Persecuted Mexico V TKaUn . j-i . J . A-Ax oSi/-S IS \ PERSECUTED MEXICO By H. J. THOLEN ( Hays, Kansas DEDICATION This study of the Mexican situation was prompted by an editorial appear- ing in the Emporia (Kansas) Gazette. It is not strictly confined to an answer to that editorial, but includes much other material, bearing on the Mexican persecution of religion in general and the Catholic Church in particular. No claim of completeness is made, but the information contained herein is authentic and can easily be cor- roborated by any one. To liberty loving Americans who believe in Freedom of Conscience. Freedom of Press and Freedom of Speeiti, we are pleased to dedicate this pamphlet in memory of the founders of this nation who secured for us this priceless heritage. H. J, THOLEN. MINDING OUR OWN BUSINESS “ Young Bill” White, in the Em- porta Gazette and reprinted in the Hays Daily News on February 19, 1935, said: “Josephus Daniels, the New Deal’s Ambassador to Mexico, is under heavy fire in Congress and outside of it be- cause of a speech he made several months ago in Mexico City. He took occasion to compliment the American system of free public schools. Con- tinuing his rounded oratorical periods, he sa d they were the outgrowth of the ideals of Thomas Jefferson, and commended the principles of that great Democrat to the Mexican people. Here it would have ended, had it not been seized upon and misrepres- ented by a section of the American religious press. The Mexican govern- ment for the past 10 years has been engaged in two campaigns, one to educate the people of that semi- illiterate country, and another cam- paign of bitter, ruthless, and, as it seems to us on this side of the Rio Grande, entirely unjustified persecu- tion of the Roman Catholic faith. ‘Tn defense of this policy, Mexicans argue that the Mexican Catholic church was for centuries the greatest enemy of popular education. They say that before the Revolution, when education was by law a monopoly of the church, not one Mexican child in a hundred could read. Now they claim that, as a result of the newly estab- lished Mexican free public schools, 25 4 per cent of the population is already literate. “To our American eyes this would seem no reason for persecuting the Catholic faith, or for prohibiting relig’ous schools. Whether or not, 20 years ago, the Mexican Catholic church was unwilling or unable to as- sume the burden of educating the peons is unimportant today Under our American system, public anJ church schools exist side by side, each bearing a share of the common task, and people are free to send their children to either. “On the other hand, thjngs have come to a pretty pass if an American ambassador abroad can not point with pride to the school system of his own country and praise the ideals of Thomas Jefferson without being ac- cused (as Mr. Daniels recently was by a volunteer congressional spokes- man for the Catholic viewpoint) of “conspiring with the tyrants of Mexico to enslave the people. “As an outgrowth of all this ruckus. Senator Borah, who is old enough tp know better, has introduced a resolm tion calling for a senatorial investiga- tion of the Mexican government’s persecution of the Catholic fa’th. “Such an investigation would prove what everyone knows, namely that such a persecution has ex'sted for a decade, and is conducted with relent- less brutality. But what business is this of the United States senate? Is it not, however misguided, purely a domestic , affair of the Mexican peo- ple? 5 ‘•Do we threaten to investigate or intervene when the Germans per- secute the Lutherans or butcher the Jews, when the Turks have at their ihercy Armenian Christians, when* the Bolshevik Russians ship their mkl- dle classes into exile, or when the British slaughter the Hindus? “How would you feel about it if the French or Spanish government had officially invest'gated the acivities of the old American Kii Klux Klan against the Catholics? Or if the British parliament appointed a com- mittee to “investigate” southern lynchings or northern gang murders? ‘ Senator Borah for 15 years has op- posed the League of Nations on the h’ghly questionable ground that it would permit foreign countries to meddle in American domestic affairs. If v/e want foreign countries to mind their own business, why don’t we set an example by not butting into theirs?” Several glaring errors occur in this b t of “wisdom” from the pen of “Young Bill.” The exact words of Mr. Daniels, which caused, according to White, “a section of the American relig.ous press to misrepresent Mr. Daniels will be given in this record of events in Mexico. The other errors in Mr. White’s statement will become evident from a careful perusal of all of what follows in this brief resume of the Mexican persecutions, covering not 2i{) but 100 years of misrule in that a unfortunate country. Space will not permit even a brief record of the 300 years of progress in culture and civil- ization made between 1524 and 1824, during which time the Catholic church had a frfee hand in the education and civiliz-ation of Mexico, and for which she offers no apology. Of the history of these 30i0 years, she may well be justly proud. This booklet will deal with the past 100 years In which the church has bee*a hampered by the gov_ ernment and particularly the past 20 years for which the Revolutionary party in power is responsible. Charges and counter charges are constantly being made regarding the persecution of the church in Mexico. Recent official statements by the president of Mexico and by the Mexican Ambassador at Washington deny the exlstance of religious per- secution in Mexico. These denials were occasioned by the Borah resolu- tion which called for a senatorial invest gation of the Mexican Govern ment’s persecution of the church. For the purpose of clarifying the matter in the minds of the American people^ we will present authoritative infornqn: tion in regard to the situat’on as it stands today. Members of Protestant denomina tions who believe that the attack up- on the church in Mexico is anti-Cathol lie instead of anti..God and anti- KeJgiaus in general, will find fma a careful perusal of the laws which I will cite, that these laws are directed against all religions and not merely the Catholic religion. Recent acts of 7 the Government under General Calles also bear out the' fact that the aim of the Government of Mexico is to de- stroy every vestige^ of religion and they are proceeding to do so along the same lines which have been followed in Russia for the past 15 years. However, before offering our evidence on the present situation, let us go back to the very beginning of the trouble between the church and state in Mexico in order that we may view the whole matter in its proper setting. This background is necessary for a thorough undersand- ing of the problems. THE FIRST ATTACKS UPON THE CHURCH MADE BY THE GOVERN- MENT OP MEXICO Let us examine the Constitution of 1857 and the Laws of Reform. From July 4, 1822, when the law was is- sued permitting the Government to take possession of the Philippine mis- sion property, and of revenues from pious foundations which were not to be spent within the limits of the Mexican Republic, to the law of November 23rd, 1855, Article 42 of y hich abolished all ecclesiastical juris- diction in civil matters, a series of laws were enacted by congress and the legislatures of the states clearly show- ing the anti-religjous spirit of those who framed them. This spirit was at its height from 1857 to 1874. During the presidency of D. Ignacio Comon- fort the famous Constitution of 1857, decreeing the separation of Church I and stale, was promulgated, and in the years following Benito Juarez framed innumerable laws systematiz- ing the provisions of the Cionstitutioa and enforcing the separation, and in 1874 President D. Sebastian Lerdo de Tejada raised many of the Reform Laws framed by Juarez to constitu- tional statutes. THE CHURCH AND HER PRIVILEGES Law of December 4, 1860: Art. 8-— Right of asylum in churches is abolished and force may and should be employed in whatever measure it may be deemed necessary to arrest and remove according to law a declar- ed or suspected criminal, without the ecclesiastical authorities having a right to intervene. Art. 17—Official recognition former ly given to various ecclesiastical per- sons and corporations is withdrawn. Art. 18—The use of church bells is to be regulated by police ordinance. Art. 24—Public officials are forbid- den in their official capacity to as- sist at any religious ceremony, or entertainment in honor of a clergy- man, however high in rank he may be. Troops of soldiers are included in the foregoing prohibition. Law of May 13, 1873—No religious rite or demonstration of any kind whatsoever may take place outside Oi the church building in any part of the republic. Law of December 14, 1874, Art. 3 — Nor shall the Government recognize in any manner whatsoever religious 9 solemnities. All days, therefore,' that do not commemorate some exclusively civil event cease to be holidays. Sun- days are set apart as days of rest for offices and public institutions. Art. 5—No religious rite may take place outside the church building, neither shall the ministers of religion or any individual of either sex, of any denomination whatsoever, wear in public a special dress or insignia which would characterize him in any way, under penalty of fine of ten to two hundred pesos. Constitution of 1857, Art. 5—The State cannot allow any contract, pact or agreement to go into effect that has for its object the impairment, loss, or irrevocable sacrifice of a man’s liberty, whatever the cause may be, work, education or religious vows. Consequently the law does not recognize monastic orders, nor can it permit their establishment, whatever be their designation or object. Art. 27—Religious institutions or corporations, whatever their charac- ter, name, period of existence and object, and such civil institutions as are under the patronage, direction, or administration of these, or of the ministers of any religious denomina- tion, shall have no legal right to acquire title to or administer any property, but such buildings as are destined for the immediate and direct use of sa‘d corporation and institu- tions. Neither shall they have the right to acquire or man^age revenues derived ^rom real estate. Law of July 12, 1859, Art. 5—All the 10 male religious orders which exist throughout the republic, whatever their name or the purpose of their ex- istence, are hereby suppressed throughout the whole Republic, as also all archconfraternities, confra- ternities, congregations or sisterhoods annexed to the religious communities, cathedrals, parishes or any other churches. Art. 6—The foundation or erection of new convents of regulars, archcon- fraternities, confraternities, congrega- tions, or sisterhoods, under whatever form or name is given them, is pro- hibited, likewise the wearing of the garb or habit of the suppressed orders. Art. 7—By this law the ecclesiastics of the suppressed orders are reduced to the conditions of secular clergy, and shall, like these, be subject as re- gards the exercise of their ministry to the ordinaries of their respective dioceses. CONFISCATION OF PROPERTY Art. 12—^All books printed or manu- script, paintings, antiquities and other articles belonging to the surpressed religious communities shall be given to museums, lyceums, libraries and other public establishments. Art. 13—All members of the sup- pressed orders who fifteen days after the publication of this law in their respective localities shall continue to wear the habit or live in community shall forfeit the right to collect their quota as assigned by Article 8, and 11 if after the term of 15 days designated by this Article they should reunite in any place and appear to follow their community life they shall immediately be expelled from the country. Art. 21—All novitiates for women are perpetually closed. Those at present in novitiates cannot be profes- sed. Law of Feb. 26, 1863, Art. 1—All religious communities of women are suppressed throughout the republic. Law of December 4, 1873. Art. 19 — The State does not recognize monas- tic orders, nor can it permit their establishment, whatever their name or the object for which they are founded. Any orders that may be secretly estab- lished shall be considered unlawful assemblies which the authorities may dissolve should the members attempt to live in community, and in all such cases the superiors or heads shall be judged criminals infringing on in- dividual rights according to Article 973 of the Penal Code of the District, which is declared in force in all the republic. CHURCH PROP,ERTY Law of July 12, 1859, Art. 1—All property which under different titles has been administered by the secular and regular clergy, whatever kind of property it may be, taxes, shares or stock, or the name or purpose it may have had, becomes the property of the State. Law of September 25, 1873, Art. 3 r—No religious institution may acquire 12 property nor the revenuie derived from property. LEGACIES AND WILLS . Law of December 14, 1874, Art. 8 —Legacies made in favor of ministers of religion, of tbeir relatives to the fourth degree, or of persons living with said ministers where they have rendered any spirit- ual aid to the testators in their last illness, or when they have been, their spiritual directors, are null and void. HOSPITAL and charitable • INSTITUTIONS Law of Feb. 2, 1861, Art. 1^—All hospitals and charitable institutions which up to the present time have been under ecclesiastical authority and managed by religious corporations are secularized. Law^ of February 5, 1861, Art. 67 — Charitable institutions that were managed by ecclesiastical corpora- tions or committees independent of the Government are secularized an i placed under the immediate super- vision of the civil authorities. Law of August 27, 1904, Art. 25 — The ministers of any form of religion cannot act as the directors, adminis trators or patrons of private charity; neither can officials, dignitaries, or religious corporations, nor anyone, delegated by them, act in the same capacity. 13 PUBLIC OFFICE Constitution of 1857, Art. 5(5—No member of the ecclesiastical body can be elected ^ cotipressman. Law of Nov. 1874, Art. 58—Nomina- tions for senator are subject to the same conditions as those for congress- man. PRESENT PERSECUTION BASED ON CONSTITUTION OP 1917 President Cardenas of Mexico, on January 25th, 1935, issued a state- ment which was reiterated by the Mexican Embassy at Washington on January 31st. These statements said there is no religious persecution in Mexico. The same statement has been made by emissaries of the Govern- ment, scouting through our country for tourist traffic and for attendance at the Lions International and Rotary International Conventions which are to be held in Mexico City this year. If the denial of the inalienable right of liberty of religious worship by its own citizens is not persecution, then what is it? By law, the Mexican Gov- ernment prohibits training of students for the ministry; has closed and con- fiscated thousands of churches a\id has so limited the number of priests as to make rel'gious worship practically im- possible. By law, the Mexican Govern- ment confiscates at OMce and without the presentation of any further (evid- ence any house or institution wherein a Pi iost or minister has held a^y private religious service. The reiigoifs educatipn of pither children or adults 14 Is prohibited. In denying the liberty of education, the Government has made mandatory the exclusion of the name of God from all schools, and made a necessary part of the curriculum the teaching of the tenets of the National Revolutionary Party. The Mexican Federal Government deprived the citizens within the Federal District of Mexico, numbering over one mil- lion Catholics, of the possibility of religious worship by reducing the num- ber of priests therein to twenty-five. The Mexican Government has abetted and encouraged the different State governments to pursue this policy of persecution and by making public worship impossible, deprived the citizens of the exercise of the right to freedom of worship. In 1926 after fifteen years of per- secution, after all foreign priests had been expelled, it was estimated that there were 3,910 Catholic, priests in Mexico, all Mexican citizens. The Catholic citizens of Mexico petitioned the National Congress stating that this number of priests was wholly inadequate in a nation of fifteen mil- lions, more than ninety-five per cent of whom are officially recorded as Catholic. The Congress rejected that petition and State Legislatures were instructed to reduce further the num- ber of priests. LIBERTY OP WORSHIP DENIED At present in Mexico by law no priest is allowed to minister in any way in fourteen of the thirty states and territories of Mexico. Thie Catho- 15 lies therein, numbering over six mil- lions are persecuted and liberty of worship is denied them. Even when dy- ing, they may not have the services of a priest. In the State of Oaxaca a population of more than a million Catholics is limited in its opportunity of religious worship, of receiving the sacraments, to one priest. In Durango a Catholic population of one million two hundred thousand, scattered over a region of nearly forty thousand square miles, with only primitive means of transportation, is limited in its opportunity of religious worship, of receiving the sacraments, to the services of two priests. In the entire thirty States and Ter- ritories of Mexico a population of fifteen millions is limited by the laws of Mexico to the services of three hundred and thirty-four priests. Yet President Cardenas and the Mexican Embassy in the United States have the effrontry to state ‘There is no religious persecution in Mexico.’' Among the provisions of the Con- stitution of 1917 affecting directly the question of religion, I wish to call at- tention to the following quoted in The outlook March 14, 1917, Vol. 115, No. 11, Page 455. You will note that the Catholic chu^rch is not singled out particularly, arnd that these Constitu- tional provisions apply alike to all re- ligions : “No religious corporations, no min- ister of any cult may establish or direct schools of primary instructio*Q. “Education shall be free but it shall be laical in the official educaticmal in- 16 stitutions as in thie primary, elemen- tary and superior instruction given in the private schools. “Private schools of primary instruc- tion may be established only subject to official direction.” “In other words, both Catholic schools and instruction by priests and nuns, in any kind of schools are pro- hibited. Mexico, of course is a Catho- lic country. “All church property passes at once to the nation. Many churches in Mexico are held by private citizens. These properties also pass to the nation. Here from Article 130, is a grist of clerical reform: “The power of intervention in the public worship belongs exclusively to the Federal powers. “Congress may not dictate laws establishing or prohibiting any re- ligion whatsoever. “Marriage is a civil contract. jThis and other acts of the civil state of persons are the exclusive jurisdiction of the functionaries and authorities of the civil order, in the manner prescribed by the laws, and will have the force and validity that the same attribute to them. “The law does not recognize any personality in the religious .groups denominated churches. “The ministers of the cults will be considered as persons who exercise a Profession. “The Legislatures of the States only will have the power to determine, ac- cording to the local necessities, the 17 maximum number of ministers of the cults. “To exercise in Mexico the ministry of any cult it is necessary to be Mexicali by b’rth.” (Thus all the Spanish, French and Italian clericals in Mexico are barred; even Amer.can priests, Protestant ministers, and mis- s onaries.) “Ministers are forbidden to inher t property,to gather for political pur poses, to take part in political gather- ings, and to vote.” As evidence that the prov sions of the Constitution of 1917 are being applied and made use of by the Gb\^- ernment, I refer you to an Associated Press dispatch of June 23, 1934, which among other things, says: “At Villa Hermosa in Tabasco, two w dows and two girls were arrested and held in jail for ten hours because they had visited a cemetery and put floA^ers on the grave of the husband of ons of the widows. They were finally released on the payment of f nes. A recent decree by the Cover nor provided that all tombstones must be removed from cemieteries and all giaves be without any sacred adorn- ment or flowers.” General Calles, at Guadalajara in July, 1934, emphas zed the view cf the Revolutionary party toward the youth of Mexico. “They must” he said, ‘ wrest youth from the claws of the clergy. The child and the youth be- long to the community and it is the Revolution that has the obligat on of doing away with prejudices and developing the new national soul. For 18 this reason I urge all the Govern- ments in the Republic, all the authori- ties and all the revolutionary ele- ments, that they go into wh^atever fields it may be necessary to go> be- cause the child and the youth must belong to the Revolution.” “America Vol. LI No. 19, Aug. 18, 1934” (Note especially these last four woixis, Belong To The Revolution; not even to the State as in Russia but to the dominant party—the Revolution. There is no longer any doubt at all if there ever was any, that it is the determined design of General Calles and the military dictatorship of which he is the boss to crush out every vestige of religion from the Mexican people. The campaign has proceeded with diabolical ruthlessness and single- ness of purpose. Following the agree- ments made with the church, the at- tack shifted from the Federal Govern- ment to the States. There the number of priests allowed to function was re- duced from time to time to a pitifully small numhar, utterly inadequate ex- cept for only a small fraction of the people, and finally in many states no priests at all are allowed. Then at the beginning of June, 1934, under the pretext that they were not being used (It was forbidden to use theno^) church after church was confiscated. From an official list before us, between June 2 and July 28 no less than twenty seven decrees were issued tak- ing over as many properties. In the middle of this came the elections, and nothing but even darker days were 19 promised by the result, for the pre destined candidate, General Cardenas, left no doubt of his desire to please the fanatical aims of his master, Cal les After the elections, Calles h mself returned publicily to the seene and announced a program which was radically socialistic; the principal item b'f this progTam as stated above was that the child belongs to the Revolution. FREEDOM OF EDUCATION ABOLISHED *‘Calles made a speech at Cuerna vaca in which he set forth the six year plan wh ch he designed for his creature, the new President. In the course of this speech, made in the name of his political party, which is a military camaHllu, he announced his purpose of amending Article 3 of the Constitution which guarantees free dom of education, by abolishing that freedom and putting all education in the hands of his anti-religious party. He continued: “We must enter into and take possession of the minds of the children, the mhids of the youth.” What this meant was clear to everybody who heard him: the National Revolutionary party, dedicat- ed openly to the destruction of all rel gion in Mexico, must possess even the souls of youth, as it now con trols its bodies.’* America Vol. LI No. 21, September 1, 1934. In its issue of August 11, 1934, the Living Church, an organ of the Protestant Episcopal Church, sounded an alarm against the new law that is 20 to ba passed abolishing all private education whatsoever in which any i?e- iigious training is given. Other repr resentative journals of religious opinion according to Archbishop Gur- ley, Baltimore, quoted by the Literary Digest on March 2, 1935, which have unanimously condemned the Mexican situation as a major scandal in woj-lid affairs are: “The Chirstian Century’', “The Christian Science Monitor” “The American Hebrew” as well as Baptist, Presbyterian and Methodist publica- tions. Regarding the question of education in Mexico there is a very enlightening article on this subject in Volume 35, Number 4, April 1935, St, Francis Home Journal, by Hon, Dr. John Jos. Correll. Among other things he says: “At the very beginning of the seventeenth century, Samuel Champ lain, for whom Lake Champlain was named, declared that he was suprised beyond words at the beautiful build- ings of a public character, official residences, cathedrals, churches, hos pitals and universities he saw in Mexico. Dr. Correll continues: “There were schools for Indians, that is trade schools and industrial schools that we would call technical schools, of many kinds. Every church, and even the poorer mission stations, had a school for Indians and besides* being taught to read and write they were schooled in the art of using their eyas and hands. We have come to such schools here in America only in very recent times. *‘Tke TJiliversity of Mfexicd was iished in 1551. Thie Spanish ^r^own was so much interested in this enter- prise th*at is allowed from the rev- enues of the Viceroy a sum of rnoney, approximately two hundred thousand dollars, for the salaries of the profes- sors. It is sometimes said that eur own bluestocking Harvard was. the first school established in America. The fact of the matter is Harvard was not founded Until 1638. At this time, it was little better than a high school, and before the year 1700, had scarcely one hundred students and did not become a university until the nineteenth century. The University of Mexico became a full-fledged university within twenty-five years after its founding. “In short, just lelghty-three years before our proud and stately Harvard, was founded, Mexico had a university licensed to give baccalaureate degrees by the Spanish government. Two hun- dred years befone Harvard had a school of Medicine, the University of Mexico had its misdical college. Eighty-six years before Hunter opened the first school of disstection in Eng- land, Mexico had initiated the study pf surgery and dissection. Humboldt, by no possible streteh of the imagina- tion a friend of the Catholic church, was not one whit stingy with his praise of what he saw in Mexico when he visited it in 1808 for he wrote: “No city of the new continent, not even excepting those o»f the United States, can display such great 3Cieiitifio establishment^ as the oapi- n tal of MexiCa Does this look like? the Catholic church was “for centur- ies the greatest e'rieihy of popular education?” “One of the most interesting books* on education in Mexico has been writ- ten by Professor Bourne; 6t Yale' University, under the title, ‘‘Spain in’ America” In this book, Dr. Bourne' has this to say relative to the educa- tional development of Mexico dtft*ing the ^sixteenth century: “Not all tk^ instHutions of learning founded in^ Mexico in the sixteenth century can be enumerated here, but it is not too mbeh to say that in number, range of studies and standard o»i attainments by the faculties they surpassed any th'ng exisiting in English-America until the nineteenth century.” In ef- fect Dr. Bourne tells us that educa tion in Mexico was three hundred years ahead of education in Ehglish America. “SOmie idea of the growth of educa- tion and the throughness of the teach- ings of the Franciscan monks may be gathered from a letter of Geronim® Lopez to the King of Spain in which he bitterly complains that the clergy^ taught the Indians “all to faithfully^ and thoroughly even to the point of making them excellent writers and latinists.” This was in 1540. The claim has frequently been made, that the first book printed in Amer, ca was the Massachusetts Bay Psalm Book printed in Boston in 1638. Fully a century earlier the La Escala Spiritual (The Spiritual Ladder) was printed in Mexico along with scores 2^ of otlier books before tbe end bf tbe sixteenth century. In 1570 the first medical book '‘Secretos de Cbi!hlrgia’’ (Secrets Of Surgery), printed ih the New World appeared and by 1575 there were no less than 6 printing presses running in Mexico. From this wa must Conclude that the Mexican Indian could read, else Why the plt'int- ing presses?^’ the danieils incident To the stupefaction of all Mexicans, Mr. Daniels on July 26, 1'934, in the course of a speech on education, said this: “The spirit of the Mexico of today was clearly and succinctly stat- ed last week in Guadalajara by Gen- eral Calles in as brief a sentence as that employed by Jefferson decades ago. General Calles, speaking for the ear of all patriotic Mexicans, and particularly those entrusted with leadership, said: “We must enter in to and take possession of the mind of childhood, the mind of youth.’ To the carrying out of that aim, which alone can give Mexico the high place envi- sioned by its statesmen, the Govern- ment is making the rural school a so- cial institution.” »“Now of two things, one is true: either Mr. Daniels knew what Calles meant, or he did not. If he did know, he was guilty of an unwarrantable interference in Mexican politics, on the side, too, of the anti-Christians. If he did not know, then he should not be in Mexico as our Ambassador. “America” Vol. LI; No 21, Sept 1, 1934. u What Calles meant by his words he made abundantly clfear, and it is in- conceivable that Mr. Daniels did not know what he meant. It was, and was^ known to be, the opening gun in a campaign to strike out of the Constitution the last vestiges of ed- ucational liberty, and to place all education whatsoever in the hands of the propagandists of his own rad- ical revolutionary party. The doctrine consecrated by our own tJ. S. Su- preme Court in the Oregon decision June 1, 1925, that the child belongs to the home and the family he calls a “selfish doctrine, because children and youth belong to the community, they belong to the collectivity, and it is the Revolution that has the inescap- ably duty to take possession of con- sciences, to drive out prejudices, and to form the new soul of the nation, children and the young must belong to the Revolution.” This is indeed “the spirit o»f the Mexico of today, which Mr. Daniels lauded, that is, the. s^pirit of those who tyrannize and| make no secret of tyrannizing ovei[. the souls of the people and its young. The plan to revise Article 3 of the, Constitution so that education would be completely under the control of the ruling party, and exclude all possibility, of any religious education, soon met with opposition. In the University of Mexico, which won its autonomy in 1933, after a series of violent re- volts, the Mexican Federation of Uniyersity Students adopted a resolu- tion by a vote of 8 to 1, denouncing the proposed changes, op the i^rouncj 25 that they would again destroy academ- ic freedom, and would substitute an obligatory doctrinaire Socialist education for the secular education now prevailing there. The resolution protests against ‘'any attempt that may be made to subject the institu- tion and its members to rules of thought and action not adopted freely by the University itself/’ The pro test was concurred in by the Rector of the University himseM. PERSECUTION DEFINED Quoting from "America” Vol. LI No. 23, September 15, 1934^ —"What are the people doing labout it? The people^ not the politicans. They are doing what devout Christians have done under similar conditions, in every age of the world. They are defying persecution, and prison, and banish ment, and setting up secret altars where they gather to make their devotions. Sometimes, at untold hard- ships, they make long pilgrimages to places where they may worship opfen- ly in the churches without fear. It has been estimated that several thousand of those dusty, foot-sore pilgrims marched in the Corpus Christi procession at El Paso, Texas. "For the most part worshipers at those hidden altars are unmolested, but once in a while a Judas collects his pay. The story is told of a young man, a frequenter 0l the cock pit and the gambling room, who having a run of hard luck, cast about for some money^ ^nd remembering the 26 fifteen pesos paid to any informer who revealed the place of one of those secret altars, he led the law enforce- ment officers to the place and waited outsidel He had to wait in order to collect his money. When he saw his mother slip out of the door into the clutches of an armed soldier he realized the enormity of what he haa done, and went half mad with re- morse. He fought with the soldiers until they had to knock him sense- less and take him to jail also ” PRIESTS MUST MARRY “In Yucatan a decree, not yet pro mulgated, has provided that for the entire State only three priests will be allowed; further, that these three must marry before they will be per- mitted to exercise their office. Catho- lics massed before govrnment head- quarters on September 26 to protest this decree ^and were shot at by police- men in plain clothes, and many were injured.’’ America, Vol. LI, No 26, October 6, 1934. CONFISCATION OP CHURCH PROPERTY “On September 10, 1934, the Sec- retary of Hacienda reported to the Federal Congress on “the nationaliza- tion of the property of the clergy,” giving the following figures: “238 preliminary investigations, 68 con- signments to the Attorney General of the Republic, l,ll02 judgment pro- cedures, 58 occupations of rural and urban properties “He also reported - 27 that three churches ‘‘gave way to the widening of streets, and six were “disaffected to be used for Federal public service.” At the same time there were increasing evidences of rifts within the Calles pariy, since the President-elect General Cardenas, ap- parently began to show himself too independent of party dictation, under the impression that he had been chosen by the whole people and not merely by his own dominant politico- military organization.” America Vol. LI, No. 26, October 6, 1934. In the diocese of Guadalajara alone twenty priests have laid down their lives for their Faith. Many other priests and Sisters have suffered im- prisonment or death, or both, and the world will probably never even hear of their names. But others are taking their places constantly, and the Catho- lic Church has no intention aband- oning its rights before God of carry- ing religion to an oppressed people, any more than in the past it did it in Poland Or Ireland.” America Vol. LII, No. 1, October 13, 1934. SOCIALIST EDUCATION IN MEXICO “The proposed amendment to Article 3 of the Mexican Constitution was re- ported to the Chamber of Deputies on September 26. It stated that the education in all its types and grades belonged to the Federation, the State and the Municipalities, and that it “shaU exclude all religious education/’ Education “shall be scientific and socialistic.” Members of Religious 28 Orders or any one “directly or in- directly connected with the propaga- tion of a religious creed shall not intervene in any form in the education here treated/^ The amendment, as well a-> eliminating religious education in public and private schools, also would give the State arbitrary con- trol over private institutions without allowing the latter recourse to legal action. (If this is not persecution what is it?,) On October 4, three persons were killed and eight wounded in Puebla in a demonstration against the closing of St. Teresa’s Catholic school. The local government had decreed it State property. “America” Vol. LII, Nd. 2, October 20, 1934, PERSECUTION CONTINUES “It is not as if persecution in Mexico had just broken out anew; it has never ceased all these years. It is merely that in recent months it has put on greater intensity and ferocity, as the Mexican people itself has be- come aroused at ever_increasing exac- tions and tyrannies, Riots, followed by callous shooting by the police, have occurred all over the country fanned by student outbreaks over the deter- mination to impose on all schools a system of education which the Gov- ernment itself calls “Socialistic.” These student demonstrations have no specifically Catholic character; they are a normal and natural revolt in favor of academic liberty. It was into the midst of this delicate situa- tion that the nice old man wbQ 29 repnasented us in Mexico put his inept oar. The dominant military party which has the country by the throat proposed to amend Article 3 of the Constitution by making Socialistic Education by name compulsory in all schools. This is the famous Article 3 which begins: “Education is freie, “pero” (which means “however’’) (These peros in the Constitution have long been the joke of the lawyer fraternity in MexicOi) This particular pero, like the others, of course, nuliified the right guaran- teed by the first clause, but it was proposed to go still further and put Socialism into the Constitution as a compulsory form of education. An inconspicuous Associated Press dispatch of October 10. 1934, said: “Disregarding public opposition^ the Chamber of Deputies voted unani- mously in favor of amending Article 3 of the Constitution so as to make Socialistic education compulsory in all schools except the universities. The Senate is expected to act favor- ably shortly on the proposal.” This is the most deadly blow yet aimed at religion in Mexico. The physical property of the Church has been wrenched from it, Often with violence and bloodshed. Now the souls of Mexicans will be possessed, as Calles boasted and Daniels echoed. Calles in his speech made it perfectly clear that by Socialism he meant atheism. He still possesses the army and so he still can make the country swallow his medicine. But it is in- 30 tolerable that he should have the support of our own country. “In spite of continued opposition by the people, the Government expressed its determination to institute socialis- tic education in all secondary schools. The bill for this was pas^sed by the Chamber of Deputies and sent to the Senate, where it was assured of ap proval. More than 10,000 persons paraded in Mexico City on October 12 in protest against the bill. Police using teargas bombs attacked the marchers, and more than 100 were injured. Because of the many protests against Ambassador Daniels’ speech endorsing the Mexican plan of education, Acting Secretary of State Phillips on October 17 telephoned him for a statement. Mr. Daniels said he had no idea his remarks could be interpreted as having any relation to controversial Mexican matters. — “America” Vol. LII, No. 3, October 27, 1934. This is a weak excuse for all the unfavorable comment caused by Mr. Daniels’ ill timed and ill informed laudation of Calles’s educational policies last July which led to a wide spread demand for his recall as Ambassador to Mexico. Did this protest cause him to abate his unfortunate attitude? It did not, Mr. White’s smoke screen to the contrary notwithstanding. He first offered a lame excuse for his action. Then he took Senator Reynolds to make a laudatory speech to the Deputies in the very midst of 31 their vote to call on the President to expel all the Catholic Bishops. H»e Calles and after his visit gave out a statement acknowledging him as boss of Mexico then told the official paper he was glad to give this statement to it, “because it knew so well how to interpret the Revolution in Mexico/' He then dined the Governor Of Puebla on the very day that resolutions were being passed exalting that worthy as one who had most ruthlessly carried out the Anti-religious program. Is this folly or is it malice? HOW THE BRITISH REGARD DAN- IELS From the London Tablet as quoted in the Josephium Weekly Vol. XXI, No 9, March 2, 1935: “On this point, our opinion is that although tminod diplomats ought not even once to offend against impart- iality, we might overlook a single in- discretion just as we allow a dog one bite. But the Daniels intervention has been continuous The sans...Dieu Mexi- can paper, El National, might fairly be called a personal organ of Mr. Daniels, in which he encourages anti- Catholic decrees and activities. When the Chamber of Deputies approved the action of the Governor of Puebla in closing all the churches in that State, Mr Daniels immediately and ostentatiously invited the Governor to luncheon. This old ambassador has also fawned upon Sr Garrido Canabal, the Red-Shirt Minister whose men shot down the Government’s critics. An American, now in London, to whom 32 we have posed a question based on these facts, lamely replied that Washington recalled Mr. Daniels just now, it would look like a surrender to the Catholics. We retorted that, in the eyes of good men, it would look still more like an assertion of necessary discipline, and a repudiation of anti- Catholic activities with which the United States ought to have no sympathy at all.” From an “A B C of Mexican Politics” by P. S. M. Ridland, I quote the following: “To the uninitiated observer the political organization of Mexico shows a solid democratic facade which, in the orderly arrangement of the divers architectural elements, closely resembles that df the United States of America. Mexico is of course a Federal Republic, and the Presi- dent, his Cabinet, the Senate, the House of Representatives, the Su preme Court, the Stata Governors and Legislatures are all there. The proportions are smaller, but in other respects the frontages are so much alike that whole parts might be inter- changed without affecting the struc- tures. “The successive revolutionary ad ministrations which have governed, or misgoverned, Mexico since 1917 pAru to the Constitution promulgated in the course of that year as their legal fountainhead. In other words, the Constitution of 1917 is, at the present moment, the fons et origo df author- ity in Mexico which professes to be a democratic country. Yet there is lan 33 extremely curious thing about the Mexican Constitution. It is the wort of a single party, the Revolutionary party. The revolutionaries had pre viously conquered the land by force of arms and Senor Carranza, who was at that time head of the Revolutionary party, solemnly decreed (Sept-ember 14, 1916) that all its opponents should be rigorously excluded from the Con- stituent Congress which was to frame the Constitution. This was duly car- ried into execution, so that all the non-revolutionary elements simply had no say in the matter. Yet the Con- stitution purports to be a truly demo- cratic document, “As I have already pointed out the Mexican Congress is divided, like the American, into two houses, the Senado and the Camara de los Diputadoes, and the members are elected in similar fashion, nominally. Now, in accordance with Article 60 Of the Constitution it is they who decide about new elections and the validity of the claims of their would be suc- cessors: moreover the same article lays down that this decision must be considered final. Of course it would all be quite acceptable if, in each particular case^ the members limited themselves to elucidating the number of votes securd by rival candidates at the polling booths, and then admitted the man who had secured the high est number, “But they do not. Votes in fact, are now about the last thing a Mexican needs if he wishes to be elected to Congress. It has been an accepted 34 principle in Mexican politics that, in every single case, the so called criterio politico should be applied to the claims of candidates. The criterio politico is a very mockery of the basic principle underlaying any demo- cratic regime since it simply means that, regardless of the number of votes secured, the candidate whose political views prove most acceptable to the party in power be immediately admitted, even if his rival really proved successful at the election. “Let us take a concrete example. At the present moment it has to be entirely hypothetical, as for many a long year the non-revolutionary op position has more wisely abstain'ed from taking part in such farcial pro ceedings. Two candidates, A and B, stand for a given constituency. The constituency is almost entirely CJatho- lic. A is also a Catholic: He secunes 20,000 votes. B is a revolutionary and only secures 2,000. The case comes up for revision before the Camara which, by applying the criterio politico invalidates under any pre- text, the 20,000 votes cast for a declares B “legally’’ elected. B takes his seat and will, needless to say, vote in favor of all the anti-Catholic bills together with the rest of th*3 members, many of whom have been previously “elected’ in precis’ely the same fashion. “One would think that the above ought to be more than sufficient to satiate the revolutionary appetite for unlimited power. But it is not. Al- though the revolutionaries have held 35 undisputed sway over Mexico since 1914 there have been serious rifts and divisions among them at dif- ferent times. Unanimity, as regards the non-revolutionary opposition, had already been obtained by processes like that already described. But not many yeiars ago the Obregon-Calles clique decided that it was .necessary to secure uniformity as well. Hence the Partido Nacional Revolucionario, the National Revolutionary party which at present, under what one might call the ‘^super-presidency” of Senor Calles (the president of the party is nominally a somewhat obscure politician by the name of Ramos) controls Congress and, in consequence, controls the whole nation. “This control is so thorough that at the time of this writing every single Senator, every single diputado (with one solitary exception) every single State-Governor belongs to the P. N. R as it is generally called. Its leader j discuss all bills at headquarters and then send them down perfunctorily to the Senate and the Camara for “legal” sanction : a minor matter, as the Senate and the Camara are little better than branch offices of the all- powerful P N. R. “The P. N. R. derives additional, strength from the financial support given it, whether they will it or not, by all Government employes, regard- less of category Every person enter- ing the service of the Administration, is ipso facto enrolled as a member the P. N. R. and he must surrender to it one day’s pay if the month has 86 thirty-one days. The fee is deducted from his pay ciieck by the Treasury Department without even consulting him; and the Treasury Department hands the mone^ys to the proper of- ficer of the P. N. R. where it is ap- plied to purposes specified by the leaders of the party who do not even go to the trouble of consulting the other members about it This means millions a yerar spent in propaganda. “These are the broad principles upon which the Mexican “democrad “to accomplish this object it is proper to dictate all those methods of a le- gal character which tend to facilitate free governmental action.” “For these reasons,” the decree says, “it is ^requisite to amend the dis- positions relative to the law on gen- eral modes of communication so as to prevent the acceptance or circulation in the mail of publications, printed matter, a*nd correspondence in gen* e*ral which involves the propagation or diffusion of any religious creed. Since the mail is one of the most pow- erful auxiliaries in the work of spread ing culture, it would be unsatisfactory to allow the use of this public serv- ice for the traffic of ideas contrary to the desired cultural development.’^ El Universal, a Mexican newspaper, in its issue of Feb. 16, 1935, attacked the constitutionality of the decree which requi*res an “irregular explana- tion whether it is considered from the legal viewpoint, or from the social or purely administrative.” The journal cites article 6 of the constitution, which provides: “The expression of ideas shall not be the subject of any judicial or ex- ecutive investigation, unless it offend 54 good morals; impair the rights of the third parties, incite to crime, cyt cause a breach of peace.” This wording is retained from the constitution of 1857 in that of 1917. Article 7, El Universal points out, provides that “freedom of writing and publishing writings on any subject is inviolable. No law or authority shall have the right to establish censor- ship, require bond from authors or printers, nor restrict the liberty of the press, which shall be limited only by the respect due to private life, morals, and public peace.” To say what publications shall or shall not be circulated by mail, El Universal remarks, is equvalent to censorship and violates the freedom of writing and publishing writings.*’ But, what is a constitution between friends? PRIESTS HUNTED, JAILED IN MEXICO El Paso.—Specific instances of the persecution of religion in Mexico are furnished in affidavits of three priests now resident here and the contents of a letter sent to a Mexican layman by a municipal president in the state of Chihuahua forbidding religious teaching “either in the temple or in private homes.” The letter, signed by Alfredo Elias, mmiicipal president of Rosales, Chi- huahua, was sent to a citizen of Ro- sales whose son is an official of a Catholic organization. It said: “I take the liberty to advise you that superior authorities have com- 55 municiated to this presidency that it is prohibited to give religious or doc trinal teaching in view of the fact that it constitutes a violation of arti- cle 3 of the general constitution ot the republic. Religious doctrine can- not be taught either: in the temple or in private homes. “As you probably have some per- son in your family who is participat- ing in such acts, I would appreciate that you take the necessary steps to refrain from doing so in order that I may not be forced to punish the in- fraction and assess the corresponding punishment.”—The Denver Register, March 3, 1935. One of the priests, the Rev. Arturo Balderrarpa, has made affidavit to the persecution to which he was subject- ed. As pastor of the Church of the Sacred Heart at Madeia, Chihuahua, he was informed by the landlord of the house in which he was residing that the latter had been directed to “tell Father Balderrama to leave this town, as I understand there is an official committee from the centl:*al govern- ment of Chihuahuia coming here to investigate and see if a Catholic priest is practicing his ministry.” The mes- sage, Father Balderrama’s affidavit says, came from the municipal presi- dent. This was about June 4, 1934. The priest then went to Matachic, a mission of Madera, where, he .says, he ceased practicing his ministry, as it was forbidden there by law. “I had been in Matachic three cwr four days,” he continues^ “when I received a let- 56 ter from the presidente municipal, asking me to come to his office. 1 answered his call immediately, and he personally told me: ‘I have been ad- vised that you have been administer- ing here and you have therefore vio- lated the law, and I want you to leave this jurisdiction immediately.’ Hc add- ed: ‘I have strict orders from the central government in Chihuahua that we be on the watch for priests and not to allow priests here.’ I the* re- turned to Madera.” He then went to another mission, where he received information that Jose Blanco, municipal president of La Junta, had gone to Guerrero Cit/ to place a complaint against him, charging that Father Balderrama had been administering in the mission of Basuchil. The priest then fled to Chi- huahua City. “From about the middle of Septem- ber, 19'32, to Nov. 19, 1934, when I crossed to the United States,” Father Balderrama said, “life was unbearable and miserable. I was always hounded and watched, so I decided to come to the United States us a refugee.” — Denver Register, March 3rd, 1935. And yet we are told there is no persecution of religion in Mexico These few instances can be multiplied by the hundreds and thousands, even from the meager information which trickles past the censors out of Mex- ico. But, if the whole truth could be learned concerning the inhuman but- chery going on at our very door, it would make our government withdraw 57 its recognition or insist upon the ori- ginal conditions of recognition beivig observed. From the Houston Chronicle we quote an interview by M. E. Walter with Fortes Gil, until recently, Attor- ney General of Mexico) wbo told bim a man could wear a Roman Collar in Mexico and that the Catholic Churcn could conduct seminaHes there to train future priests. Walter continues; “That evenmg I had dinner with a group of foreign correspondents and, of course, described the talk I "had had with Mr. Gil. “They laughed raucously. “ ‘He said any priest could walk *on the streets wearing a clerical collar?’ they asked. “ ‘Yes,’ I answered. Well here is 100 pesos that you can’t turn your collar around aiid go two blocks without landing in the jug.’ How about the seminaries?’ I asked. There are none,’ they all answer- ed. ‘They may not be specifically for- bidden but they would come under the heading of a private school aMd you can’t operate a private school without a government permit. Just try and get a permit for a seminary. Fur- thermore, if you operated one with- out a permit the property would be subject to confiscation by the govern- ment since it would be used for re- ligious purposes. You can be sure of one thing. There isn’t a seminary ru^n- ning in the country’.’’ 58 A PROMINENT BUSINESS MAN’S VIEW The next man I talked with was a prominent business man and inciden- tally a Mason. “Go^iditions in Mexico today are a crying shame,” he declared. “The gov- ernment does not have even 10 per cent of the people behind it. But what can the masses do. Thy are unarmed and a thousand men can do little be- fore a couple of well armed soldiers. If one military leader ever threw his weight to the other side the whole government in Mexico City would flee before the revolters got within 100 miles of the place. “FORCE OP ARMS” “I am not a Catholic, but I think it is a disgrace the way a small mhior- ity has been able to oppress them.” “How is such a small minority able to hold control?” I asked. “By force of arms. They have a garrison in every city. Any revolt that might start would be nipped in the bud. And the United States is behind the government. “So long as it refuses to allow any- one except the government to buy arms and ammuriition it is actually supporting the government and should feel responsible for its acts.” “How about elections Can’t the op- position party do something in them?” “The elections are conducted by the revolutionary party. They count the 59 , votes. That ought to answer your ' Question,” he replied. “The American ambassador here is , V 4 nice kind old man, but be doesn’t know what it’s all about. He likes to |nake everyone happy so he pats ev- eryone on the back that comes to see him and agrees with anything he says.” NINETY PER CENT CATHOLIC “But is it true that 90 per cent of the population is Catholic? Are they ^ actually Catholics or only Catholics in name? i “They are Catholics. After the con- quest many Indians were taken into the Church that were not adequately instructed. They were Christians in name but pagans in reality. But the missionaries finally got them instruc- ted. This talk you hear back in the States about the Indian being a pagan in reality while professins: to be a Christian is all bunk.’’ “What do you consider the biggest mistakes the Church has made in the last few years? Say in the last half a ^.century. Since the government is so bitter against it there must be some reason?” The man thought for a moment with a puzzled frown on his face. “I can’t think of any,” he finally said. “That is, I can’t think of a^iy_ thing that would be a mistake in a free country. It’s true that when a government official would stand up and announce that he was an atheist 60 and that he did hot believe hi God 01* religion some pHes't or bishop would condemn hirh. And when .some other official would stand lip arid say that a country can hot exist without religion, that civili'z,at‘’on is impossible without the restraints of religion, some pishop or priest would prais: him. That was probably a mistake down here. But it would not be in th) United States or any free country.” CHURCH LEADERSHIP ‘•‘What about the leadership in the Church?” I asked. ‘‘Most of the bishops have been ex- iled or expelled from their dioceses. •‘However, Archbishop Diaz has been able to hold on and the fact that he is still in Mexico shows he is a politician of no small merit. Diaz is a full blooded Indian, but he is a highly educated, a cultured gentlemavi and a Teal Mexican. He has done a great deal to keep down revolt. He has ap pealed to his followers to resort to le- gal methods only and not allow the country to go through the horrors of a civil war. The curse of Mexico is its passio i for experimenting with goveToment. Every president we have had sine ^ Porfirio Diaz has been a little mor radical. Everyone has had to try out something new. “Maybe that is our hope. I can’t imagine them stopping their experi- menting and it seems that they have gone about as far in radicalism as «1 they can go. Maybe the next experi- ments will be in conservatism.” REAL “IRON MAN” “Is Calles i*eally the iron man of Mexico?” “No question about it. The rest of the party follows him like a bunch of sheep. If he were to take a rosary in his hand and start out tomorrow on a pilgrimage to Guadalupe, before he got there every member of the gov- ernment would be following on his heels trying to look sanctimonious.”’ “Why is he so bitter against re- ligion?” “I don’t know. Nobody knows. And nobody knows what are his »real sen- timents. Maybe all this anti-religion campaign is just for political effect., Maybe it’s being done to hold his par» ty together. So long as there is bitter opposition, they have to ^tick togeth- er. If that fear died down they would begin trying to cut each other’s throats. “Calles was a Catholic, but he left the Church to become a Mason, and he is as poor a Mason as a Catholic. Masons are required to believe in a God. He professes atheism. “When he went to the States, for his operation (last fall) he went to a Catholic hospital and insisted on hav- ing the Sisters take care of him. -Yet back here no hospital can be operated by a religious d^romination and no woman may become a nun. 62 GRANDCHILD CATHOLIC “When his grandchild was baptized a Catholic he was its godfather. “Yet he is behind the educational laws that require children to be given atheistical training.’* This sketch of conditions in Mexico has been prepared in order to give publicity to the little known facts about that unfortunate country. The secular press for the m'ost part has been silent even in the face of most horrifying conditions. By its silence, it has lent comfort to the enemy, which it, may some day regret. Sovie: Russia is backhig the anti-religious campaign in Mexico and has already announced that the United States is next in line after the complete over^ throw of religion in Mexico. She ha ; long been active in our Colleges and Universities and has made alarming gains in producing a generation of radical socialists among our inteller tuals who will be the leaders ot to mor^row and willing tools of Russia when the eomnaand to revolt is given. This is not a vague dream nor is it the wild imagination of an alarmist, but a simple warning based on in_ controvertable evidence of the activi- ties of the most diabolical organiza- tion, the “Third Internationale”, the world has ever known. The result of the recent Literary Digest Poll, showing nearly 17% of 112,200 students of our Unive^rsities and Colleges who answered the ques- tionnaire, as stating that they would 63 not bear arms for their country even if our borders were invaded, is evi- dence to me that that 17% are already Commu'iiists. Think it over. H. J. THOLEN. May 1st, 1935.