of Potosi banishes, without a hear- ing, three foreign priests, at the same time ordering all foreign priests to leave. February 16th — The Governor of Puebla issued an order re- ducing the number of priests from 330 to 273; ordering all convents and schools to comply with the Constitution or close within forty-eight hours; prescribing that no religious may wear the habit or other religious symbol in school; and ordering the closing of all chapels existing in any schools. February 17th — One hundred and fifty-six Catholic schools in the Federal District are ordered closed. Some of these are boarding-schools where orphans receive free board and clothing and shelter, along with their education. No pro- vision is made to care for these little ones. February 17 th — Secret Service agents of the Government seized the college of the Sisters of St. Teresa, at Mixcoac, and ordered the sisters and their pupils out. This college had seven hundred and fifty paying students, of whom tw^o hundred and fifty were boarders, and, in ad- dition, one hundred orphan girls who were educated free. February 17 th — The College of San Jose, in Mexico City, was closed. The teachers, not Mexicans, en- trained for Vera Cruz to leave the country. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 17th — The College of Savinon, in Tacubaya, was closed and the teachers who were foreigners were deported. February 17th — The College of Guadalupe, in Tacubaya, con- ducted by laywomen, was closed. This school was supported by donations received from a Mexican lady of Michoacan. It had more than one hundred boarding-pupils and gave free instruction to two hundred day pupils. February 17 th — The order closing all college and school chapels was enforced throughout the State of Michoacan. February 17th — The Governor of Guadalajara ordered all Catholic schools to close. The orphanage at Guadalajara, housing one hundred boys, was closed by order of the Governor. The Catholic hospital at Guadalajara was closed by order of the Governor. February 18th — The Catholic schools at Guadalupe, D. F., were closed and many thousands of pupils deprived of instruction. Some of the schools were boarding-schools and received orphans without charge. No provision was made by the authorities for these orphans. February 18 th — The cloisters of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament and of the Capuchins, at Guada- lupe, were entered by the police, the nuns driven out, and the cloisters closed. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 18th — Fathers, representing more than 6,000 pupils of the Catholic schools, presented a petition asking the Government to reopen the Catholic schools in Mexico City. The peti- tion states that the public schools have no room to accommodate these pupils. February 18th — A private Catholic hospital at Jalisco was closed by the police. It was under the charge of the Brotherhood of St. John and not of priests; these brothers were shipped to Mexico City under arrest. February 18 th — At Torreon, in the State of Durango, all the Catholic schools, and some of the churches, were closed by the police. The fathers of the pupils protested on the grounds that the public schools were inefficient and over- crowded. February 18th — The Governor of Potosi deported all foreign priests under armed escort lest they might escape. The Governor refused to hear the appeal of the priests that the Constitution only prohibited them the exercise of their ministry, but did not authorize their depor- tation. These priests took refuge in the Spanish Consulate and were later given one day to settle their affairs on condition they would then leave willingly. February 20th — In Ciudad Victoria, Capitol of the State of Tamaulipas, the schools were ordered closed within twenty-four hours. A Catholic orphan asylum, at Victoria, was closed and the orphans driven to the street. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 9 February 20th — Minister Tejeda declared the Government would not desist from its work until every Catholic school in Mexico had been closed. February 20th — The Archbishop of Michoacan, in an appeal to the Ministry of Government in charge of matters pertaining to public worship, de- clares that the situation of the Catholics has become intolerable; that even the little liberty granted by the Constitution is being openly violated by the arbitrary actions of the police who, with no written instructions from any authority, have closed ecclesias- tical seminaries, normal and commercial schools, and a large number of primary schools which were complying strictly with the law^, together with orphanages, asylums, and charitable institutions, with no regard for the rights of the interested parties or for the welfare of the inmates. In the name of many thousands of pupils and their parents, and of more than 800,000 Catholics of his Archdiocese, the Archbishop besought the Minister to restore things to the condition in which they had been before the provisions of the Constitution had been violated by the police, or that, at least, the Catholics be given a hearing and al- lowed to defend their claims in the regular courts of justice. February 21st — The Governor of Puebla issued new instruc- tions to all municipal authorities ordering them to suppress all religious communities of men or women. February 21st — Three foreign priests were ordered deported from San Pedro, Coahuila, and the parish was left without a priest. 10 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 2l6t — A home for old men, supported by Mrs. Escandon, was suppressed. The hospital conducted in connection with this home was one of the best in all Mexico. February 21st — A private chapel, built and endowed by Madame de Escandon, in Mexico City, was closed. Madame de Escandon appealed to the courts. February 23rd — The Union of Stevedores, from Vera Cruz, pre- sented a Resolution to Calles commending his persecution of religion. February 23rd — Calles reprimanded Governor Almeida, of Chihuahua, for being lax in executing the laws against religion. This Governor had allowed five days for the closing of the Catholic schools in his State. February 23rd — The Governor of Nayarit, with great brutality, closed all the Catholic schools at Tepic. February 23rd — A branch of the Anti-clerical Federation was established at Tepic. Thomas B. Corona, State Superintendent of Schools, was the chief organizer. February 23rd — The municipal authorities of San Cristobal, acting under orders from the Governor of Chiapias, notified the Rector of the Ec- clesiastical Seminary that his institution must close at once. February 23rd — The authorities at Cosamaloapan refused to allow the priest, who is Spanish, to officiate, and closed the church. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 11 February 23rd — Acting under orders of Police Commissioner, General Roberto Cruz, the police of Mexico City took possession of the parish Church of the Holy Family, and closed it per- manently as a house of worship. Great numbers of the people opposed this action of the Government. The police were, with great difficulty and some bloodshed, able to get control over the riotous multitudes. In explaining this incident, the Minister of Government claimed that, on February 18th, he had notified the pastor of this and other churches, which had failed to apply for a license to operate places of public worship, that, unless they did this within three days, the churches conducted by them would be seized by the Government and per- ‘ manently closed, and that the action of the police, on the 24th, was in pursuance of this notice. This incident gave rise to numerous protests which the Government authorities treated with contempt. February 24th — President Calles issued telegraphic instruc- tions to all State authorities, calling upon them to enforce the anti-religious clauses of the Constitution, threatening to dismiss summarily from the public service any officer who failed to act with energy at once in this matter. February 24th — The Minister of Government sent out a warn- ing to all churches in Mexico that unless they complied at once with the rule requiring that they be specially licensed as houses of public worship, they would be sununarily seized and closed as had been the parish church of the Holy Family in Mexico City. 12 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 25th — Throughout the Republic, parish priests are called upon to show their license for opera- ting a house of public worship and, in case a license does not exist, the church is sum- marily closed. In many places this action results in violence and some deaths occur as a consequence of the rioting. February 26th — Fortes Gil, Governor of Tamaulipas, refused permission to open a Protestant church at Tampico on the grounds that the minister was not Mexican by birth. February 26th — The Orphan Asylum of St. Joseph was sup- pressed at Colima. Pious families offered the hospitality of their homes to the little orphans who would otherwise have re- mained without shelter. February 26th — A private boarding-school for girls at Colima was closed because the parents refused to send their girls to be educated under a school supervised by the Government. February 26th — The Bishop’s residence, at Colima, was con- fiscated. February 26th — The K. of C. Hall, at Colima, was confiscated. February 26th — All private schools and convents at Tacam- baro, in the State of Michoacan, were taken possession of by Federal troops. February 26th — Two Catholic and two Protestant schools were suppressed at Ciudad Juarez. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 13 February 26th — The Orphan Asylum of the Sacred Heart was closed at Ciudad Juarez. February 28th — A party, under the leadership of Adam Moreno, attacked the parish church at Tepic, in the State of Nayarit. The people flew to the defense of their church. The represen- tatives of the Federal Government and the State Police Commissioner were both severe- ly beaten up and their followers driven from the church. February 28th — The Secretary of State, in charge of matters pertaining to public worship, issued a state- ment in which he declared: ^^The Federal Government will not let up in its determination to enforce the law until every minister of religion regardless of his creed and without distinction has complied.’’ The Secretary then adds, that action having now been taken in every State of the Re- public, ^Ve have heard of not one protest and have observed no evidence of disap- proval, which clearly demonstrates that our work is along lines demanded by the people.” This was only a few days after the receipt of the protest of the Archbishop and 800,000 Catholics of Michoacan and is an impudent denial of the right of Catholics to be heard by the Government of Mexico. In spite of the boast of the Minister, not all the states, which compose the Mexican Union, had, on this date, adopted any form of enforcement law regulating religious wor- ship under Article 130. In two States, Guerrero and Chihuahua, the legislation in- troduced was defeated and in other States no action was taken. 14 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM February 28th — The schools of Parral, in the State of Chihua- hua, were closed and no provision made for the education of the children who had at- tended them. February 28th — A Protestant school, known as Progress Col- lege, was closed in Chihuahua by the police because it was conducted under religious auspices. March 1st — The Orphan Asylum of St. Joseph was closed by the police at Vera Cruz, and the sisters were told that they might no longer remain in Vera Cruz unless they ceased wearing their religious habit. March 1st — The Sisters of Charity have, up to the present, commanded the respect of all classes in Mexico and have not been molested in their work of charity. At Vera Cruz, however, the authorities advised the Sisters of Charity that they must cease wearing the religious habit. March 1st — The municipal authorities at Vera Cruz decided to hold as an accomplice in crime any one who, residing in the vicinity of any school or convent, failed to notify the Government of every breach of the Constitution com- mitted in the same. March 1st — The private chapel of the Sisters of Charity at Vera Cruz was ordered closed. March 1st — The Governor of the State of Vera Cruz, in a circular to the municipal authorities, threat- ened with summary dismissal and criminal THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 16 prosecution all who failed in their duty to close ^ ^convents, seminaries, schools, and hospitals,^^ or who failed to expel foreign sisters or priests. March 1st — In the town of Cordoba, the municipal police seized the orphan asylum conducted there by the Sisters of Charity. The sisters and the orphans were turned into the street and the institution closed. March 2nd — The same Adam Moreno and Torres Mal- donado, who had, a few days before, been driven out of the Cathedral Church at Tepic by the people, at the head of a large number of followers, attacked the parish church at Jalisco. Again, the people as- sembled to defend their rights. The cor- respondent of “EL UNIVERSAL’’ reports that there were some wounded in the fighting and that the agent of the Federal Government lost his life. Rafael Sanchez Lira, State Commissioner, instructed the police to take what steps might be necessary to subdue the opposition and charged them, especially, to place under arrest any priests whom they might find in the church. The agents of the Federal Government called for reinforcements and it is said that sum- mary punishment was administered to those who had sought to defend their church. These facts were all reported as items of current news in “EL UNIVERSAL.” March 3rd — Three agents of the Government were killed by the people of Nayarit who refused to allow their churches to be inventoried and taken over by the Government. 16 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM March 3rd — The Governor of the State of Potosi signed and published a law reducing the number of priests in the State from ninety-five to twenty-five, allowing one for each township, excepting Matehuala and Santa Maria, where the number allowed is two, and the State Capitol, where the number allowed is ten. The Catholics at once protested against this law on the ground that it was a violation of the Constitution because the number allowed was not in accordance with the religious needs of the State. March 4th — At Chihuahua, the Catholic people organized a public parade of protest against the anti- religious conduct of the Government. The Governor sent the police to break up the demonstration. In the rioting several per- sons were seriously wounded. March 5th — The State Governor, without having given any notice of his intention, ordered the closing of the Theological Seminary, at Oaxaca, a school conducted in the same city by the Knights of Columbus, and two other im- portant private schools. A school conducted in connection with the Protestant church in the same place was not disturbed. When the people protested against this mani- fest partiality, they were repressed by the police ; rioting ensued, and troops had to be employed to restore order. March 5th — Protests from all over Mexico began to flow into the Government. One, signed by four THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 17 thousand people of Merida, Yucatan, de- mands that Congress take steps at once to amend the Federal Constitution. March 5th — The Bishop of Colima, in a dignified brief, pro- tested against the reduction of the number of priests in his diocese from sixty-five to twenty. March 6th — The Governor of Vera Cruz served notice, through the Municipal President, on the Bishop of Papantla that, hereafter, there shall be only one Catholic Bishop in the State and ordered the Bishop of Papantla to cease functioning as a Bishop in the State. March 6th — The Cathedral Church of Holy Cross was closed at Papantla by order of the Municipal President. March 9th — In the City of Zamora, the protests of the people were overruled by the municipal authorities and the private schools were closed. March 9th — The K. of C. Hall at Zamora was seized by the police and closed. March 9th — The headquarters of the Young Men’s Catholic Association of Mexico, at Zamora, was closed. March 9th — The residence of the Catholic Bishop, at Zamora, was seized. March 9th — The chapel of the Servants of Mary” was closed at Zamora. 18 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM March 9th — In spite of the fact that there are 25,000 Catholics at Jalapa, the State Capitol of Vera Cruz, only two churches were allowed to remain open for public worship with only three priests to minister in them. March 9th — At Rio Verde, in the State of Potosi, some four thousand Catholics marched to the office of the Municipal Government and filed a per- sonal protest against the persecution of re- ligion. The President refused to receive their protest and called out the military to fire on the petitioners. March 9th — J. D. Dale, a Baptist preacher, was arrested at Tampico for having exercised his ministry, being a foreigner. The Rev. Mr. Dale was ordered deported. March 9th — The State Legislature of Tamaulipas passed a law reducing the number of priests from eighty-five to twelve. There are 600,000 people in the State and most of them are Catholics. March 10th — The Governor of the State of Vera Cruz re- jected the petition of the people of Papantla demanding that the State Legislature recon- sider the law suppressing the diocese of Papantla and banishing the Bishop on the grounds that this was a matter not within his jurisdiction. March 12th — The Protestant Institute at Saltillo was or- dered closed because it was conducted by American clergymen for whom it was un- lawful to engage in primary educational work in Mexico. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 19 March 12th — Headquarters of a Catholic Labor Union at Guadalajara were closed, the building and furniture was confiscated. This account of atrocities could be extended, but enough has been said to give the reader a fair picture of conditions which resulted from the orders issued during February and March of the present year. Every incident here mentioned has been taken from the secular daily press of Mexico City. The story is far from complete. Information from private sources shows that acts of violence and serious rioting occurred and continue to occur throughout the eleven States in which the anti-religious laws are being enforced. Officials of the State and National Governments have refused to hear the protests that have been made and, in most of the States where an attempt has been made to enforce these laws, a kind of deadlock between the people and the Government has been reached, the people refusing to obey the anti-religious orders pending action by the Government on their protests. The record which we have presented, and which spans only thirty days, is sufficient to prove to any fair-minded man that the present Mexican Government is persecuting the Catholic Church. To expose the fact and the extent of that persecution is the purpose of this pamphlet. Many Americans have asked, are asking is there a persecution of the Church in Mexico? Some have denied it. Official publications of certain Protestant denominations have categorically stated that the Mexican Government is not persecuting the Catholic Church. Some Catholic periodicals have treated the Mexican trouble as if it were an open question as to whether the Church is being persecuted or not. The light of facts will clear up this indecision and this ignorance. If it is cited in opposition that the economic and social welfare of the Mexican people requires that religion be persecuted; that the Catholic Church in particular be de- prived of life and liberty, we can but say that such a course has never proved beneficial to any people or to any nation. The history of Mexico contradicts it fiatly. With any economic programme built upon Christian principles, the 20 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM Church in Mexico is in full sympathy. The sympathy of the Church is with anyone who with sincerity of purpose, with honesty and with justice, espouses the cause of the Mexican people against exploiters who would barter away not only the national resources of the nation but even the labor of its people; who would hold those people in slavery and ignorance. The Church would just as strongly condemn and oppose those who, under pretence of reform, would under- take to fetter still more firmly the bonds that hold its citizens in servitude and oppression. They who at present rule Mexico have forfeited any right to the confidence and respect of the people both by their own actions and by the history of the movement of which they are a part. THE ST. LOUIS JUNTA As early as 1906, the opposition to Porfirio Diaz was assuming formidable proportions. The syndicalist move- ment which made such headway in the countries of South- western Europe at that time was accompanied by a sym- pathetic movement in other Latin countries, and especially in Mexico. The Diaz Government resorted to banishment and deportation in self-defense. Many of the refugees fled to the United States and established their headquarters in St. Louis, Missouri. Sitting there, in 1906, they drafted a manifesto, declaring themselves to be the champions of the cause of labor in Mexico, and to be the unalterable enemies of the Catholic Church. In this manifesto, they assume the name ^ ^Liberal Party of Mexico’^ (Partido Liberal Mexi- cano). The platform which they published at the time sheds much light on the acts and policies of the present Government of Mexico. We quote the follow^ing from that platform: ^ T 1 . Obligation of only imparting laical instruction in all the schools of the Republic, whether Government or private schools, establish- ing the responsibilities of the directors of those schools who may not comply with this precept. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 21 ^^15. To prescribe that foreigners, by the sole fact of acquiring property, lose their original nationality and become Mexican citizens. Nationalization, in accordance with the law, of all property which the clergy has in the hands of other people. ^T9. To aggravate the penalties of the reform law for violators of the same. ^^20. Suppression of the schools under the clergy. THE MADERO-MAGON REVOLUTION When it became evident that Porfirio Diaz could not maintain himself in power as President of Mexico, two factions took the field, both of which sought the control of Mexico. Francisco Madero at the head of one of these factions, was, for a while, successful. The Magon Brothers, working from the United States, with the cooperation of the Industrial Workers of the World and a large number of Mexican refugees residing in the United States, charged Madero with being dominated by the capitalistic classes and stirred up the outlying departments against his Government. THE PLATFORM OF 1911 The purpose of the Magon Revolution is clearly stated in a manifesto which its leaders in the United States pub- lished on April 3, 1911, and from which we translate the following paragraphs : ^‘The Liberal Party of Mexico has not taken up arms for the purpose of overthrowing the Dictator Porfirio Diaz to put in his place any new tyrant. The Liberal Party of Mexico is taking part in the present insurrection with the deliberate and firm 22 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM purpose of expropriating the land and the imple- ments of production for the purpose of turning these over to the people, that is, to all and each one of the inhabitants of Mexico. We consider this step essential if we are to open the doors for the effective emancipation of the Mexican people. ^^Now, there has likewise entered the field of conflict another party: The Anti-Reelectionist Party, whose Chief, Francisco I. Madero, is a millionaire, whose fortune has fabulously been increased by the sweat and the tears of the peons of his estates. This party is fighting to make ^effec- tive’ the right to vote and thus to set up a bourgeois republic, such as that of the United States. ^^The Dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz is bound to fall; but the Revolution will not end with this. Over the tomb of this infamous dictatorship there will stand, face to face, with weapons in their hands, the two social classes; those who have and those who have not, pretending, the first to main- tain the preponderance of its interest, and the second to abolish those privileges by instituting a system which will guarantee to every man Bread, Land, and Liberty.” THE MURDER OF MADERO Francisco Madero was able, for a brief period, to assume authority in the City of Mexico. He was, with difficulty, able to extend the sphere of his influence to the confines even of the valley of Mexico, which is comprised in the Federal District. The story of the murder of Madero and his companions shocked the civilized world because of the cowardice and treachery with which it was accompanied. VICTORIAN O HUERTA Victoriano Huerta, after the fall of Madero, held the reins of office. He never succeeded in effectively placing himself in control of more than a small portion of Mexico. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 23 On February 18, 1913, Huerta sent telegrams, bidding for the support of the State Governors and revolutionary leaders. Carranza, then Governor of the State of Coahuila, replied to this by announcing his refusal to treat with Huerta and calling on all State Governors to join him. On March 26th, under the name of the Plan of Guadalupe, Carranza drew up his platform and assumed the active leadership of armed insurrection against Huerta. The hostile demonstrations made by the United States forces on April 10, 1914, at Tampico, and, on April 21st, at Vera Cruz, were rapidly followed by the downfall of Huerta, who resigned on July 15th of that year. Thus, Carranza was able to make American intervention his rally- ing cry for union among the insurgents. Marching upon Mexico City, Carranza took possession of the Government upon the withdrawal of Carvajal. Calling a convention of the revolutionary leaders for the purpose of confirming himself in office, Carranza found the opposition too strong to be controlled and, denouncing the Military Chieftains in a decree, he removed his Government from Mexico City, thus abandoning the finest part of Mexico to be ravished by contending bands of insurgents. DECREE OF DECEMBER 12, 1914 On December 12, 1914, Carranza issued a proclamation to the Mexican nation. He disavowed all intention to make himself President. He outlined the principles of reform for which he proposed to continue fighting and, denouncing those who refused to cooperate with him, he announced a preconstitutional period, within which he would publish laws providing for the reforms he advocated and, at the end of which, he would convoke a national constituent congress to ratify his decrees, reform the Constitution, and elect a Chief Executive. There is no travesty of Government that we recall equal in its cynicism to that of Carranza, who, while his country was being tom to shreds by the bands of marauders, withdrew from the scene of conflict and, setting up his 24 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM printing-press, industriously printed his decrees and laws by authority of his position as ^Tirst Chief of the Army en- charged with executive power/^ Desiring to win the sympathy of foreign nations and to rally under his banner the people of Mexico, Carranza declared, in a letter to Eliseo Arredondo, his agent at Washington, to whom he wrote, on February 3, 1915: ^ ‘When peace has been restored I shall convoke a Congress, duly elected from among the citizens, which shall have the character of a Constituent Congress, which shall have for its purpose the embodying into Constitutional precepts those Reforms which shall have been dictated during the struggle.” CARRANZA AND THE RADICALS In March, 1915, Carranza entered into a formal and solemn alliance with the radicals who had assembled in the port of Vera Cruz, under the name of Casa del Obrero Mundial (Home of the Workers of the World). This organization was composed largely of Mexican refugees who had been driven out of the United States. The alliance between Carranza and this organization w^as a formal contract, published in the “Official Gazette”, of wffiich Paragraph 6 is as follows: “The workers of the Casa del Obrero Mundial shall have charge and conduct an active campaign of propaganda for the purpose of winning for our cause the sympathy of all the laborers of the Re- public, as well as those who belong to the Casa del Obrero Mundial, demonstrating to all Mexican laborers the advantages which they will gain by joining the Revolution, in view of the fact that the success of this will make effective for the laboring classes the improvements in their conditions which they are now* seeking through their organiza- tions.” THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 25 The treaty allowed the labor groups in the Revolution to assume the name of ^Teds^^ and to march under a red flag and, under the leadership of Obregon, resulted in the domination of Carranza and his Government by this radical faction. CARRANZA PROPOSES PEACE On June 11, 1915, Carranza made an appeal to the insurgents and to the people of Mexico to rally to his standard and assist him in restoring peace and order. This appeal is interesting as it sets out the attitude of Carranza at that time toward religion and because of the promises it contains. Paragraph 3 of this proclamation is translated as follows : ^^(3rd) The Constitutionalist Laws of Mexico, commonly called the laws of the Reform, which establish the separation of Church and State and which guarantee to the individual the right to worship God ac- cording to the dictates of his own con- science so long as in doing so he does not disturb the public order, shall be strictly observed; therefore, no man shall suffer either in his life, his liberty, or his prop- erty by reason of his religious belief. The temples shall continue to be property of the State, in accordance with laws al- ready enacted; and the Constitutionalist Government shall renew the authority to use for purposes of worship such of these as may be found necessary. Regardless of the fact that he had no territory over which he held undisputed control, Carranza went on legislating and published his decrees in the ^'Constitu- cionalista.^^ 26 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM MEXICO DEVASTATED While Carranza was thus enacting this farce of exer- cising the legislative power of the State, by virtue of his self-conferred title of First Chief of the Army encharged with executive power, Mexico was abandoned to the savage passions of the revolutionary hordes who swarmed in from the mountains and valleys. The condition of Mexico, as a result of this orgy of insurrection, was described in pathetic terms by eye-witnesses to a Committee of the United States Senate, which was appointed to report on conditions in Mexico by the Sixty-sixth Congress. Therein is given full and detailed description of how through the ruthlessness of Carranza and his followers the people of a great republic were ravished, their culture wiped out, their property destroyed, the industries ruined and their very existence as a civilized nation placed in jeopardy. It is true to say that this was made possible by the policy of inactivity then adopted by the Government of the United States. CONGRESS OF QUERETARO Encouraged by the recognition which the Government of the United States extended to him in October, 1915, and by the success of his army under the red flag, Carranza convoked an election of Congress on September 14, 1916. In this proclamation, Carranza naively remarks that his opponents have objected to his decrees and that, should he proceed to set up a government with no more formality than had been observed in issuing the decrees, his enemies would at once bring against it the charge that it did not have the sanction of the popular will ^ Vhich is sovereign”. This proclamation is a colossal hypocrisy and it is perfectly evident that, in issuing it, Carranza took infinite pains to make impossible the very thing which he pretended to favor, namely, a free and full expression of the will of the people of Mexico of its sentiments. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 27 Not only were the great majority of voters not per- mitted to vote, but, not trusting even his own followers, Carranza, in the law under which this election was held, prescribed that no candidate could be elected who was unable to prove that he had given material support to the Carranza Revolution. It cannot, therefore, in any sense, be said that the Constitution thus enacted is a supreme law freely adopted and approved by the people of Mexico. It was imposed upon the people by a chosen band of revolutionists, who did not have, by any means, control, even in a military way, of the Republic, and who had refused to fight under the national flag of Mexico, but only under their own red banner. This Constitution has never been submitted to any form of ratification by the people of Mexico. Such is the law to which Calles and his defenders appeal when they claim they cannot accede to the demands of our State Department for justice to American citizens. THE CONSTITUTION OF 1917 Neither the purpose of this pamphlet nor the space at our disposal permits any exhaustive or complete analysis of the Constitution. Space is not available even for the discussion of the provisions regarding property, land, or labor. Our present purpose is to discuss only those features of the Constitution which concern education and religion. The spirit in which the Constitution was enacted is apparent from the first. Article I reads: ^^Every person in the United States of Mexico shall enjoy those rights which are granted to him by this Constitution.’^ No thought here of the inalienable rights of man! How different from the earlier Mexican Constitution — that of 1857 — which in its first article, provided: ^The Mexican people recognize that the rights of man are the basis and the object of social institutions.” 28 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM The Republic to be set up is to be a republic. The doctrine of separation of Church and State no longer satisfied the reformers assembled at Queretaro. The reforms of 1856-74 of Juarez and of Lerdo fell far short of meeting the demands of 1916. Hereafter, there must be more than a separation between Church and State; the Church must be denied her right to life and liberty. EDUCATION UNDER THE CONSTITUTION Under the colony, and thereafter, up to 1856, there existed in Mexico an official association of Church and State, whereby the Church was placed in control of all education. So zealous were the clergy in the work of educa- tion that, as early as 1570, the civil authorities of the colony complained to the crown that, by educating them, the clergy were ruining the Indians, making them vain and insubor- dinate. The Church not only founded universities and professional schools, its priests carried enlightenment into every parish and mission. In measuring what was accom- plished, one must remember that public free education for all the people is a very modern movement. The fact remains and cannot be disputed that the intellectual foundations and traditions of Mexico are due to the Catholic Church. Education and civil war do not go together. Consider- ing the history of Mexico, from 1824 to 1856, one can see that the development and extension of public instruction was impossible. In 1856, the whole educational and charitable edifice which the Church, under handicap of revolution, of political interference, of racial divergencies and antagonisms, had constructed, was swept aside, destroyed, and nothing was put in its place. In that year, the Government of Mexico seized the Church and stripped her — stripped her till she became legally a pauper and powerless. The then Government of Mexico took over all her possessions — schools, landed property, endowments, charitable institutions — everything. The Government robbed the Church of the means to promote education; and, by constitutional law, prohibited THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 29 the Church from teaching or promoting education. For the past seventy years — for a period of over two generations — the Government of Mexico has been responsible for educa- tion in Mexico. What is its record? We quote from C. E. Castaneda, a Mexican, by birth, who wrote in the Educational Review for October, 1924: ^ ^Compulsory education has been in force in Mexico for more than fifty years but schools have not been maintained except in the larger cities and in a few towns. Thus the rural sections have never enjoyed the blessings of a public school system. Out of 16,000,000 of inhabitants, less than 20 per cent are able to read and write, while thousands of native Indians are unable to speak Spanish to this day.’’ If the people of Mexico and the Mexican Government are now determined to extend the benefits of public instruc- tion, no one will rejoice more thereat than the Catholics of the country. In that work, the Mexican people will have the good wishes of our own and of every nation. But the Mexican Government will not receive the support of men or of nations that love justice if she persists in denying the fundamental right of the parent to care for the religious education of his child; if it drives God out of all schools; if it makes of public education a political and governmental tyranny. Our American Government stands upon two principles. The first is respect for and defense of the inalienable rights of the human individual, which majority rule may never violate, but must always support. One of those rights is the right of conscience; of religious liberty. The second principle is like unto this first — freedom of spiritual, moral, and intellectual development, which, in a word, is freedom of education. We believe that of this individual freedom is born responsibility, and, in our common corporate expression of it and its consequences, America has made and is to continue her life for the general welfare of all her citizens. To know that the Government of Mexico is absolutely denying these principles to-day, and advocating a political doctrine with which no American can agree, it is sufficient to read the present Constitution of that country. 30 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM That Constitution prohibits a minister of religion from teaching in any primary school, whether the school be public or private. Article 3 reads: ^^No religious corporation nor minister of any religious creed shall establish or direct schools of primary instruction.^^ Any school erected for the teaching of religion shall ipso facto become the property of the Federal Government and in all matters, curriculum, teachers, etc., shall be under the direction of said Federal Government. (Cfr. Article 130) No minister of religion nor a religious corporation is allowed to initiate or maintain any institution for scientific research. (Article 130). How shall we reconcile these facts with the first clause of Article 3 of the Constitution, which, copying the law of 1857, declares that education in Mexico shall be free? The insurgent band at Queretaro, having no hope of being able to mould these communities of devoted men and women to their materialistic program, decided upon the destruction of all religious orders. Article 5, of the Constitution, provides: ^The States shall not permit any contract, cove- nant, or agreement to be carried out, having for its object the abridgment, loss, or irrevocable sacri- fice of the liberties of man, whether by reason of labor, education, or religious vows. The law, therefore, does not permit the establishment of monastic orders, of whatever denomination, or for whatever purpose contemplated.'' Young men and women desiring to enter even the secular ministry of religion are, under this provision, to do so at the risk of having incurred an irremovable impediment against their entering any other field of learning should they discover any incompatability in the ministry to which they sought to devote themselves. ^ ‘Under no conditions shall studies carried on in institutions devoted to the professional training of ministers of religious creeds be given credit or granted any other dispensation of privilege which shall have for its purpose the accrediting of the said studies in oflScial institutions. Any authority THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 31 violating this provision shall be punished crimin- ally, and all such dispensation of privilege be null and void, and shall invalidate wholly and entirely the professional degree toward the obtaining of which the infraction of this provision may in any way have contributed.’’ Not only is the Church prohibited from engaging in any organized work of education — not only the ministers of religion and the Church — but laymen may not even engage in the open discussion in the press of topics of every day interest. The same Article 130 provides: ^^No periodical publication which either by reason of its program, its title or merely by its general tendencies, is of a religious character, shall comment upon any political affairs of the nation, nor publish any information regarding the acts of the authorities of the country or of private indi- viduals, in so far as the latter have to do with public affairs.” Thus, the framers of the Queretaro Constitution sought to drive the Church from a field of social action in which the Catholic Church has rendered services of incalculable value to human society in all ages since her foundation and under all flags where she has been organized. LEGAL STATUS OF THE CHURCH If we now turn to a consideration of the legal condition and status of the Church in Mexico, we find an intolerable state of affairs. Indeed, no one can question the justice with which the Catholic Bishops of Mexico cry out in their joint pastoral, of April 21, 1926, ^^Non passumus” — ^we cannot ! These Bishops do not, however, surrender. With a faith in God and a confidence in man which is admirable, they set about the work of exposing the errors into which the Mexican nation is being seduced. That Constitution does not permit any church to hold any property of any kind. Section 2 of Article 27 reads: 32 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM religious institutions known as churches, irrespective of creed, shall in no case have legal capacity to acquire, hold, or administer real prop- erty or loans made on such real property; all such real property or loans as may be at present held by the said religious institutions, either on their own behalf or through third parties, shall vest in the Nation, and anyone shall have the right to denounce property so held. Presumptive proof shall be sufficient to declare the denunciation well- founded. Places of public worship are the prop- erty of the nation, as represented by the Federal Government, which shall determine which of them may continue to be devoted to their present pur- poses. Episcopal residences, rectories, seminaries, orphan asylums or collegiate establishments of religious institutions, convents or any other build- ings built or designed for the administration, propaganda or teaching of the tenets of any re- ligious creed shall forthwith vest, as of full right, directly in the Nation, to be used exclusively for the public services of the Federation or of the States, within their respective jurisdictions. All places of public worship which shall later be erected shall be the property of the Nation. That Constitution denies legal recognition to any church or religious body of any kind. Article 130 reads: ^^The law recognizes no juridical personality in the religious institutions known as churches. THE STATUS OF THE CLERGY That Constitution does not recognize a minister of religion as one having charge of the church or of the conduct of a religious service. Such charge is given to a janitor under whom will serve a committee of ten citizens. Article 130 reads: ^^Every place of worship shall have a person charged with its care and maintenance, who shall be THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 33 legally responsible for the faithful performance of the laws on religious observances within the said place of worship, and for all the objects used for purposes of worship. The caretaker of each place of public worship, together with ten citizens of the place, shall promptly advise the municipal authori- ties as to the person charged with the care of the said place of worship.’^ That Constitution prohibits a minister of religion from criticizing any fundamental law of the country. All the clergymen of the United States who have dared criticize the Eighteenth Amendment would have been liable to a jail sentence if they lived in Mexico and Mexico had our Eighteenth Amendment. Article 130 reads: ^‘No ministers of religious creeds shall,either in public or private meetings, or in acts of worship or religious propaganda, criticize the fundamental laws of the country, the authorities in particular or the Government in general.’’ That Constitution prohibits any foreign-born person from being a minister in Mexico. Article 130 reads: ^^Only a Mexican by birth may be a minister of any religious creed in Mexico.” That Constitution aims to make religion and the religious ministry an odious thing: a thing to be looked down upon, mistrusted, even despised by the people. It robs a minister of his political manhood; of his rights as a free man, it makes of him a suspect and an unworthy. Article 130 reads: ‘^Ministers of religious creeds . . . shall have no vote, nor be eligible to office.” A minster is excluded by that Constitution from being elected a representative to Congress or to the nation’s Senate; and ipso facto he is ineligible for the Presidency. Article 55 reads: “They (representatives) shall not be ministers of any religious creed.” 34 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM Article 59 reads: ‘'The qualifications necessary to be a senator shall be the same as those necessary to be a rep- resentative, excepting that of age Article 82 reads: “He (the President) shall not belong to the ecclesiastical state nor be a minister of any re- ligious creed/’ That Constitution prohibits any minister of the gospel from inheriting any property of any kind from any indi- vidual, either for himself or as a trustee, unless the individual giving the bequest is related by blood to him within the fourth degree. Article 130 reads: “No minister of any religious creed may inherit, either on his own behalf or by means of a trustee or otherwise, any real property occupied by any association of religious propaganda or re- ligious or charitable purposes. Ministers of religious creeds are incapable legally of inheriting by will from ministers of the same religious creed or from any private individual to whom they are not related by blood within the fourth degree.” No trial by jury is allowed for the minister of the gospel who offends any of these anti-religious provisions of the Constitution. Article 130 reads: “No trial by jury shall ever be granted for the infraction of any of the preceding provisions.” No religious orders, such as characterize in our country the Catholic Church, or the Episcopalian, or the Methodist, or the Salvation Army, are allowed under that Constitution ; nor are organizations such as St. Vincent’s Hospital, or St. Luke’s Hospital, or the Presbyterian Hospital, allowed to hold property, to function. Article 5 reads: “The law, therefore, does not permit the establishment of monastic orders, of whatever denomination, or for whatever purpose contem- plated.” THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 35 Article 27, Part III, reads: ^Tublic and private charitable institutions for the sick and needy, for scientific research, or for the i diffusion of knowledge, mutual aid societies or organizations formed for any other lawful purpose shall in no case acquire, hold, or administer loans made on real property, unless the mortgage terms do not exceed ten years. In no case shall institu- tions of this character be under the patronage, direction, administration, charge or supervision of religious corporations or institutions, nor of ministers of any religious creed or of their de- pendents, even though either the former or the latter shall not be in active service. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP Article 24 of the Constitution of 1857 provided for the right of aU Mexicans never to be twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense. It is a strange and interesting coin- cidence that the statement of this right is wholly eliminated from the Constitution of 1917 and in its place the following is substituted: ‘^Art. 24. Everyone is free to embrace the religion of his choice and to practice all ceremonies, devotions, or observances of his respective creed, either in places of public worship or at home, pro- vided they do not constitute an offense punishable by law. ^^Every religious act of public worship shall be performed strictly within the places of public wor- ship, which shall be at all times under govern- mental supervision.^^ The conditions under which religious services shall be held, by whom they shall be held, the arbitrary directions as to all these details are immediately under the Federal Government of Mexico; all other oflScials are only auxiliaries in these matters to the F ederal authorities . Article 130 reads : “The Federal authorities shall have power to exercise in matters of religious worship and out- 36 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM ward ecclesiastical forms such intervention as by law authorized. All other officials shall act as auxiliaries to the Federal authorities.^^ The Constitution provides that only such ministers shall officiate as have been so designated by the legislature of the particular State, and no foreign-born may minister. Article 130 reads: ^‘The State legislatures shall have the exclusive power of determining the maximum number of ministers of religious creeds, according to the needs of each locality. Only a Mexican by birth may be a minister of any religious creed in Mexico.” To know these provisions of the present Mexican Constitution is to know that they are absolutely irrecon- cilable with justice and the rights of man. They tell plainly a warfare against religion — a deliberate endeavor to destroy its growth; to pull out its roots. We cannot accept it. Our whole national life has been a protest against such iniquity. It is abhorrent to every human instinct of fair play. PERSECUTION IN MEXICO The Constitution of 1917 did not go into effect at once after its promulgation. No effort was made, however, to secure for it the formal ratification of a popular vote, nor was it submitted to the States which compose the Mexican Union, for their action. To put it into effect, enforcement laws were necessary. Carranza, burdened wdth protests from foreign as well as from Mexican sources, hesitated and did not enforce in full the Constitution. Under Obregon, the ^Teformers” became more insistent. Obregon is a practical man in spite of his profession of sociaUsm. In reply to the insistence of his more ardent followers, an official bulletin of the Federal Department of Education, which had only recently been created by the Congress, published, in 1921, an article from which the following is taken : THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 37 “Our lyric socialists and our theorizing syn- dicalists, along with a whole tribe of politico-social leaders, who live at the expense of the workmen, paint for us the present Russian regime as the ideal of all human aspirations. Doubtless, many of the ideas reduced to practice in Russia should be accepted by us who are engaged in establishing the rule of social justice, but to demand that we set up here abruptly systems and procedures which are foreign to our character, to our education, and to our social standards, is too unpractical to be accepted by those who would liberate Mexico. Under Calles, all prudence seems to have been aban- doned. Scarcely had he organized his Government when he set about the work of destroying the Church. On February 22, 1926, his Minister of Public Instruction issued a decree calling upon all private educational institu- tions to comply with the Constitution or close their doors. Two days later, President Calles, himself, sent tele- graphic instructions to all State Governors calling upon them to regulate and enforce the Constitution regarding churches and clergymen. A chorus of alarm and protest rose from every corner of the Republic. The superioresses of thirty-six communities of nuns engaged in educational and benevolent services in Mexico, addressing the Archbishop of Mexico, on March 19, 1926, declared : “Our consciences cry out in alarm. We feel that, under the pretext of prudence, we are being led to the brink of an awful abyss, at the foot of which misery and even degradation await us. We have pretended that in our schools only lay instruction is imparted. We have erased the names of our insti- tutions because they may not contain any evidence of religion. We have removed the sacred images from our parlors and reception rooms. We have transformed our chapels into social halls and, what is even worse, we have taught the pupils to conceal the fact that they are being taught religion, that 38 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM they recite a brief prayer at the opening of class. We have forbidden them to have a Cathecism of Christian Doctrine or any other symbol of religion among their school equipment. We have, in short, taught our pupils to deny the truth and, if we go further, we will tear out by the roots from their tender hearts their Christian Faith and manhood. are prepared with all our sisters to under- take the hardships of an effective and open fight. We long for the opportunity to sacrifice everything, even our very lives if that be necessary, to accom- plish the amendment of those Articles of the Con- stitution which oppress and enslave our Holy Mother, the Church, and her Ministers, whether national or foreign, who, with untiring zeal and self-denial, are laboring for the salvation of souls in our country. are ready to obey in all things. But, if you will permit us, we will refuse in every school we have in the Republic to accept the infernal rules which it is sought to impose on Catholic institu- tions.^^ Mothers in all parts of the Republic demanded that their rights to educate their children be respected. The principals and teachers of a hundred and fifty schools in the vicinity of Mexico City, alone, demanded that the regula- tions be not enforced. The Bishop of Huejutla but voiced the opinion of his people and of all the Catholics of Mexico when he denounced the infamous regulations. denounce, cried Bishop Manrique in in- dignation, “I condemn and I abhor each and every crime which the Government of Mexico has, dur- ing my days, committed against the Church, es- pecially and above all, its ill-disguised purpose to root up and destroy once and for all time the Catholic Church in Mexico. 'T denounce not only Articles 3, 5, 27 and 130, of the so-called Constitution of Queretaro, but I denounce each and every law, each and every precept, issued in violation of the law of God, the rights of man, or the teachings of Holy Church. It THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 39 means nothing to me that a law be fundamental, organic, whatever its category, be it of today, yesterday, or tomorrow, if it is a violation of those sacred rights. With regard to those measures which are a violation of the dignity of man, as are many of those which, in its madness and diabolical fury against the Catholic Church, the Government is taking; I denounce them all with indignation — not as a pastor of the Church of Jesus Christ, but as a citizen who knows and values the rights and the dignity of a free man. ^^The Government declares that the Mexican people, especially the lowly, approve of their acts and demand that the laws be enforced. I defy the Government to go before the people, to give the people a fair chance to vote on their proposition, so that they, and the whole world with them, may once and for all know how the people of Mexico feel on these matters.’’ The Association of Catholic Alumnae, counting among its members the most distinguished women of Mexico, demanded, in a dignified petition, presented by them to President Calles, on April 25, 1926, the right to give their sons and daughters a Christian education. They pointed out that laws which are nothing but the exalted ideas of revolution, cannot demand the respect of the people. The National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty, a federation of Catholic men and women whose membership reaches a total of several millions, circulated among its members a petition calling upon the Federal Congress to amend the anti-religious Articles of the Con- stitution. This petition, signed by hundreds of thousands of Mexican men and women, w^as printed during April, 1926: ^The Constitution,” they declare, ^^makes provision for its own amendment. In seeking its amendment publicly, as we do, we are only exer- cising a right which the Constitution itself guar- antees to us.” On February 25th, the Young Men’s Catholic Associa- tion, in a published statement, declared: 40 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM the name of justice and fair play, we protest that a law which denies the natural rights of man is no law at all. A law which is received with indignation by a whole nation should be reconsidered.'^ Bishop Lara of the Diocese of Tacambaro, in a dignified and firm protest, demanded that President Calles and the Federal Congress respect the rights of the Catholic people of Mexico. ^^Too long," declares the Bishop of Tacambaro, ^ Ve have remained silent. We trusted your word, Mr. President, when you declared you were undertaking the regeneration of our country and asked for our aid and forbearance. We hoped that you were sincere when you assured us your only purpose was to lead the country to that high ideal which we all cherish. ^Tn 1917, we solemnly protested against the anti-religious clauses of the new Constitution. We, today, as then, stand ready to lay down our lives in defense of that protest. If we have not openly opposed the government, it has been because dis- cretion has been exercised in enforcing those pro- visions." The Courts of Justice, as well as the legislative and executive authorities. State and Federal, have been appealed to by the Catholics of Mexico. Every means available to law-abiding people have been resorted to. The result has been but to intensify the fury of the Government, and bring down upon the heads of the Catholics a persecution against which no Catholic and no Catholic institution is secure. The pen revolts against setting down, in full detail the savage cruelty and ruthlessness, the crimes and abuses which, in the nameof the law, are being committed in Mexico. In this brief document, we can hope only to mention a few incidents which have reached the public through the secular press. Beginning with the ^Tre-Constitutional Period," under Carranza, and without interruption since then, the Church THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 41 in Mexico has been subjected to a program of confiscation and suppression. All property, buildings, and equipment, the residences of bishops and priests, benevolent institutions, homes for the aged, hospitals, orphanages, asylums, the institutions of associations of Catholic laymen and women engaged in benevolent and welfare work, educational institutions, even ecclesiastical seminaries, all have been seized and converted to other uses, or, if they have been allowed to remain in the service for which they have been dedicated, it has been only by the tolerance of some govern- ment agent, which at any time may be revoked. Those religious communities which were not suppressed outright were obliged to abstain from the benevolent and educational services to which they were devoted; their members could not wear their habit in public, and they were at all times subject to the abuses and even violence of fanatical officials. Since the publication of the decrees of February 22nd and 24th, 1926, the persecution has been aimed chiefly at the clergy and the schools. PERSECUTION OF THE CLERGY Article 130 of the Constitution declares that the ministers of religion shall be subject to the laws and regulations concerning all professions and gives to the State legislatures ^ ^exclusive power of determining the maxi- mum number of ministers according to the needs of each locality.” When President Calles decided to enter upon his pro- gram of drastic suppression with regard to the clergy and the churches and the schools, he foresaw that he would not have the support of public opinion either in Mexico or in foreign countries. Conscious of the difficulty he might encounter if foreign clergymen were made to suffer injustice, Calles, to avoid complications, decided upon the summary expulsion of all foreign priests. By concerted action, the homes of foreign priests were raided late in the evening of February 10th. Like criminals, 42 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM they were seized. Time was not allowed for even the elementary preparations for travel. Some of the priests testified they were not given time to clothe themselves or even ^^to seize a hat.^^ They were brutally hustled from their homes, herded into a train that was waiting, shipped to the coast and put aboard the first ship available. When inter- viewed by representatives of the press, the Minister of Police refused to give any information. The State Govern- ments followed the lead of the Federal authorities and, within a few days, the foreign priests had either been deported or, under pressure, had consented to leave. THE RIGHT TO PETITION DENIED (Fearing the reaction of public opinion, the Attorney- General issued instructions to the agents of the Govern- ment throughout the Republic, ordering them to arrest ^^any Catholic who may circulate or sign a protest. In some of the States, the Catholics adopted the practice of hanging mourning on their front doors as a symbol of their protest against the persecution. This was prohibited and many were arrested on charges of sedition because they had, even in this mute fashion, protested. A few days later, the Federal authorities took steps to oust from public service every employee who, in any manner, manifested his dis- approval of the acts of the Government.^ On February 13th, Calles began sending telegrams to the State authorities, calling upon them to enforce Articles 3, 27 and 130 of the Constitution, and especially the clause of Article 130 which refers to the number of priests in each State. The standing Committee of the Federal Congress appointed a sub-committee to cooperate with CaUes in ^^all his acts concerning the religious situation. The Governor of Potosi replied that he would do what he could at once and that, if necessary, he would call an extra session of the State legislature to deal with the religious matter. On February 12th, he issued an order declaring that, from that day, not more than twenty-five priests would be permitted to function in the State of THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 43 Potosi. The State has a population of more than 625,000. The number of priests in the State on the date of the decree was ninety-five. Seventy of them, approximately 75 per cent, were suppressed. The people of Potosi protested and carried their appeal into the District Court in the Capitol of the State. The Court found the order of the Governor unconstitutional. The Governor, refusing to abide by the decision of the Court, sent troops through the streets and forcibly took possession of the churches on the pretext that they had been abandoned by the priests who had refused to solicit the license required for conducting public worship. Thereupon, the populace attacked the troops and, to avoid bloodshed, the Governor conceded the opening of not more than ten of the churches. Later, a committee of lay- men conferred with the Governor and convinced him he must obey the orders of the Court. The Governor, on March 21st, authorized the opening of all the churches, but refused to amend his order regarding the number of priests. The Governor of Puebla did not deem a special session of the State legislature necessary, but took up the work of persecution at once. On February 16th, he issued an order to all convents and schools in the State, allowing forty-eight hours within which to comply with the Con- stitution. He fixed two hundred and seventy-three as the number of priests to be allowed in the State and ordered all members of religious orders engaged in teaching to comply with the Constitution, to cease wearing the religious habit, nor any other visible emblem of religion in the school. All chapels in the schools were ordered closed. The police and courts were called upon to neglect nothing in their effort to carry out the instructions. The Archbishop of Puebla, in a dignified appeal to the State legislature, denounced the order reducing the number of priests as unconstitutional, because the number allowed being less than one priest for four thousand Catholics was insufficient, and demanded, before adopting any regulations, an effort be made to ascertain the needs of the State. Only eleven of the twenty-eight States of the Mexican Union have complied with instructions received from Calles. 44 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM The number of priests has been reduced In Vera Cruz from 195 to 38 “ Pueblo (( 330 to 270 Tabasco (( 85 to 40 Oaxaca (( 180 to 30 Jalisco (( 480 to 250 Colima ( ( 65 to 20 Michoacan a 525 to 50 Nuevo Leon a 225 to 100 Yucatan..... iC 70 to 40 Potosi n 95 to 25 Tamaulipas..... (C 85 to 12 “ ELEVEN STATES u 2,335 to 875 In these measures, reducing thus unreasonably the number of priests, the Mexican authorities can have but one object, that of disrupting and wrecking the entire organization of the Church. A bishop who would undertake to comply with a decree such as this would find himself in the impossible position of having to select from among the priests those who are to remain in their parishes and those who are to be denied the right to exercise their ministry. Controversy is unavoidable. Last year, under the leader- ship of Luis Morones, the actual Minister of Trade and Industry, an absurd attempt was made to organize a schismatic church to be known as the National Church of Mexico. The people of Mexico repudiated this attempt to turn them away from their faith. There can be no doubt that the laws denying to thousands of priests the right to function as Catholic priests, the closing of hundreds of Catholic Churches, the denial of an opportunity to attend public services to millions of Catholics, is a deliberate at- tempt to drive the Catholics of Mexico into the creation of an independent church. It is a diabolical plot to divide the Catholics of Mexico; to drive great numbers from their loyalty to the Catholic Church and, by dividing the wor- shipers, bring about the ruin of religion. Thank God for the faith and courage of the Catholic men and women of Mexico, who will, in spite of all, remain loyal to God and Holy Church, and in the end, restore to their own nation the rule of justice and right ! The fact that. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 45 of the thousands of priests in Mexico, not one has been found willing to accept the conditions of the Government is a glowing tribute to the faith and the manly courage of the Catholic priests of Mexico. OUR DUTY AS AMERICANS Neither the American people nor the American Gov- ernment has any desire to intervene by force in the affairs of the Mexican nation. We must, first and last, promote the cause of peace. An enlightened intercourse based on fuller knowledge and understanding of the facts must be encouraged. Thus guided, the right-thinking and justice-loving men and women of Mexico, if allow^ed their inalienable rights of freedom to think and to vote, will rescue their country and its administration from the slough of religious persecution and of tyranny into which it has been misled. There is no doubt that our own country, when it ut- tered the Monroe Doctrine, assumed a measure of real responsibility to maintain the independence under a demo- cratic government of the republics of this continent — to defend against tyranny and usurpation the peoples of those republics. The Monroe Doctrine explicitly protested against the acquisition on this continent of any material foothold by any government inimical in tradition to the principles of our American Government. By that pronouncement, the United States gave notice it would oppose even by physical force such acquisition of territory. If the acquisition of territory may be injurious and perhaps eventually fatal to the stability or well being of our owui government and our own institutions, may not the dissemination of principles, without any acquisition of territory, be equally injurious and fatal. There is no thought with us of the use of physical force or of any of those measures that lead to war. War and the thought of war are abhorrent to us. This should not blind us to the urgent necessity of both understanding the crisis and of being insistent in the presentation and defense 46 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM of those truths that alone will save the crisis from catas- trophe. The danger today is no less grave than when seizure of physical territory on this continent was threatened by foreign powers. That threat spelt ultimately, as the United States saw, the death of liberty in the young republics to the south, and perhaps the death of liberty in our own land. The danger today is more subtle, more insidious. If the principles of liberty and true liberalism can be denied with impunity in Mexico, they may be so denied in other re- publics of Central or South America. They may be ques- tioned in our own country, and if allowed to advance, may undermine our own understanding and our own enjoyment of true liberty. Whatever minor problem the Mexican situation presents, this is the major problem — this is the problem — that challenges every right thinking American and on which America must both speak and act for its own defense. The Republics of America are not only at the threshold of a period of rapid population growth and industrial development; they are equally with the rest of the world to feel the influence of the new political and social doctrines. The problem which confronts our country today, in common with its neighbors of America, is : Shall we continue to maintain the high standards of justice, those eternal principles of human rights, upon which our system is founded and which are the life-blood of our nation; or, shall we stand idly by while systems develop which deny and denounce those principles? Are we to be as zealous today in safeguarding our precious political heritage as were our fathers one hundred years ago, not guarding in rigid, fossil sameness, but conserving the foundations upon which it is erected, permitting it to grow and develop and become adjusted to the changing conditions of human life? In Mexico, today, we are witnesses of widespread, radical social changes. The Mexican nation has survived fifteen years of travail by which that nation has seen her moral and her physical strength sapped, and wasted until she lies prostrate — helpless in the hands of her assailants. Noble indeed was the cry of 1911. We fight not for the overthrow of one tyrant to set another on his throne! Alas, for the liberalism of those days, which demanded for THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 47 man the greatest amount of individual freedom and liberty, and for the township and province the greatest amount of political autonomy consistent with national existence ! A new tyrant has indeed set himself up in Mexico! The tyrant of secularism, who defies God — denounces re- ligion as man^s worst enemy — and tramples under foot the rights with which man enters the world and of which he may not justly be deprived. Loyalty to our own destiny demands that we defend our institutions as we did not hesitate to do of old. That we stay the hand which would set up on our continent a system and a law subversive of that which we have in- herited. Our sympathy must go out to the suffering and the lowly of Mexico whose rights are being trampled upon. Popular sovereignty is not functioning in Mexico. It is not functioning not because the people are unworthy or incapable, but because its place has been usurped. It behooves us to know conditions in our sister Republic with a full and honest knowledge. It behooves us to ex- tend the helping hand of moral and material support to those who would devote themselves to the upbuilding on our southern border of a nation that at least recognizes as does our own those principles of the fundamental rights of man which are not merely national, but international — which are the corner-stone of that common union of an equal humanity for which we labor. It is our bounden duty to defend these against the teachers of new doctrines, the preachers of strange beliefs, to the end that, functioning freely, the people of Mexico may rescue their nation from the morass into which she is being led. THE HOLY FATHER ADDRESSES THE CATHOLICS OF MEXICO ‘‘To His Venerable Brothers Joseph, Archbishop of Mexico City, and the other Archbishops and Bishops of Mexico, Pius XI sends Greetings and Apostolic Blessing. “Venerable Brothers: The fatherly solicitude with which We, who by reason of the high office bestowed upon Us through the will of God, follow all the faithful of the whole world, demands in a very special manner that We love with a singular love those whom We see stricken with graver ills, and who, therefore, need all the more the zealous care of their common Father. Hardly had We been raised to the Chair of St. Peter before We very gladly directed towards you. Venerable Brothers, Our most considerate and loving attention as We realized that you were beset by such afflictions as certainly bring shame to a people almost totally Catholic, and who, at the same time, make up a civil society cultured and adorned with all the arts of civihzation. “It is scarcely necessary for Us to tell you how wicked are the regulations and laws invoked against the Catholic citizens of Mexico which have been sanctioned by officials hostile to the Church, and which by their enforcement have long oppressed you. You are fully aware that these laws are far from being ‘reasonable laws’, nor are they useful and necessary for the common good as assuredly all laws should be. On the contrary, they do not seem to merit even the name of laws. Our Predecessor, Benedict XV, of happy memory, accorded you de- served praise because you rightly and moved by your i^ligious beliefs took exception to these laws by solemnly protesting against them, which action of Pope Benedict We, by this Our letter, do not only ratify but make Our very own. Indeed We are moved all the more insistently to utter this public protest and condemnation of such laws seeing that, day after day, the warfare against the Catholic religion is being w’aged more bitterly by the rulers of the Republic, so that assuredly whatsoever lies within Our power to aid the people of Mexico towards the estab- lishment of peace, even that now becomes both ineffective and useless, all of which will result to the great detriment of your beloved country. Who is there that does not know that Our Apostolic Delegate whom you, two years ago, received with such marks of appreciation and joy, was expelled from Mexico City as if he were a common enemy of the Republic? 48 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 49 This act not only betrayed lack of a sense of justice and a breach of good faith, but was likewise a most grievous insult both to Us, to the Hierarchy, and the whole people of Mexico. “And if, under the circumstances. We refrained deliberately from a public protest — which no one can deny this act rightly and richly deserved — and bore patiently for a long time the insult, imploring that you too should endure it with calmness. Our hesitation was due not only to the sentiments of peace which ever actuate Us, but also to that consuming hope which We cherished in Our fatherly heart that eventually the rulers of the Republic would acknowledge and volun- tarily accept the certain and well-established rights of Our Apostolic Delegate. “However, this temperateness and courtesy on Our part failed of a happy result although the civil rulers had openly promised that they would receive Our Apostolic Delegate and that they would in no way offend against his dignity nor hamper him in the exercise of his official duties. You already know how painful to Us was the unexpected and altogether undreamt of tidings that these same rulers of the country, contrary to all etiquette and custom, had refused to honor the obliga- tions which they had assumed, and had forbidden Our Venerable Brother, Seraphim Cimino, whom they ought to have received as Our Apostolic Delegate, to return to Mexico when his failing health required his temporary absence from the country, his departure being grasped as an occasion for their deed, but without any sound cause or justi- fication. “Wherefore, the rulers of that Republic by their refusal to accept Our Apostolic Delegate have, at the same time, attempted utterly to repudiate Our own ministry which pactically all rulers the world over accept as a ministry of peace. They then turn themselves to the false argument of the necessity of their protecting the Republic in order that they may justify the happenings which take place in your country to the detriment of its Catholic citizens. “Day after day these hostile laws and regulations are more bitterly enforced and if this continues, the common rights of citizenship will be automatically denied Catholics, and the functions and ministry of the Christian religion itself will die. This liberty of action, moreover, which the rulers of the country deny the Catholic Church, they freely bestow upon a schismatic sect called the National Church; although this sect is in conflict with the sacred rights of the Roman Church, they have fostered its beginnings and its undertakings, while, on the other hand, they consider you enemies of the Republic for the sole reason that you have preserved intact and in its entirety the patrimony of 50 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM your ancestral faith. Yet afflicted and saddened as We are by these events, there is one thing that has brought great solace to Our heart, for We know that the Mexican people are strenuously combatting the machinations of these schismatics. Wherefore, while We profoundly thank the Providence of God, We beg of you. Venerable Brothers, to speak loudly your praise of all the faithful of the Republic of Mexico and vehemently to exhort them to stand steadfast in their defense of the Catholic religion. Let Us repeat here the words which We uttered last year at the Sacred Consistory held on the Fourteenth of December in the presence of a large gathering of distinguished Cardinals and Bishops, at a moment when We were deeply stirred by the calamities that molested Us. At that time We said: ‘We are scarcely able to conceive a hope for better days except they come as the result of prompt assistance on the part of a Merciful God, which help We daily implore, and from the development amongst the people themselves of a harmonious co-ordination of energy that will bring about a united Catholic action. “Our especial advice and commands to you are to this end only, that We may, by Our fatherly love, spur you on to develop ‘Catholic action’, by mutual cooperation and the highest education of the flock committed to the pastoral care of each of you. We say Catholic Action, for, in the present sad condition of affairs, it is supremely necessary. Venerable Brothers, that you, together with the whole clergy and every organization of Catholics, most studiously hold yourselves entirely aloof from every kind of political party so that you will not give the enemies of the Catholic faith the pretext to contend that your religion is bound up with any political party or faction. Therefore, all Catholics of the Republic of Mexico are forbidden as such to establish any political party under the name of Catholic. Above all, bishops and priests, in keeping with their praiseworthy record of the past, must not become members of any political party nor write for the journals of any political faction for their ministry necessarily extends to all the faithful and to all citizens as well. “These, therefore. Venerable Brothers, are our counsels and com- mands. At the ,same time, the faithful who must and will doubtless faithfully follow them and put them into practice cannot be forbidden to exercise these civic rights and duties which they have in common with all other citizens. In fact, their very faith and the common welfare of Religion and Country require that they make the best use of such rights and duties. Even the clergy cannot refrain altogether from an interest in civic affairs or put aside completely all care and solicitude for the things of public life. Indeed, although holding themselves THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 61 studiously aloof from every attachment to any party, they ought, in keeping with their priestly office and safeguarding the sacredness of their ministry, to promote the welfare of their country by diligent and religious exercise of their civil rights and duties and by setting a good example which the faithful can follow, so that each one of them will studiously comply with their public obligations as the laws of God and of the Church demand. “For the attainment of this most noble end, your clergy, while they must, as We have said and exhort again and again, be free and aloof from all partisan contentions, will nevertheless find open to them a wide field in which they can spend their energy in the interest of religion and morals and culture, as well as in the betterment of economic and social conditions, thus training their people, especially the youths pursuing higher studies and workingmen, to think and to act as becomes Catholics. There is no doubt in Our mind that if you correspond faithfully to these Our exhortations and follow them earnestly and diligently the heavy afflictions which have long beset the noble Mexican people will at length, with the help of God, happily abate and cease. Meanwhile, We most lovingly impart Our Apostolic Blessing both to you. Venerable Brothers, and to the clergy and faithful of each of you as well as to the whole Mexican people, as a token of Heavenly blessings and a pledge of Our singular love for you. “Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, the Second day of February, 1926, in the Fourth Year of Our Pontificate. “PIUS XF' JOINT PASTORAL BY BISHOPS OF MEXICO Venerable Brothers and Beloved Sons: “Let us turn our eyes to the legal condition and present state of the Catholic Church in Mexico and we shall see that the present conditions are unbearable and with what reason we have believed that the time has come to say: NON POSSUMUS! “But as it is not our desire to embitter minds, we shall content ourselves with a simple enumeration of the precepts of the Constitution and of their violent application, omitting all comment.” The first subject taken up is the contents of the Constitution, as it affects persons and things, and the Pastoral points out that it does not recognize the juridical personality of the Church : 52 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM ‘The Constitution establishes the absolute separation of Church and State and Congress is deprived of the right to establish or prohibit any religion (Art. 130) and freedom is granted to all to profess any religion according to their conscience (Arts. 24 and 130). “Given the principles expressed in the paragraphs of section A, page five of this Pastoral, we should have nothing to object to, but the Constitution explicitly fails to recognize the juridical personality of the churches and the federal authorities are authorized to exercise the intervention designated by the laws in the matter of worship and exterior discipline (Art. 130).’’ Constitutional Inhibitions Criticized As regards the ministers of religion, the Pastoral points out that: “1. They are not considered as such but as simple members of a profession (Art. 130), and contrary to the attitude toward other pro- fessions, it is required that they be Mexican by birth (Art. 130) ; State legislatures are given authority to determine the maximum number (Art. 130) ; they are prohibited from the exercise of their political rights (Arts. 82, 55, 59, 130) and from the exercise of their purely civil rights (Arts. 3, 27, 59, 130). Their religious action is fiscalized, for they are compelled to go, accompanied by 10 residents of the neighborhood, to inform the authorities of the fact that they have taken charge of some church or that they have moved to another place (Art. 130). In short, while they are denied all juridical personality as ministers, and are considered as ordinary members of a profession, they are deprived, almost absolutely, of their rights as citizens and this even though they be Mexicans by birth. “The taking of vows and religious orders are absolutely prohibited” (Art. 5). The rulings of the Constitution on other things of a religious character are described as follows: “ ‘Matrimony’ is declared to come under the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil authority and enjoys no validity beyond that which is attributed to it thereby (Art. 130). If the State would confine itself solely to the declaration that a civil marriage is necessary for civil purposes, we should have nothing to object. “ ‘Public worship’ is confined to the interior of churches (Art. 124). Even here it is made subject to government intervention and supervision (Arts. 24 and 130). “ ‘Education’ is free (Art. 3), but it must be secular in all primary schools, even private schools, which are subject to Government super- THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 53 vision, not merely in regard to hygiene but also in regard to the subjects taught, the number and quality of the professors, etc. (Art. 3), and ministers of religion and religious orders are prohibited from establishing and directing primary schools (Art. 3) and official recognition is denied studies taken in church establishments.” (Art. 130). “ ‘The Press’ which is considered religious by program, title or by its ordinary tendencies may not pubhsh information or opinions con- cerning national political matters” (Art. 130). “Churches are declared to be the property of the nation and the Government may assign them to other uses (Art. 27). New churches may be erected only with the authorization of the Secretary of the Interior” (Art. 130). Confiscation of Church Property “The Constitution abolishes respect for churches (Arts. 27 and 130) and respect for bishoprics, country houses, seminaries, homes, schools, religious houses, private charitable institutions . . . (Art. 27). Ministers are prohibited from inheriting even from private individuals except their close relations (Art. 130). The Church is prohibited in general from exercising any ownership whatsoever over real estate or capital raised thereon (Art. 27). Any property which the Church may now possess, either of itself or through an intermediary, is ordered to be turned over to the nation, and the people are granted the right to denounce property held by the Church or its ministers in this case, presumption being considered sufficient proof on which to base the denunciation” (Art. 27). After mentioning the “unique clause” which says that “trials for infractions of Article 130 will never be jury trials”, the Bishops say: “After this enumeration of constitutional precepts, it may be asked can the Church fulfill her divine mission when such limitations are placed upon her? Can she develop her civilizing and charitable influence if she is prohibited from disposing of the very elements which are indis- pensable for her existence? Is the full spiritual development which Jesus Christ demands at all times possible when priests and churches are limited to an insufficient number? Is it not irrational, is it not unjust that priests should be denied the rights proper for every citizen, and that unbearable and even humiliating charges be placed upon them? Can parents fulfill the sacred duty imposed on them by God, that of giving their children a Christian education, if Catholic schools are closed and they are forced to send their children to schools which are without God and which are wholly paganized? 54 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM ‘Tt is obvious that this is impossible, and that it is necessary to tell the truth in order to safeguard the inalienable rights of the Church and the very sacred rights of the individual conscience and of the family.” The Present Persecution “The enumeration of the vexations suffered at the time of the revolution would be long and tiresome. Omitting them completely, let us pass on to the facts of the day. “They have legislated even to the extreme of suppressing two dio- ceses of the Republic. There is question of actually prohibiting some prelates from residence in their sees; the homes of others have been taken and their persons molested. “Under the guise of patriotism, numerous foreign priests have been withdrawn from their ministry and expelled with violence, although by their labors they were and are deserving of our gratitude and were most profitable factors in the religious life of our country. “It is desired to reduce the number even of the Mexican priests to an absolutely insufficient degree; it is desired to eliminate them all by placing humiliating and impossible conditions upon them, for instance the condition which has been imposed in some places, and which is not required of any one in any country, namely, the condition of marriage. “An attempt is made to reduce vocations by closing the seminaries or making their existence difficult, as has happened in some States. “With grave injury to civilization, to morality, to religion and the rights of parents, private Catholic schools have been closed or official and -completely anti-constitutional conditions have been imposed on Them. “Self-sacrificing virgins, whose prayers and purity of life stay the arm of Divine justice, have been thrown into the streets while they were giving care to helpless children, to the aged infirm, or the sick of all classes. “Catholic citizens have been prevented from exercising their civic rights and the discharge of public offices to which they had been desig- nated by popular choice, and have also been prohibited from the peace- ful manifestation of their ideas and the lawful exercise of protest. “We have been deprived of our churches. Charge Discrimination “Furthermore, we are not unaware of the fact that while Catholi- cism is pursued, other religious denominations enjoy immunity and even THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 55 benevolent support, and foreign propagandists are permitted all sorts of intemperance of speech and calumny.” The next section of the Pastoral deals with the present duties of Catholics, who are urged to exercise their rights and duties in the three-fold field of religious, social and political action. In regard to religious action. Catholics are urged to “work and pray”, to hear Mass frequently, to frequent the Sacraments, to mortify their passions and to intensify their Christian life in order to implore the divine grace necessary for the reform of pubhc customs. In the field of Catholic social and economic action. Catholics are exhorted to remain faithful to those principles set forth by Pope Leo XIII in the Encyclicals “Immortale Dei” and “Rerum Novarum”, but it is made clear that all associations working along these lines must remain strictly above and outside of all politics, in accordance with the admoni- tions of Pope Pius XI. As for politcal action, the Pastoral declares that by this term is understood “all activity related to the temporal government of the nation, whether in the exercise of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Powers, or in collaboration with the Government, as in the just con- stitution or reforming of laws or the substitution of one government for another by means of popular elections.” “We have repeatedly stated that we have been and are foreign to any changes in government”, the Bishops declare. “We content our- selves with manifesting to those in authority at any time whatsoever, the justice of our rights. But as all the aim of human societies are essentially subordinate to the end of man, which is the proper concern of the Church, for this reason the Church, always remaining above and outside of political partisanship, has laid down rules for pohtical action and has instructed the faithful concerning their important duties in this respect. “It is for us and for the priests to remind the faithful of their pohtical duties and inculcate in them the serene and lofty principles of the Church in this respect, but we leave the exercise of pohtical action exclusively to the laity, not the personalistic and petty politics, but the great deep politics which is guided by principles and seeks the common good. “Catholic laymen must resolutely enter this field since as citizens they must concern themselves with the welfare of their country and as Catholic citizens they are under the obhgation to work by legal means for the respect of the rights of the Church and, at this time, for the abrogation of laws contrary to her liberty. 56 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM Obligation of Catholics “Under present circumstances the intervention of Catholics to obtain the liberty of the Church and her development, together with the prosperity of the nation, is not, beloved sons, a simple piece of advice which we are giving you, but a very serious obligation of conscience of which we remind you; for every Mexican should procure the greatness of his country and the liberty of the Church. Now, less than ever, can these precious treasures be obtained by isolated efforts without the disciplined collaboration of the whole nation. Apathy and lack of discipline have everywhere and always been the cause of serious evils. “Therefore, in fulfillment of our duty, we exhort Catholics to work for the good of the nation; and we advise them to enlist in organizations which teach the people theoretically and practically their rights and duties as citizens and organize the nation for the defense of religious liberty, always remaining, however, outside any party and above any party.’’ Reform of Constitution Urgent The last part of the Pastoral contains the following strong statement under the title of “Declarations”; “We must declare that the reform of the Constitution is urgent and brooks no delay. “At the time of its promulgation we launched our peaceful but vigorous protest which was praised by His Holiness Benedict XV and approved and praised successively by the Hierarchies of the United States, France and Spain and, separately, by twenty-five prelates of Latin-America and which, under date of February 2, 1926, the present Pontiff, His Holiness Pius XI, approved and made his own in a letter directed to the Mexican Hierarchy. “Having made this declaration, we then entertained the hope that when the passions of the moment should sooner or later be calmed, our government would understand how detrimental and hostile to almost the totality of the Mexican people was the application of the articles of the Constitution contrary to religious liberty, and we hoped that in a spirit of concord they would not be enforced and that we should return to a tolerable ‘modus vivendi.’ “Instructed by the experience of long years, this false situation did not fail to inspire us with grave fears; but desirous of not complicating the afflicted state of the country, we decided not to make an issue but to hope that the quiet evolution of ideas and events would bring about a better understanding between legislators and people and that after ^ THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 67 period of relative tolerance and actual peace there would finally be arrived at an agreement of right and definite peace by means of the peaceful reform of our Code. ‘^Unfortunately, despite our conciliatory attitude and the conduct, patient to the point of heroism, of our clergy and our people, religious persecution, instead of being calmed, has become aggravated; and the public declarations and recent events show that this Constitution is to be applied, carried to extremes and even distorted on our account and that our patience is to be met by a systematic attack making as legal. “Under these circumstances, since it is desired to impose on us Mexican Catholics urgently and definitely a Constitution contrary to our most sacred duties of conscience and to our most undeniable rights, it is logical to infer that it is our duty and our right to procure without any delay and by all lawful means that this Consitutituion be reformed to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the people who desire to enjoy full liberty. This conduct is not rebellion because the Constitution itself establishes its amendability and opens the way for reforms, and because it is a just devotion to mandates superior to human law and to the just defense of legitimate interests. “At all times, and particularly at the present time, the Church takes a definite position and avoids extremes. It temporizes, for love of peace, in conflicts of great moment. It does not seek conflict, but if it is com- pelled either to renounce its liberty and to disappear in fact or to defend itself legally but vigorously, it never betrays its cause which is that of God and of Country.” Recall Carranza’s Act The Pastoral then quotes the bill introduced in the Mexican Congress by Carranza and published in the Diario Oficial under date of November 21, 1918, seeking the modification of Art. 3 of the Constitution of 1917 on the subject of education, and also the bill introduced by him asking Congress to modify paragraphs VII, VIII and XVI of Art. 130. This bill was published in the Diario Oficial of December 17, 1918. These measures are quoted as a precedent which proves that the present attitude of the Mexican Hierarchy, in demanding constitutional reforms, does not imply “treason to the nation” as has been asserted. The letter then says; “Would that the civil authority, desirous of the common welfare and of national peace after so many years of sterile conflict between brothers, following the course initiated by President Carranza, would understand that it should pause and heed our declaration as the voice of the great majority of the nation, which merely demands equality 58 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM before a law of true religious liberty, similar to that enjoyed by all religious denominations in the most civilized countries, without any prejudice whatsoever to their progress! “Would that it might hearken to our sound reasons and the senti- ment of the people so repeatedly expressed; that it would suspend, for a time, the application of the persecutory articles, consult loyally the will of the nation and grant it effectively full liberty to manifest its needs and desires! “The result would be peace and prosperity for the nation and the regaining of prestige before the civilized w'orld.” Exhort to Prayer In closing, the Pastoral reminds the faithful that the success of the campaign which is being undertaken depends on prayer, Christian mortification and the reformation of public customs. Catholics are exhorted to remain firm in faith, living with Christian sobriety and constant vigilance. “Let us make ourselves worthy of the protection of Heaven and cease to complain that Divine Providence does not help us, while we cravenly abandon the field of battle and offend God by ever graver sins.'' The people are likewise urged to receive Holy Communion with great frequency, as they did during Lent, and to implore with childlike confidence the protection of the Virgin of Guadalupe. The Pastoral is dated April 21, Feast of - the Patronage of Saint Joseph, and is signed by the following members of the hierarchy: Jose, Archbishop of Mexico; Leopoldo, Archbishop of Michoacan; Francisco, Archbishop of Guadalajara; Jose Othon, Archbishop of Oaxaca; Jose Maria, Archbishop of Durango; Juan, Archbishop of Montorrey; Pedro, Archbishop of Puebla; Martin, Archbishop of Yuca- tan; Ignacio, Bishop of Aguascalientes ; Francisco, Bishop of Cuemavac; Amador, Bishop of Colima; Jesus Maria, Bishop of Saltillo; Emerterio, Bishop of Leon; Ignacio, Bishop of Zacatecas; Miguel, Bishop of San Luis Potosi; Vicente, Bishop of Tulancingo; Manuel, Bishop of Zamora; Juan Maria, Bishop of Sonora; Jose Guadalupe, Bishop of Chilapa; Francisco, Bishop of Queretare; Rafael, Bishop of Vera Cruz; Manuel, Bishop of Tepic; Gerardo, Bishop of Chiapas; Antonio, Bishop of Chihuahua; Leopoldo, Bishop of Tacambaro; Francisco Maria, Bishop of Campeche; Agustin, Bishop of Sinaloa; Nicolas, Bishop of Papantla; Pascual, Bishop of Tabasco; Jose, Bishop of Huejutla; Jenaro, Bishop of Tehuan topee; Serafin, Bishop of Tamaulipas; Luis, Bishop of Huaha- pan; Maximino, Titular Bishop of De Derbe; Luis, Titular Bishop of Anemur; Francisco, Titular Bishop of Dahora; Jose de Jesus, Titular Bishop of Cina de Galacia; Antonio, Titular Bishop of Tralles. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 59 STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE APRIL 15, 1926 Our fellow Catholics in Mexico are today suffering a most unjust and far-reaching persecution at the hands of the present Mexican Government. Churches have been confiscated ; priests exiled ; the people deprived of religious ministration ; the teaching of rehgion banished from the schools. On March 6, 1926, the Mexican Government created a special bureau in the office of the Attorney-General to care for the rapid increase of Church property daily being seized by the Government. Much attention is given to the completion of commercial treaties with Mexico. It is far more important, far more essential that we as Americans should actively interest ourselves in securing for the people of Mexico the fundamental rights of religious, educational, and civic freedom. The Constitution of Mexico, in force since 1917, includes in its anti-religious provisions all churches and ministers of every denomina- tion. That those provisions are being carried out almost exclusively against Catholics and the Catholic Church at this time should not blind our fellow-citizens to the fact that they are in themselves absolute denials of these principles upon which we as Americans believe that just govern- ment must be founded. The present Government of Mexico won its way to power by revolution, and has been strengthened in its hold upon power by recogni- tion by our own Government of the United States. Before such recognition was granted, the U. S. Secretary of State, Mr. Lansing, at the direction of the United States Senate, interrogated the then provisional government of Mexico as to whether or not that government would guarantee and provide religious liberty for its people. The Mexican Government solenmly pledged itself to guarantee religious liberty according to the Constitution of 1857. On that promise our Government granted recognition. No sooner was it won than the Government of Mexico scrapped the Constitution of 1857; declared a pre-constitutional “period” and by military dictatorship forced, not through popular vote, but through picked convention, the Constitution of 1917. The present Constitution of Mexico was imposed on Mexico by a band of insurgents at a time when Mexico was prostrate and when the rest of the world was at war. Despite the fact that in 1920 our Government was again forced to 60 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM suspend diplomatic relations with Mexico and did not resume them till 1923 the conditions of recognition established in 1917 were still obliga- tory on Mexico. Those conditions, which underlie all negotiations be- tween civilized governments, were postulated, as promises to the agreements which were later on entered into by both governments. We are amply justified, and not only justified, but, as is every American, obligated, to call upon our Government that its original request upon which recognition to Mexico was granted, be lived up to by the Government of Mexico. The United States gave recognition to Mexico on Mexico’s specific promise that it would guarantee religious liberty to all its citizens. Mexico has not kept the promise, but, on the contrary, her government has entered upon a definite campaign of force to destroy religious liberty and is intensifying that campaign by striking at the roots of religion — religious education. No American can view^ with indifference the active propaganda of principles that are subversive of our own Government; that will, if persisted in, embitter our relations with the whole of Latin-America. Where religious justice is violated, there can be no political, no civic peace. The situation is so critical that we call upon our Catholic people not only to interest themselves as a body, but to hold meetings with their own Catholic brethren that will voice the protest of the public ; that will both call upon our own Government to use its good offices to see that justice is restored and that religious and educational liberty are enjoyed by the people of Mexico. Edward J. Hanna, Chairman, Archbishop of San Francisco, Calif. Austin Dowling, Archbishop of St. Paul, Minn. P. J. Muldoon, Vice-Chairman, Bishop of Rockford, 111. Joseph Schrembs, Bishop of Cleveland, Ohio Edmund F. Gibbons, Bishop of Albany, N.Y. Philip R. McDevitt, Bishop of Harrisburg, Penna. Thomas F. Lillis, Bishop of Kansas City, Mo. THE MEXICAN PROBLEM 61 LETTER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 23 April, 1926 Dear Mr. President: We, the undersigned members of the Administrative Committee of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, representative of the bishops, clergy and laity of the United States, respectfully manifest to Your Excellency our grave concern, the distress and anxiety we feel, because of the injury and the growihg danger to our own country and to inter- nlatiohal good will upon this hemisphere, caused by the present conduct of the Government of Mexico. The distress we feel is not simply our own; through numberless petitions from organizations of our own religious faith, and through petitions from those not of our faith, the increasing critical nature of the situation has been brought home to us. There is no need to rehearse here the provisions of the present Mexican Constitution which wipe out every vestige of rehgious liberty and deny to every priest or minister of the gospel, of any and every denomination, the inalienable rights of a free man. The result has been the setting up on this continent of a government that explicitly denies the principles which we beheve are the very hfe of our country. And the agents of that Government of Mexico are disseminating those principles through the public press and through their own propaganda literature. Political opponents of the said Government have been driven into our own country, or have taken refuge therein. Their presence is not conducive to peace. The disturbed conditions, brought about in great measure by mis- government in Mexico, have driven thousands of Mexicans across the border into our own country. Up to the present, we have promoted good will with the Latin-American republics by favorable immigration laws. The increase in Mexican immigration has already intensified a demand for a modification of our inunigratJon laws with regard to Mexico and the countries of Central and South America. Of itself such agitation endangers the good will which we earnestly wish to stand as a bond between ourselves and those countries. We have a unique and special relation to Mexico because of the positive steps our Government has taken at different times in history to support or deny support to this or that government in Mexico. We are conscious of the limitations of the influence of one govern- 62 THE MEXICAN PROBLEM merit upon another and the courtesies of diplomatic relations. We know- and wish to give public appreciation of the constant effort which our own Government has taken to voice and to advance American principles whenever suitable opportunity presented itself. We know of the deep interest of Your Excellency and the other high officials of the Govern- ment in the individual cases that have been brought before you and of the measures within legitimate influence you have taken to ameliorate the condition of American citizens who have suffered in Mexico from religious persecution. We petition a continuation of those good offices and of your watchful interest. We write in no spirit of criticism ; nor do we make any unwarranted demand. We wish to present with every emphasis our grave anxiety concerning the conditions consequent upon the present conduct of the Mexican Government in its persecution of religion. We need not add that we possess nothing but S 3 m[ipathy and love for the Mexican people. We rejoice in their national aspirations, in their every effort to promote their economic and social betterment, their union and development as a nation. But conscious of the growing importance of the problem to ourselves as a nation, we submit our mind to you, confident that you will do all in your power to aid in the solution of this problem. And our own efforts will continue to be directed to the end that the same principles that have resulted in the blessings of freedom to us may be accepted by other nations, and thus one further bond of common life be sealed among the peoples of this Western hemisphere. With sentiments of deep esteem. Respectfully yours, (Signed) 4 ^ EDWARD J. HANNA, Chairman, Archbishop of San Francisco ^ AUSTIN DOWLING, ' Treasurer, Archbishop of St. Paul ^ P. J. MULDOON, Vice-Chairman, Bishop of Rockford ^ JOSEPH SCHREMBS, Bishop of Cleveland ^ EDMUND F. GIBBONS, Bishop of Albany ^ PHILIP R. McDEVITT, Bishop of Harrisburg ^ THOMAS F. LILLIS, Bishop of Kansas City REPLY OF SECRETARY OF STATE April 27, 1926 Dear and Right Reverend Bishop : The Reverend John J. Burke, C.S.P., General Secretary of the National Catholic Welfare Confemce, has forwarded to me, by your direction, a letter dated the 23rd instant, addressed to the President of the United States by certain members of the Administrative Com- mittee of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, representative of the bishops, clergy and laity of the United States, in which they express their concern and anxiety because of the Mexican Government’s policy with respect to the church and clergy. In reply, I desire to state that I have carefully noted the statements contained in the letter from the Administrative Committee and I shall seek an opportunity informally to bring the fact of your protest and other like protests to the attention of the Mexican Ambassador in Washington. Very sincerely yours, (Signed) FRANK B. KELLOGG The Right Reverend P. J. Muldoon, 1312 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, D. C.