History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 6/Chapter 24

by Hubert Howe Bancroft

 

CHAPTER XXIV.

ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS.

1800-1887.

Relations of Church and State — Demoralization of the Clergy — Their Influence Waning — Measures to Curtail their Power — Intrigues — The Clergy and the Reactionists Coöperating — Sequestration of Church Property — Banishment of Bishops — Creation of New Dioceses — Condition of the Church during the Regency — Differences between the Pope and Maximilian — Policy of the Latter — Liberal Changes — Freedom of Worship a Fact — Monastic Orders — Their Suppression — Religious Societies — Property and Revenue of the Clergy — Church Feasts — Superstitions — Intellectual Improvement.

The Mexican church, after the country became independent, was for a number of years in an abnormal state. Archbishop Fonte abandoned his post, and the pope refused to declare his see vacant. Several of the suffragan dioceses had been bereft of their pastors by death, and others had been forsaken. The ecclesiastical government devolved on the chapters. The pope endeavored to induce the faithful^[1] to renew allegiance to the Spanish crown, in which he failed. For a long time he refused to confirm bishops, or to do anything toward relieving the condition of Mexico, because of his political relations with the Spanish court. At last, after the final triumph of the Mexican arms over the Spanish expedition at Tampico, the pope confirmed the bishops nominated by the Mexican government.^[2] In 1861 there were in the republic, besides the prelates of the seven sees, the abbot of the Colegiata de Guadalupe, 13 provisores, 81 canons, 46 racioneros, and 13 masters of ceremonies, making together 154 ecclesiastical dignitaries; 64 vicarios foráneos, 1,468 parish priests, 72 capellanes de coro, 113 capellanes sencillos, aggregating 1,717, and a grand total of 1,871 priests, outside of the regular orders.^[3]

The secular clergy of Mexico have ever been the subject of remarks detracting from their respectability. The whole organization, and the manner of obtaining their revenue, as well as of performing their ministerial duties, have tended to nullify their prestige, and the veneration which should be, and is in many countries, felt toward ministers of the gospel. The revenue has been unequally and unfairly distributed; the country priests being poorly compensated, while the bulk of tithes, fees, and emoluments in the wealthy dioceses have gone to the high clergy, namely, bishops and chapters, and to keeping up splendor in the cathedral churches.^[4] The dioceses, as they were divided till the sixth decade of this century, were so extensive that only a few bishops were known to visit all their towns, and then perhaps only once. It appears also that a number of the bishops were not conscientious pastors, and usually neglected their duties. In the cathedral chapters were many incompetent men, who had obtained their places by simony. Not a few of the priests were living examples of immorality, who disgraced their cloth, and were sores in the body social. Many of them lacked the proper educational attainments. On the other hand, there were those, unfortunately a small minority, who by their virtues, learning, and devotion to duty did honor to their calling, and yet had to suffer for the evil courses or failings of the others. A large portion of the more intelligent people came to feel an aversion to the clergy in general, who consequently lost their influence. It was not that they had become irreligious, as the ecclesiastics and their partisans would have the world believe. There were, however, a number of the educated class who rejected all religion, and called themselves naturalistas.

The encyclical letter of Leo XII., to which I have alluded, cruelly wounded the self-respect of the Mexicans; harsh sentiments were fearlessly uttered, at times unjust, and at others founded on exaggerated reports, but always containing some grains of truth, tending to lower the priests in public estimation. The patronato, an irritating matter — made so by the papal policy — was warmly discussed, and led to the adoption of principles deeply affecting the mind and heart, and which never lost their hold. The facilities for procuring books, the treatment freely in the press, at public meetings, and private conversations, of the evils imputed to the clergy, and other things, account for the great change which had already taken place in the early years of the republic.^[5] It must not be supposed, nevertheless, that their influence wholly disappeared. Intolerance continued to exist de jure, and political parties fighting for supremacy would seize that handle, but only to drop it again as soon as they had gained their object. Had it not been for parties anxious for the support of the clergy, the reformation of the latter would have been easily accomplished, and much future trouble saved to all concerned. It is a fact that the leading men of all parties desired the reformation, though they differed as to the time and manner of securing it.^[6]

In order to form an idea of the power wielded by the clericals to counteract that of the republican government at the time of its organization, and in later years, it should be borne in mind that it was a power coetaneous with the colonial system and deeply rooted. Aside from all the privileges and prerogatives the clergy had possessed from the earliest days, they directed the consciences of men and women, not only on religious matters, but also on social, conjugal, and general domestic affairs, dress, and public amusements. Superadded to which was the fact that thousands of men and their families derived their support and comforts of life from the revenues of the clergy, and upheld them as a matter of interest if not of principle. The republic has therefore had to contend against a power older than itself, directed by the ministers of the almighty.^[7] The liberal party in 1833 and 1834 labored to crush the politico-theocratic power, and thus save democratic principles and institutions on the basis of an absolute independence between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Several salutary measures were adopted, and there was some prospect of their successful execution, when Santa Anna resumed the executive authority and undid what had been done to reform both the clergy and the army. However, the reforms partially remained in force, but not those connected with the patronato. The plan of Iguala was no longer a shield for the church's temporalities.^[8] In 1835 there arrived in Mexico two bishops in partibus infidelium, appointed by the pope de motu proprio, with an entire disregard of Mexico's right of patronage. This question remained in statu quo, until, upon the resignation of Archbishop Fonte of the mitre of Mexico in 1838, the choice of his successor was made by the Roman pontiff in 1840, from a list presented by the chapter of the diocese under an act of the Mexican congress. The right of the national government on the subject of nominations of bishops was further sustained in an act of congress of April 16, 1850.^[9]

The clergy had invariably disclaimed all intervention as a body in the political disturbances of the country. It might not be always easy to disprove this assertion, but their struggle for power became clear and well defined in the act proclaimed at Guadalajara in 1852, known as the Plan del Hospicio, which bore the signatures of high ecclesiastical dignitaries. The clergy supported Santa Anna in power, believing thus to secure their own; but the revolution of Ayutla put an end to their golden dreams by overthrowing the dictator. Among the reforms initiated by the leaders of the new administration, that of checking the clergy was foremost; and as a matter of course, the patronato question was a prominent one.^[10] A law of November 23, 1855, deprived the clergy of several of their old privileges, against which the archbishop protested on the 27th, without effect.^[11]

The new federal constitution created much cominotion among the ecclesiastics. They would not give up the contest, but kept constantly agitating from the pulpit, in the press, and, of course, the confessional. Conspiracies were in order among the reactionists, the women being also made the docile instruments of their spiritual advisers.^[12] All efforts of the government to allay the trouble, even through an ambassador accredited to the pope, proved unavailing. The clergy forbade their supporters from taking the oath to support the constitution, alleging that it contained articles hostile to religion or the church.^[13] The pope issued a declaration to the effect that the church was persecuted, and would have to suffer still more under the new constitution.^[14] This was all untrue. Neither religion nor its priests were assailed. It is a fact, however, that a very large number of faithful catholics desired mortmain on church property removed, and ecclesiastical reforms for the honor and prestige of catholicism. The government, in adopting the reforms, had submitted to an unavoidable necessity for the good of both the church and the national sovereignty. And indeed, after years of disasters,^[15] these reforms have become accomplished facts, and the church at this late day exercises its legitimate influence unrestrained, and the morals of the clergy have undergone a change for the better.

The triumph of the liberal party over the reactionists in 1861 is a matter of history, and has been fully detailed elsewhere. During the three years' struggle, several important decrees were issued by President Juarez further to curtail the power of the clergy.^[16] These decrees did not, however, stop the clergy. As a last resort, they despoiled the churches of valuable jewels and plate which the confiscation law had spared.

Among President Juarez' first acts on his reaching the capital was to expel Monsignor Luigi Clementi, archbishop of Damascus, papal delegate; also the archbishop of Mexico, and bishops Madrid, Munguía, Barajas, and Espinosa. Bishop Loza had been banished from Sinaloa by the governor.^[17] On their arrival at Vera Cruz, their carriages were stoned, and the populace demanded that the Mexican bishops should be confined in jail. However, they were protected by the civil authorities, and in February embarked for Europe. During their exile, they were summoned to Rome for consultation on the needs of the Mexican church; the result of which was that the bishoprics of Michoacan and Guadalajara were made archbishopries, and several new dioceses were created, to all of which appointments were made by Pius IX., on the 16th of March, 1863.^[18] The newly created prelates were Pelagio A. de Labastida y Dávalos, archbishop of Mexico;^[19] Francisco Suarez Peredo, Juan B. Ormaechea y Ernaiz, and Ambrosio Serrano, bishops respectively of Vera Cruz, Tulancingo, and Chilapa; Clemente de J. Munguía, archbishop of Michoacan; José A. de la Peña, J. M. Diez de Sollano, bishop of Troade in partibus infidelium; Bernardo Gárate, and Pedro Barajas, bishops respectively of Zamora, Leon, Querétaro, and San Luis Potosí; Pedro de Espinosa, archbishop of Guadalajara; Ignacio Guerra, bishop of Zacatecas.^[20]

Juarez' government adopted other severe measures to cripple the ecclesiastical foe.^[21] Priests were placed under strict surveillance, and subjected to many annoyances. On the other hand, after the imperialists had the capital, an attempt was made to restore them their property, as they had rendered very efficient aid in erecting the monarchy; and yet, in 1864, the church, under the so-called regency of the empire, was in a worse plight than under Juarez' sway. So said Archbishop Labastida to the French general Neigre, who had treated him disrespectfully.^[22]

Monsignore Meglia, papal nuncio, was publicly and cordially received, with the highest honors accorded at royal courts to ambassadors, by Maximilian, whom he assured of the holy father's confidence in the monarch to protect religion. Maximilian expressed himself as highly satisfied with the fulfilment of promises made him in Rome. These friendly expressions came to little or naught eventually. Maximilian was powerless to effect any change. It is true that he surrendered the cemeteries to the church, but on the other hand, he enforced the law suppressing the ecclesiastical fuero, which of course brought out a strong protest from the bishops. In fact, Maximilian, in his efforts to win the good-will of the liberals, acted imprudently, and alienated the churchmen.^[23] At several conferences with the nuncio, nothing definite was arrived at to please Rome. The latter would accede to no reforms, and her nuncio finally quitted Mexico. Maximilian's envoy near the pope succeeded no better, for all the fair promises which had been made him. Maximilian went so far, in 1866, as to appoint a commissioner to confer with the prelates assembled in Mexico about a concordat.^[24] The end of the empire, and of ecclesiastical efforts to hold sway in Mexico, has been fully treated of in other chapters. Freedom of religion has been secured in a manner that renders all opposition to it out of the question. The law of December 4, 1860, made it so, and subsequent decrees in following years further strengthened it. The government made its measures practical, ceding to protestant congregations buildings in Mexico, Puebla, and elsewhere. From this time several protestant sects established missions in the country, and though beset with difficulties — from the opposition of the catholic clergy, and from old-standing beliefs and prejudices not easily eradicated — made considerable progress.^[25] Even the Mormons established colonies in Mexican territory, and an association of free-thinkers was formed in Mexico in 1870. The government maintains friendly relations with the ecclesiastical authorities, there being now an understanding that church and state are separate, independent of each other, and free to exercise their functions within their legitimate orbit.^[26]

The popular dislike of monastic institutions began in the reign of Cárlos III., and increased with the development of thought among the masses. The bishops seem to have encouraged this dislike, and audiencias and magistrates exercised unstintedly the patronato, carrying out the royal instructions to crush the power of the clergy, more particularly that of the regular branch. At the time of the grito de Dolores in 1810, the old prestige of the friars had almost entirely disappeared. Many of their number joined the revolution, throwing off the monk's habit, and donning the soldier's uniform. The most crushing blow the clergy received at the hands of the Spanish crown was in depriving their revolutionary members of their priestly fuero,^[27] and heaven did not come to their relief. From that time the decadence of the religious orders rapidly progressed. Members of families in good social standing had ceased to join, and the few recruits they obtained were generally from the lower classes. Civil laws, authorizing co-action to enforce the fulfilment of monastic vows, were repealed in November 1833. The religious of both sexes were permitted to leave the cloister if they so desired.^[28] Organizations of friars were suppressed by the law of July 12, 1859; the priests were to secularize themselves, and be pensioned. The same law extinguished all ecclesiastical congregations, and prohibited novitiates for nuns; the existing nuns being allowed to remain as such with the dowers they brought with them at the time of taking the veil; but such as wished to leave the cloister were to be reimbursed the full amount of their dowers. In 1861 it was ordered that all nuns should be concentrated in one convent.^[29]

Santa Anna permitted the Jesuits in 1843 and 1853 to settle in some parts of the republic, and organize missions in order to civilize savage Indians. It seems that the order established some houses, and that some of its former property was restored; but there is no account of their opening missions. Santa Anna's decree of September 19, 1853, was repealed on June 7, 1856, congress ordering the expulsion of the Jesuits from the country.

The society of Saint Vincent de Paul had been allowed in 1845 to found establishments in the republic. The orders of San Juan de Dios, Bethlehemites, and other hospitallers had been suppressed since 1820. The Franciscans proper, barefooted Franciscans of San Diego, Augustinians, Dominicans, the order of Mercy, and others continued till the final general suppression took place.^[30]

The advent of the sisters of charity was in 1844, and with the special favors shown them soon spread throughout the country. In 1861, when stringent measures were adopted toward the religious orders, the sisters of charity were allowed to continue their work under government inspection, made amenable to the civil laws, forbidden to act as a religious order, and warned to attend strictly to their legitimate duties. In February 1863 nunneries and communities of female devotees were suppressed, and the next year regulations were decreed for repaying them their dowers. In 1877 all communities of nuns were dispersed.^[31]

The mission system, formerly so extensive, in the course of time became reduced to small proportions. In 1834 the government decreed their secularization; but the order was not carried out at once. Many of the missions had ceased to exist for the want of means and missionaries. At last the government sold the mission property, and disposed of all funds which had been provided in early times for their support.

Among the several religious fraternities worthy of mention that existed in 1861 were the following: Siervos de María, Archicofradía de la Purísima Concepcion, San Juan de Dios, excloistered; Archicofradía de San Miguel, Muy Ilustre Congregacion de Esclavos, Esclavos Cocheros del Santísimo Sacramento; Archicofradía del Santísimo Sacramento, and another of the Inmaculado Corazon de María — all of which had their constitutions and by-laws, and had had a recognition and the protection of the civil and ecclesiastical authorities. Their names indicate the chief object for which they were respectively instituted. Most of them were also mutual aid associations.

Of the immense wealth possessed by the clergy in the first decade of this century, the Spanish government seized a portion in 1805 and 1806; other large sums in money and plate were taken from time to time for the requirements of the war in supporting troops in the field to uphold the royal sway;^[32] and still another slice was swallowed up by the directores de obras pías during the ensuing confusion. The values set by many writers on ecclesiastical estates were much exaggerated even for the period preceding 1833. They probably were so in several cases from that time to the year of the final sequestration.^[33] From 1832 to 1860, the clergy sold many estates, both urban and rural, whose former value was estimated at $85,000,000, for less than $42,000,000.^[34] The clergy had voluntarily donated large sums, and also paid their share of forced loans levied, nearly the whole of which was never reimbursed. On the 25th of June, 1856, the government decreed that real estate of the church, or property administered by ecclesiastical corporations, should be conveyed to the tenants at a value corresponding with the rent they were paying, estimated at six per centum per year.^[35]

The revolution of Puebla, San Luis Potosí, and Tacubaya, cost the clergy in three years nearly nine million dollars; and the constitutional party took from them about 101/2 millions more, making a total loss of nearly twenty millions. It was therefore computed that the property on the date of the decree for its sequestration was worth about 1843/4 million dollars,^[36] exclusive of churches and temples. Allowing for possibly unknown sales, and other confiscations to the aggregate amount of 40 millions, we may say that the whole had become reduced to 124 millions. Taking off one third to facilitate sales, we have 83 millions. The fact is that the sales yielded much less.^[37] Most of the property had been already sold in 1869.

The chief source of revenue the church had was the tithes. It was subject to vicissitudes for several years,^[38] and it is supposed that, in the last years of the clergy's privileged existence, the tithes were only about 31 million dollars. Other sources were the fees and emoluments, and other devices, all exorbitant and demoralizing to the Indians. The laws on parochial fees and emoluments were reformed by a decree of President Comonfort, in April 1857, which greatly displeased the bishops. The archbishop of Mexico passed a circular to his clergy not to demand in future any fees, but to simply accept whatever the faithful chose to give as alms for the support of their pastors. In 1874 a law was enacted annulling all donations to ecclesiastical corporations.

 

Outside of the official feasts proper, such as the celebration of the nation's patron saints and royal days, coronations, etc., in colonial times, and of national anniversaries after the independence, all of which went under the name of fiestas de tabla, but also had a religious character, the clergy taking a very prominent part in the ceremonials, there were numerous other festivals, exclusively of the church. The number of feast-days at one time was so great that the industries of the country and the laboring class suffered severely; one half the year or more being made up of Sundays and holidays. In view of this, the Roman pontiff in 1835 authorized the diocesans of Mexico to reduce the number. Doubts occurred, and discussions ensued with considerable disagreement among the bishops, until, on the 25th of May, 1839, the pope issued his brief ordering the decrease, to which the Mexican government affixed its exequatur on the 14th of September of the same year.^[39]

According to the testimony of many intelligent as well as impartial writers who have visited Mexico, the masses of the population never had a rational idea of the Christian religion, or a just conception of its founder; hence their proneness to regard the external symbols and ceremonies practised by their church as religion itself. In their ignorance, they never could possess themselves of its true spirit, and the result has been the adoration of images, and blind fanaticism and superstition. The fact is, that the benighted Indians, forming the great bulk of the population, have been taught to worship images; the well-informed bowed the knee, perhaps, but in private derided the superstition they were obliged outwardly to conform to. It must be acknowledged, however, that in late years, with the spread of education, the people have been arriving at a better conception of christianity, and throwing off many of their former stupid beliefs.

General kneeling in the streets, when the parish priests were carrying the host to the moribund,^[40] and ordering of masses for the dead, to save their souls from torture, or to hasten their exit from purgatory, were common practices, and from the latter the church derived immense revenues.^[41] Ridiculous exhibitions were often made by the devout, such, for instance, as parading a figure of Christ in a green silk robe, with a large white handkerchief fastened across the shoulders to protect his back from the sun; and the virgin Mary following with a fashionable French hat, worn jauntily. The feasts of the crucifixion at Pueblo Viejo de Tampico, and of Santiago de Compostela, were evidences of a mixture of barbarism with civilization.^[42] Still other proofs might be given had I the space. I must therefore refer the reader to the authorities.^[43] I cannot omit, however, two instances of the worst species of ignorance and superstition occurring in late times. In 1869. in a town of the district of Jonacatepec, state of Mexico, not far from the capital, a woman accused of witchcraft was burnt to death, after suffering much torture, by means of which the acknowledgment was wrung out of her that she was really a witch.^[44] On the 7th of April, 1874, two men were burnt at the stake, under a regular sentence of court, in San Juan de Jacobo, district of Concordia, in Sinaloa, for having, during the period of six months, bewitched another man. The authors of the outrage were arrested and subjected to a trial for murder.

Among the festivals which upon their yearly recurrence obtain a strict observance with a most marked devotion are the following: New-Year's day, epiphany, septuagesima, sexagesima, and quinquagesima Sundays, Shrovetide, Ash-Wednesday, lent, feast of the seven Dolours of the blessed virgin Mary, passion Sunday, palm Sunday, the holy week, and easter. During the holy week, the tragedy enacted in Syria nearly nineteen centuries ago has been reproduced almost to the life, even to the inflicting of lashes on the man personating the saviour. Christ's act of washing his apostles' feet was one of the ceremonies, and was generally performed by a person in high position, official or social, on twelve poor men who were afterward given generous alms. Maximilian did it in 1866. It has been for centuries a season of display of wealth as well as of piety. The lower classes, however, have ever devoted their special worship to the virgin Mary under the many names faith has given her. To the saviour, her son, they show a respectful pity, an humble and more distant adoration; but to Mary they give their whole confidence, looking up to her as their powerful intercessor in heaven. Hence her shrines are always well tended and filled with men and women on their knees, addressing themselves to her images with faces expressive of the most intense love and devotion.^[45] Then there were ascension day, Whitsunday or pentecost, and corpus christi. The virgin de los Remedios and the virgin de Guadalupe have always been objects of the highest regard, and gorgeous ceremonies have been dedicated to them by all classes. Unfortunately, these feasts were made occasions for speculation by both the clergy and laymen in the sale of images, and for excesses, drinking, and gambling especially.^[46] The fact is, that so much devoutness, so much time devoted to religious festivals and ceremonies, did not appear to have a beneficial effect on the masses, not over-virtuous at best, and still less so when the occasions for the public indulging of vice came round. Christmas eve has been every year made much of by all classes: by the educated with attendance in church, and suppers at their homes; by the lower classes with debauchery, winked at by the authorities at times, and not infrequent crime. The government has in late years made great efforts to check all such excesses.^[47] Christmas is in Mexico, as it is in almost every Christian country, a day of universal rejoicing, giving and receiving of presents, and family reunions. In connection with it, the people have a custom of commemorating at their homes during nine consecutive nights, under the name of las posadas, Mary's eight days' journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem. The feast of all saints and the commemoration of all souls are also observed with appropriate devotion as well as honors.

To the festivals above named, we must add the patron saints of the nation, states, and towns, of high officials or public benefactors, and of members of families. It will thus be seen that the Mexicans have never lacked for opportunities to devote their time and earnings to the church.

 

 

1. Encyclical letter of Sept. 24, 1824, extolling Fernando VII. Gaceta, Mex., 1825, i. no. 39; Ward's Mex. in 1827, 327-8; La Cruz, vi. 524-5.
2. Pablo F. Vazquez was confirmed as bishop of Puebla. His predecessors in this century were Man. Ign. Gonzalez Campillo and Ant. J. Perez Martinez. His successors, J. L. Becerra, Pedro Ant. de Labastida y Dávalos, Carlos M. Colina, appointed March 16, 1863. Bishops for Michoacan, Guadalajara, Durango, Chiapas, and Nuevo Leon were also confirmed in 1831. Other dioceses were provided for later: that of Yucatan in 1834; Californias about 1836; and those of Guadalajara, a second nomination, and Sonora in 1837; so that at the beginning of 1838 Mexico and Oajaca were the only churches without prelates, owing to their voluntary absence. Bustamante, Cuadro Hist., iii. 300–5; Zavula, Revol. Mex., i. 370-1; Iglesias y Conv., 177; La Cruz, v. 562-3; Alaman, Hist. Méj., iv. 441-4.
3. According to this there was a decrease since 1826, when there were 3,677 clergymen. The number given in the text does not include priests engaged in teaching or holding no particular office. Rivera, Mex. in 1842, 125-6.
4. In some dioceses, where the prelate was getting from $100,000 to $120,000 a year, many parish priests received the pittance of $100 or $120 yearly. Ward's Mex. in 1827, i. 385. Matters were not better in 1858, when the bulk of the property and revenues was monopolized by a few corporations and the upper clergy. Diario de Aviso, June 4, 1858. It is but just to say that bishops applied a part of their income to the relief of the indigent, hospitals, and asylums. Then again, some bishops had small incomes, and the more recently created bishoprics had no cathedrals. Those of Sonora, L. California, New Leon, Chiapas, and Yucatan had government pensions, amounting together to $32,000. Rosa, Juicio Imparcial, 4-5, 34.
5. Mora, Rev. Mex., i. 115; Richthofen, Rep. Mex., 198-9. The clergy then applied themselves to retain their influence among the ignorant Indians.
6. The clergy systematically opposed the govt, were hostile to religious toleration, to freedom of thought and to free expression in the press; they strenuously objected to equality before the law; made war against civil marriages and registrations; opposed foreign colonization, and public or any other education unless it was wholly under ecclesiastical control. Many of the difficulties Mexico has had with foreign powers were partly originated and encouraged by the clergy.
7. They demanded every aid and support from the laws and govt, and yet disallowed all subjection or responsibility to them, such as they had been forced to recognize during the royal rule. They had large pecuniary resources, which they used freely to accomplish their ends, coastantly availing themselves likewise of the low elements of ignorance and superstition.
8. The property controlled by the clergy was now constantly menaced, and was much diminished by the govt seizing portions of it at different periods.
9. The supreme govt was to nominate bishops to vacant sees out of ternary lists laid before it by the respective chapters, through and with the approbation of the respective governors. The govt could reject the first list and call for another. The civil authority was empowered to bestow ecclesiastical preferments. Mex., Col. Ley. y Dec., 1830, 88-90; Mex., Legis. Mex., 1850, 82-4; Mex., Col. Ley., 1850, i. 57-8; Arrillaga, Recop., 1850, 267-8; Dublan and Lozano, Legis. Mex., v. 690-1. Santa Anna, in his anxiety to have the support of the high clergy, gave the archbishop and bishops the honorary title of councillors of state. Rivera, Gobern. Mex., 11. 415; Id., Hist. Jalapa, iv. 442.
10. At the time of Santa Anna's overthrow, negotiations in Rome for a concordat were in an advanced state. Under that arrangement, the church was to have restored to it all its former prerogatives.
11. Mex., Legis. Mej., vi. 559-60, 565,589-91; Garza, Pastoral, no. 5; Apuntam. sobre derecho púb. ecles., 8; Id., Nuevas Contest., 7.
12. In the midst of all this, the archbishop and the bishop of San Luis Potosí, a see created in 1854, assured the govt that their clergy were taking no part in illegal acts. Vigil, Ensayo Hist., 7-10; La Bandera de Ayutla, Feb. 16, 1816; Archivo Mex., Col. Ley., iii. 250-3.
13. The diocesan of Guadalajara enumerated their: the 3d establishing freedom of public instruction; the 5th proclaiming man's inalienable right of freedom, which was not to be curtailed by reason of labor, education, or monastic vows; the 6th and 7th on free speech and free press; the 27th declaring civil and ecclesiastical corporations incompetent to hold or administer real estate; the 123d conferring on the general govt exclusively such intervention in ecclesiastical affairs as the laws might designate. This was merely intended to secure public peace. The bishop also protested against the omission in the constitution of the Roman catholic faith as that of the state.
14. This enabled the reactionists to pose before the country as the defenders of the true faith. Buenrostro, Hist. Seg. Cong. Constituc., i. 56-9.
15. Libertad on one side, Religion y Fueros on the other, were fought for; and the while the fight lasted the peaceful citizen got for his share fire, bloodshed, death. Payno, Mem. Revol. Dic., 77-8.
16. Nov. 3, 1858, to stop their procuring money on the security of their real estate; June 25, 1859, a severe decree; but that of July 12, 1859, contiscated and nationalized all their property. Pinart, Col. Dor. Mex., no. 1167; Dublan and Lozauno, Legis. Mex., viii. 675-88, 696, 702-6, 756-9; Baz, Ley., 14, 33-64; Mex., Col. Reforma, 145–60, 169-71; Mex., Col. Ley., 1861, ii. 61-72, 75–94, 97-112; Archivo Mex., Col. Ley., iv. 164-72; Garza, Pastorales, nos. 6, 10, 13-14.
17. Clementi had been in the country exercising his functions under an exequatur of Pres. Lombardini to the papal brief of Aug. 26, 1851. The above orders of expulsion were dated 12th and 17th Jan. 1861, and the blood spilled in the war is attributed to the clergy, por el escandaloso participio que ha tomado el clero en la guerra civil.' Dublan and Lozano, Legis. Mex., vi. 335-50, ix. 12; Garza y Ballesteros, Opusc., 3-33; Varielades Jurisp., vi. 309-38; Archivo Mex., Col. Leyes, v. 5-7, 42-3, 72-4; Riveri, Gob. Mex., ii. 604; Richthofen, Rep. Mex., 199.
18. To the archbishopric of Mexico were given, as suffragans, the dioceses of Puebla, Oajaca, Vera Cruz, Chiapas, Yucatan, Chilapa, and Tulancingo; to that of Michoacan, San Luis Potosí, Querétaro, Leon, and Zamora; and to that of Guadalajara, Durango, New Leon, Sonora, Zacatecas, and the Apostolic vicarías of Lower Cal. in charge of Juan F. Escalante, bishop of Anastasiópolis in partibus infidelium, and Tamaulipas in charge of Francisco de la C. Ramirez, bishop of Caradro, also in partibus.
19. His predecessors in the present century had been Francisco J. de Lizana y Beaumont, 1802-11; Antonio Bergosa y Jordan, 1812–15; Pedro J. de Fonte, 1816-38; Manuel Posadas y Garduño, 1840-6; Lázaro de la Garza y Ballesteros, 1851-62.
20. Méx., Col. Ley. y Dec., 382; Iglesias y Conv., 5, 151, 169, 226-347, passim; Arrangoiz, Méj., ii. app. 22, and many others.
21. Among them the seizure of two thirds of the tithes, and the suppression of the ecclesiastical chapters, excepting that of Guadalajara.
22. La Iglesia sufre hoy los mismos ataques que en el tiempo del gobierno de Juarez, en la plenitud de sus inmunidades, y de sus derechos. . . . jamás se vió perseguida con tanto encarnizamiento. . . . nos encontramos peor que en aquel tiempo.' Arrangoiz, Mej., 182-5.
23. Periód Of. Imp. Mex., Dec. 13, 1864. He said openly that the pope was ill advised, and that he cared but little if his holiness was displeased with his acts in Mexico, his responsibility being only to God and his own conscience as a sovereign; that the Mexican prelates did not understand the spirit of the times, nor of true catholicism; that many of them lacked a Christian heart. If the pope excommunicated him, he would be the fourth Austrian archduke that had been so treated. Carlota, his wife, had used even stronger language, and had shown much antipathy to the high clergy. Arrangoiz, Méj., iii. 341-2.
24. He wanted confirmed all the measures of the liberal administration, and was desirous of adopting others, to wit: payment of the clergy by the state, religious toleration, revision of parochial fees by the govt, and exemption of the people from some ecclesiastical imposts. He instructed his minister to act on the principle of an ample and free religious toleration, though recognizing the Roman catholic as the religion of the state. Voz de Méj., March 18, Apr. 25, 1865; Rivera, Gobern. Mex., ii. 649-59; Domenech, Hist. du Mex., iii. 318; Martinez, Hist. Revol. Mex., i. 235-7; Diario del Imp., Feb. 27, 1865.
25. Violence, and even murder, has been resorted to in several places, but in later years the dissenting sects have not been interfered with. In April 1883 was opened in Jerez a protestant church, and another the following month in Toluca. Alaman, Catól. Hist., 1984, 162–3. The following authorities also treat of the subject: Am. and For. Christ. Union, xvi. 247-8; xvii. 179–80, 272, 311-19; xviii. 28, 181-3, 285–6; Tovar, Hist. Parl., iii. 553, 577-8; Mex. Diar. Ofic., May 4, 1870; June 29, Oct. 7, 1871; Harper's Mag., xlix. 177-8; Diario Debates, 7th Cong., iv. 5-6; Pan. Star and Herald, Jan. 20, Feb. 11, March 10, Apr. 12, 1875; June 19, 1876; Salv., Diario Ofic., Apr. 19, 1876, 741.
26. In 1871 the clergy were deprived of the right of suffrage. Under the amended constitution of 1873, 1st, church and state are made independent of each other; 2d, marriage is a civil contract; 3d, no religious corporation may possess real estate, nor capital secured thereon, with the sole exception expressed in art. 127. Dublan and Lozano, Ley. Mex., viii. 397; Diario Debates, 7th Cong., 189, 193, 1266-7; Mex., Diario Ofic., March 29, 1871.
27. It will be remembered that many were tried by court-martial, and sentenced to death and other penalties. Viceroy's decree in Gaceta, June 30, 1812; Alaman, Hist. Méj., iii. 395; Mendivil, Resúmen Hist., 137-40, 268.
28. This decree was annulled by Santa Anna in 1854 and 1855, but given renewed validity by Pres. Comonfort in April 1856. Archivo Mex., Col. Ley., ii. 33-6; iii. 98-9; Dublan and Lozano, Legis. Mex., vii. 266-7, 482-4; viii. 154; La Bandera de Ayutla, May 24, 1856.
29. It was carried out Feb. 12th, and though some care was had, the sisters are said to have suffered much. It is related that the nuns of Puebla in 1857, being without resources and starving, refused the proffered aid of the govt, preferring death 'to dishonor!' Diario de Avisos, Aug. 24, 1857; La Cruz, V. 407.
30. The Franciscans then had six colleges de propaganda fide; namely, San Fernando of Mexico, Guadalupe of Zacatecas, Santa Cruz of Querétaro, Nuestra Señora de Zapopam, San Francisco of Pachuca. In 1861 the force of the religious orders was as follows: Provincials 28; Priors 122; Procurators, Masters and Lecturers 375; other members 947. Total 1,472. Convents, Guadalupans 6; Franciscans 31; Dominicans 14; Augustinians 13; Dieguinos 14; Carmelites 16; Mercenarios 19; Jesuits 14; Paulists 6; Felipenses 8; Fernandinos 3; and Camilos 2. Nuns: there were monastertes of Carmelites, Capuchins, Teresas, Claras, Isabelinas, Catarinas, etc., numbering 64. The personnel consisted of 63 abbesses and prioresses, and 1,463 nuns. There were also 42 sisters of charity, 792 girls, and 858 maid-servants, making a total of 3,228. Hernandez, Estadíst. Mej., 248–9.
31. Dublan and Lozano, Legis. Mex., iv. 625; ix. 594-5, 598-601; Tovar, Hist. Parlam., iii. 248, 254; Zamacois, Hist. Méj., xvi. 306-15, 361-5.
32. Córtes, Diario, 1811, v. 6, 19, 23-5; xxii. 212; Córtes, Col. Dec., i. 155–9; Alaman, Hist. Méj., v. 519-20, 525-6.
33. Some of the property had been seized in 1829 for public defence. Dispos. Var., ii. 72; Mex., Doc. Import., 1–53. The estates depreciated after 1832, particularly in 1833, owing to the large mortality from cholera of tenants who had brought buildings and lands to a ruined condition, and owed largely for rents. The law of Oct. 27, 1833, doing away with civil co-action in the collection of tithes, together with a scarcity of laborers, disenabled the clergy to repair the buildings or improve the lands.
34. In 1847 the clergy were no longer able, their friends said, to support: themselves genteelly. In 1856 matters had grown worse. Cathedrals were in a decayed condition, the revenues greatly reduced. The members of chapters suffered for want of means. The cry that the clergy owned from 60 to 80 millions was unfounded. The property had fallen to an insignificant amount. Rosa, Juicio Imp., 4-5; La Cruz, iii. 396. Richthofen, Rep. dear., 4-5, estimated the income from gifts, tithes, fees, sales of images, etc., from nine to ten millions, and perhaps twice as much with the income from landed property.
35. The principal remaining as a lien on the property might be redeemed at convenience. The govt derived an excise duty of 5 per cent on such conveyances. Apuntam, sobre derecho púb. ecles., 10; Mex., Col. Ley., 1861, ii. Ist pt, 1-18, 125-6, 178–200; 343-53, app. 377-445, passim; Dublan and Lozano, Legis. Mex., viii. 197–201; Zarco, Hist. Cong. i. 117-20, 183–205, and many others.
36. Details in Hernandez, Estadist. Mej., 250-4.
37. Maximilian revised the operations of Juarez' govt till April 1866, and the value of nationalized property as appearing on the books was $62,365, 516. Mex., Mem. Hac., 1870, 566, 642.
38. From 1806 to 1810, between 10 and 11 million dollars; from 1829 to 1833, only from 51/2 to 51/2 millions. Mex., Mem. Agric. é Ind., 1843, annex 2.
39. Breve Pontiff. autoris., 1-9; Arrillaga, B., Satisfac., 1-20; Mex., Col. de Leyes y Dec., 1810, 230-2; Breve Pontif. (1839).
40. Persons failing to do it, even from ignorance, were imprisoned. Niles' Rey., xlviii. 314.
41. After the enactment of the reform laws, all religious manifestations or ceremonies outside of the churches were forbidden under severe penalties. Mex., Cod. Ref., 229; El Derecho, iii. 420; Diario Debates, 6th Cong., iv. 303, 349-50.
42. The latter was a regular Indian masquerade, with dancing after the banquet, in and out of the church, at the sound of a drum and some other instrument. Beltrami, Le Mexique, i. 31-40, 523-4; Córtes, Diar. Cod. Pen., 1822, n. 53; Ward's Mex., i. 661.
43. Thompson's Recoll., 101; Perry's Trav., 30-6; Heller, Reisen, 277; Mühlenpfordt, Mejico, 326-35; Rautzel aus Mex., 203; Stephens' Yuc., ii. 331-3; and numberless others.
44. El Derecho, ii. 59. This is a journal of jurisprudence, published in Mexico.
45. Arroniz, Manual, 144-5, 151; Tudor's Tour, ii. 352-3; Calderon's Life in Mex., i. 197-214; ii. 42-5, 133-6, 143-52; La Cruz, i. 27; ii. 21-2; vii. 252-3; Informe Secreto, 1-8; Diario del Imp., March 31, 1806, 333.
46. Thompson's Recoll., 103; Mayer's Mex. as It Was, etc., 65, 68-9, 143-5, 148; Bustamante, Gabinete Mex., i. 62-3; Id., Gran. Dia., 1-11; Diario de Avisos (1856, Nov. 22, 1858, Feb. 17, 18); Mühlenpfordt, Mejico, i. 334-5; La Oposicion (1834, Nov. 15); La Nacion (1856, Nov. 19, Dec. 28).
47. Mex., Legis. Mej., 1848, 539-40.