CHURCH AND STATE IN MEXICO.

Dunstan Times, Issue 3334, 16 August 1926, Page 8

CHURCH AND STATE IN MEXICO.

The Catholic World (New York), believing that there may be in the mind ol some Catholics the’ supposition that the Mexican Government may not bo altogether to blame for its persecution of the Church, presents a double article iu which tlie case, first for the Government, and secondly for tho Church, is given by two men of recognised'authority. The editor of the Catholic World states that Mr Castaneda, who presents the ease for the Government, is a "loyal and practical Catholic,” notwithstanding his criticism of tho Mexican ecclesiastics.

Mr Castaneda reviews the history of the Church in Mexico, showing that official separation of Church and State took place as Jong ago as 1857. 1111011, therefore, the Revolutionary Assembly met in 1017, the former provisions of the Constitution curtailing the temporal power of the Church and decreeing the separation of the Church from the State, were nob only included but were made more stringent, with the purpose of rendering thorn more effective. The Constitution does state, however, that the Government shall not interfere in any way with religions practices, but that there shall be absolute freedom of religion, that everyone may worship as lie sees fit. It is Mr Castaneda’s contention that the innovations embodied in tho new constitution are necessary to make the spirit of tlie law effective.

As to the provision that all ministers in Mexico be Mexican citizens, Mr Castaneda recalls the fact that during the long colonial period only nativeborn Spaniards were eligible for the higher positions of the Church. As anatural result, the higher clergy were generally “loyalists” and supporters of the home government during tho war for independence. It is said that native Spanish priests will feci au antipathy against the government. Being citizens "of Spain, they were in the habit of appealing to their home government in ease of differences with the local Mexican authorities. M 1 ’ Castaneda finds in these tacts a sufficient explanation of the desire on the part >f the present Mexican Government to require all ministers of religion to be Mexican citizens. “It is absolutely erroneous to suppose that this provision is due to a desire of establishing a National Church, ‘of Mexicans, by Mexicans, and for Mexicans’, or to attribute it to Bolshevistic influence. Its true origin is to be found in the historical antecedents of the Church.” It is admitted that the provision vliich prohibits religious corporations ir institutions from operating primary schools is an encroachment on tho 'fights of the Church. But an explanation may he found in the fact that during the long period in which ■(location was left entirely to the Church this opportunity was not deduped. (So far as secondary schools md institutions of higher learning are concerned, tho Church is free to operate such schools. Mr Castaneda, declares that Mexico is and will continue

o lie one of the staunchest supporters of the Church. He believes the work of the early missionaries is too firmly embedded to be undone an a day. In reply to this defence of the Government, Mr Charles Phillips points nit that the restrictions on priests in vlexico go much farther than would be inferred from Mr Castaneda’s statenent as to liberty of worship. Mr Phillips asks, “Is it liberty that forbids a priest to conduct a funeral ’.lirough the streets or tooffer public prayers at a grave f Is it liberty that irtually, according to the letter of the law. puts the gendarme in charge of -very sanctuary ?”

Mr Phillips proceeds to show that the present laws practically legislate lie priest out of existence: 'First, there shall be no religious ■ ".vs, Next, ’the State Legislatures shall have the exclusive power of determining the maximum number of minsters of religious creeds’; and just at present that power lias boon exercised to limit the priests in Vera Cruz to me I'cr every 15,000 people; to one for

-very 30.000 in Tabasco; to one for very 6000 in Guadalajara. On the face of it, such restrictions are absurd and it is difficult indeed to imagine Mr astanedii regarding them as ‘lair.’ Ont this is only what has been done.”

Mr Phillips holds that flic antianreli movement in Mexico is inspired bv a hatred of religion which he de-

a-ribes as characteristically “Bolshe■ik.’ While the Jaws prohibit all but mtive priests, they at the same time resenhy the training of a native priest, hood, for it is provided that

. . . seminaries . .or collegiate ■.’stahlisbments or religious institutions r any other buddings built or dengue j, ■ r the administration, propaganda or teaching of thy tenets of any religious ■reed shall forthwith vest, as of full right, directly in the nation, to fie vised oxcclusively for the public services of the Federation of the States’; mt to lie used, you note, for the training of native priests. And the same 'rticle in another clause sets forth that In no case shall institutions of this diameter (public or private charitable institutions for the dif-

Ineiou of knowledge) be under the pa < nonage, direction, administration, charge or supervision of religious corDerations or institutions, nor of milliners of any religious creed or of their dependents, even though either the former or the latter shall not be in active service.’

in all his d'seussion Mr Phillips makes a sharp, distinction between the Mexican people and the Mexican Gov-'-•nimerit. In his view, it is the Govern 'limit and not the people, that has tun led Molshevik.