The Roman Catholic Church in Mexico

Los Medios en Mexico

1519

Hernán Cortès brought the Catholic Church to Mexico. His expedition included a friar, Bartolomé de Olmedo and a priest, Juan Díaz. Conversion of the Indians was part of their mandate. In 1492, Pope Alexander VI had ordered that natives of the new lands discovered by Columbus, be instructed in Catholicism for the “salvation of their souls.” Cortès accepted this wholeheartedly and acted accordingly. At his first landfall in Cozumel he persuaded the natives to break up their idols and erect crosses and a shrine to the Virgin. He continued these efforts throughout the Conquest, sometimes after terrible battles. He was also punctilious about christening women given to the Spaniards as slaves. It was forbidden for his men to have intercourse with any woman until she had been baptized.

This same order from Pope Alexander VI in the Sublimus dei acknowledged that the natives had “souls” and this become an issue between the clergy and the establishment. However, the same Papal declaration went on to say that those who rejected Christianity could suffer war, punishment and slavery. Seemingly contradictory orders. The conflict of interests between Church and State began shortly after the Conquistadors toppled the Aztec Empire. The bone of contention was the treatment of the natives.

The wording of Sublimus dei was a general pronouncement, framed in terms that applied not only to Indians but to all unknown peoples. The principal passage reads:

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South, and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith. We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

1519-24

The Requerimiento, instituted in the New World since 1513, demanded that the local populations accept Spanish rule and allow preaching to them by Catholic missionaries; on pain of war, slavery or death. The Requerimiento did not demand conversion. This claim provided a legal loophole for enslavement of the population as rebellious vassals if they resisted, and the document stated: "We emphasize that any deaths that result from this [rejection of Christian rule] are your fault… Many critics of the conquistadors’ policies were appalled by the flippant nature of the Requerimiento, and Bartolomé de las Casas said in response to it that he did not know whether to laugh or to cry. While the conquistadors were encouraged to use an interpreter to read the Requerimiento, this was not absolutely necessary, and in many cases, it was read out to an uncomprehending populace.

On behalf of Fernando V, King of Spain, Defender of the Catholic Church, subduer of barbarians, and on behalf of Queen Juana, his beloved daughter, I, ( ), their servant, messenger, and captain, bring you word of God Our Lord, one and eternal. He is creator of earth, of heaven, and of the man and woman from whom all of us are descended and from whom all future humans will descend. A large number of humans have been born during the more than five thousand years since the earth was created. Since no one area could sustain so many people, humans were forced to scatter widely and divide themselves into many kingdoms and provinces.

Our Lord selected one of these people, Saint Peter, to lead the humans on earth. All people, regardless of where they were or what their nationality or religion was, were placed under his jurisdiction. The Lord instructed Peter to govern from Rome, which was the best place from which to administer the earth. He also exercised power in other parts of the world so he could judge and govern Christians, Moors, Jews, gentiles, and those of other faiths. Peter was referred to as the Pope, which meant admirable, elder, father, and guardian. He was father and governor of all mankind. They regarded Peter as master, king, and ruler of the world that they inhabited. The popes who have been elected since then have been regarded similarly. Future popes will also be treated in this way.

One of the pontiffs, who succeeded Peter, granted these islands and the mainland to our King and Queen and to their successors. You can inspect the documents that recorded this grant. As a result of this property transfer, their Highnesses exercise sovereignty over these islands and over the mainland. Almost everyone who has been informed of this grant has received their Highnesses and has willingly obeyed and served them as subjects and has not offered resistance. As soon as they received this information, they welcomed and obeyed the priests that our Highnesses sent to teach our Holy Faith. All of them freely, joyfully, and without reservation became Christians and remain faithful. Their Highnesses received them with great joy and ordered that they be treated as other subjects and vassals. You are obligated to act in a similar manner.

Finally, I implore you to fully consider what I have told you. You may take the necessary time to discuss this information and to recognize the Church as owner and administrator of the entire world. You must also recognize our Holy Father, the pope, and the King and Queen, our masters, as rulers of these islands and of the mainland. By virtue of the pope’s grant, their Highnesses have dispatched priests to teach you our faith.

If you behave properly and perform your obligations to their Highnesses, I, in their name, will receive you with all love and kindness and will protect your wives, children, and land, and will not impose servitude upon you. Rather than having Christianity forced on you, you are free to do what you wish. After having learned of our Holy Catholic Faith, you may accept Christianity, as almost all the residents of the other islands and of more distant lands have done. If you do so, His Highness will bestow many privileges on you and will shower you with favors.

However, if you do not do this, or if you maliciously delay your response, you are hereby notified that, with God’s support, I will launch an all-out attack to force you to submit and obey the Church and their Highnesses. Furthermore, I will enslave you and your women and children, and dispose of them as our majesty may command. Also I will seize your goods and inflict harm on you. You will be treated as disobedient vassals. You will be to blame for the resulting injury and death. The blame will not lie with me, their Highnesses, or the soldiers who accompany me. You have been warned. I request that the scribe who is present with me record this warning. May all who are present serve as witnesses.

In some instances it was read: to barren beaches and empty villages long after the indigenous people and communities had left; to prisoners after they were captured; and even from the decks of ships once they had just spotted the coast. Nevertheless, for the conquistadors it provided a religious justification and rationalization for attacking and conquering the native population. Because of its potential to support the enrichment of the Spanish royal coffers, the Requerimiento was not generally questioned until the Spanish crown abolished its use in 1556.

Between 1519 and 1524 when 12 Franciscan friars arrived in New Spain, the process of conversion of natives was a simple baptism with no follow up. It is highly unlikely that those “converted” had any real comprehension of Christianity. Thus, Spaniards settlers claimed that the baptized Indians were not true Christians, had returned to worshiping their old Gods, and could be enslaved. Indeed, for many years, the “Christianity” of the Indians was a thin veneer barely covering their old pagan beliefs. The Conquistadors, interested only in personal wealth, had seized vast tracts of land. Called encomiendas, the natives who lived with their boundaries, baptized or not, were enslaved.

1542: “New Laws”

The first to challenge the treatment of the natives in New Spain was Bartolomé de las Casas. He was appointed Bishop of Chiapas in 1544. Twenty-five years earlier he had been expelled from Santo Domingo for protesting the enslavement of Indians. Back in Spain, he drafted new laws that outlawed slavery in the New World. These “New Laws,” signed by the Spanish Emperor, Charles V. in 1542, were ignored and then suspended by those who governed New Spain.

De Las Casas headed for Chiapas, fully committed to abolishing slavery. Since the entire economy of the colony was based on free native labor, he failed. Ironically, he suggested the importation of black slaves from the Indies or from Africa as a possible solution. It was the first time that a representative of the Church had challenged the secular authority in New Spain.

The next Churchman to take up the cause of the Indians was Juan de Zumarraga, appointed Archbishop of Mexico in 1527. Although more moderate in his views than Las Casas, he soon came into conflict with the ruling body of New Spain, an Audiencia, really a Church Court, headed by Nuno de Guzmán. Called “Bloody Guzmán” because of his brutal treatment of both Indians and Spaniards, a clash between the two men was inevitable. When Cortès, a bitter enemy of Guzman, returned to the colony as Captain-General, Bishop Zumárraga excommunicated the Audiencia. But Guzman fled to what is now Jalisco where he continued to wreak havoc among both Spaniards and Indians. Responding to complaints from Zumárraga a new Audiencia was formed under the newly arrived Don Vasco de Quiroga Don Vasco de Quiroga. With the aid of Cortes, a friend of the Indians, and the approval of Don Quiroga and the new Audiencia, Zumárraga established himself and the clergy as “Protector of the Indians”.

Bishops were now appointed and the Church began to exercise a moderating influence on the Spanish landowners. Although they remained slaves, Indians could now turn to the Church with their grievances. Schools for Indians were founded, and now the true meaning of Christianity was made clear to those who had converted. There can be little doubt that the firm grip of Catholicism on Mexico can be traced back to the efforts of Archbishop de Zumárraga. He confirmed the vision of “Our Lady of Guadalupe”. It was he who set up the first shrine, later re-located, that still remains the most popular religious site in Mexico.

Pilgrimages have been made to this shrine almost uninterruptedly since 1531-32. The first basilica accommodated 2,000 worshipers the new ultramodern basilica, inaugurated in October 1976, accommodates up to 20,000 (10,000 seated) people. Juan Diego's original cloak with the mestizo Virgin image imprinted on it hangs above the altar of the new basilica. An estimated 20 million make the pilgrimage each year.

The Virgin of Guadalupe has long been a symbol enshrining the major aspirations of Mexican society. According to Roman Catholic belief, in December 1531, the Virgin Mary appeared on three occasions to a Christian Indian woodcutter named Juan Diego on the hill of Tepeyac, six kilometers north of the zocalo. She spoke to him in the Náhuatl and identified herself by the name of Guadalupe. The Virgin commanded Juan Diego to seek out Bishop de Zumárraga and to inform him of her desire to have a church built in her honor on that spot. After two unsuccessful visits to the bishop's house, Juan Diego returned to Tepeyac and was ordered by the Virgin to pick up some roses, carry them on his cloak, and attempt to make a third visit to the skeptical bishop. Once in the bishop’s office, Juan Diego unfolded his cloak to present the roses, and an image of a mestizo Virgin had been miraculously imprinted upon it.

The Virgin of Guadalupe

Don Vasco de Quiroga, although a layman, had allied himself with Zumárraga. As head of second Audiencia, his punishment of the members of the first Audiencia, sent a message to the colonists. The Church, with government approval, would monitor the treatment of Indians. When the Spanish landowners foiled efforts to force them to grant Indians freedom, De Quiroga started to set up monasteries and community centers in which Indian children could be educated. Manned by friars, they gave instruction in Christianity plus arts and crafts.

Then De Quiroga turned his attention to Michoacan. To repair the damage, done by Guzmán both as head of the first Audiencia and on the way to what is now Jalisco, Quiroga established himself in Tzintzuntzan, the ancient Tarascan capital. Here he achieved immediate results. Spaniards who exploited the natives were brought to justice. Indians were given land, housing was provided. Schools and hospitals were run by the church. In essence, a form of socialism, with self-governing Indian communities, was established. In 1538 he was appointed to the newly formed Bishopric of Michoacan despite being a layman. The organization of Catholicism he set up in Michoacan was to set the pattern for the establishment of that religion throughout what is now Mexico.

1749In 1749 the Spanish King, Ferdinand VI issued an order, transferring mission centers from the control of religious orders to the regular clergy. The order was largely ignored but in 1767 another royal order expelled the Jesuits. Their property was sized and turned over to the Crown. It is estimated that there were more than 2200 Jesuits in the country, ministering to over 700,000 Indians. Very unpopular, this order stirred up unrest in the country and started protests against Spanish rule.

The Jesuits were among the last to arrive; their order was not founded by Ignatius Loyola until 1534 — nor did the Order receive Papal blessing until 1540. Nevertheless, after the arrival of the first Jesuits in Mexico City in 1572, their order-—considered by many scholars to be more zealous and intellectual in this time period—-began to take the lead in aggressive evangelism and education of the native population. The Jesuits built schools and missions and taught agriculture to the natives, moving northward out of Mexico City into the distant branches of the Sierra Madre Mountains. Native Mexicans came to trust the Jesuits, who intervened and tried to protect them from exploitation by other Spanish who needed cheap labor for cruel and back-breaking work in the silver mines.

The success of the Jesuits in education and evangelism was so powerful that they came to be seen as a threat to those in authority, both secular and sacred, in both the Old and New Worlds. In addition, their zeal and devotion to traditional Catholicism clashed with fashionable new ideas of the European Enlightenment, and as such they were repudiated by philosophical thinkers who advocated the use of reason in challenging ancient Church doctrine. Pressure began to grow to take the Jesuits down.

In 1767 King Charles III expelled the Jesuits from Spain and all of its colonies, including Mexico. Seven years later, Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Jesuit order. So influential and popular were the Jesuits among the natives that there were uprisings in the Americas after the Jesuits were expelled. The order was restored by Pope Pius VII in 1814, and it remains an influential teaching order in Mexico into the 21st century.

Mexican Independance

The history of the relationship between church and state following independence involves a series of efforts on the part of the government to curtail the church's influence. Nineteenth-century liberals, trained in the law and influenced by the French Revolution, were anticlerical. Liberals, who also were federalist and favored free competition, were highly concerned that the Roman Catholic Church, by owning between one-quarter and one-half of the land and by controlling most schools, hospitals, and charitable institutions, was practically a state within the Mexican state.

The stage for the upheaval and dissatisfaction that gave rise to Mexican independence was set by political and economic changes in Europe and its American colonies of the late 18th and 19th centuries. The French revolution and Napoleonic wars diverted attention of Spain from its colonies, leaving a vacuum and increasing dissatisfaction and desire for local government. The forced removal of Ferdinand VII from the Spanish throne and his replacement by Joseph Bonaparte, Napoleon’s brother presented opportunity for Mexican intelligentsia to promote independence in the name of the legitimate Spanish king. From its inception, the colonial government of New Spain was dominated by Spanish-born Peninsulares or Guachapins, who held most leadership positions in the church and government, in contrast to Mexican-born Criollos (Creoles) who were the 10 to one majority. Neither Peninsulares or upper-class Criollos wanted to involve the masses of native Indians and mestizos in government or moves for local control. In 1808 the Peninsulares learned of Viceroy Jose de Iturrigaray’s intent to form a junta with Creole factions, a move that he thought might make him King of an independent Mexican kingdom. In an armed attack on the palace, Peninsulares arrested Iturrigaray and replaced him with puppet Pedro Garibay after which they carried out bloody reprisals against Criollos who were suspected of disloyalty.  Although reform movements paused, political and economic instability in Europe continued as well as hardship and unrest in the Americas.

1806-15

One liberal organization that was forced underground was the Literary Club of Queretaro which formed for intellectual discussion, but in practice became a planning organization for revolution. Independence- and reform-oriented thinkers also began to consider enlisting the native Indian, mestizo and lower-class masses in wresting control from the Peninsulares and in armed independence movements.  An active member of the group was Father Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a well-educated liberal priest who questioned policies of the church including clerical celibacy, banning certain literature, infallibility of the pope and the virgin birth of Christ. In Queretaro, Hidalgo met Capt. Ignacio Allende, a revolutionary thinker in the Spanish army. In spring 1810, Allende and Hidalgo planned an uprising for December of the year that leaked out to Spanish authorities and their arrest was ordered.

In September 1810, Father Hidalgo was forced to prematurely distribute the Grito de Dolores to his parishioners and nearby residents, which was an appeal for social and economic reform. With little organization and no training, a mob of thousands of primarily Indians and mestizos overwhelmed royal forces in Guanajuato and proceeded to murder and loot both Peninsulares, Criollos and other “whites” in their path. The force continued to Mexico City and defeated royalist forces on the outskirts, but did not enter and occupy the city after which the ragged revolutionary army returned home. Hidalgo and his Creole officers were later able to assemble an army of 80,000 by payment with looted Peninsulare gold and assets.

The Spanish viceroy responded to the insurgency with a vengeance and in January 1811 Hidalgo suffered a serious defeat outside Guadalajara where rebel forces were routed at Calderon Bridge.  Bloody retaliation followed by mass executions of suspected rebel sympathizers by Spanish crown forces. In 1811, Hidalgo and associates were captured and executed in Chihuahua.

After Hidalgo’s death, mestizo parish priest José Morelos was able to organize a number of the independent chieftains across Mexico, established a Congress which created a declaration of rights and independence from Spain under King Ferdinand VII and a Constitution which included abolition of slavery and equality of classes. Father Morelos was captured and tried by both military tribunals and the Inquisition. He was defrocked/degraded and executed in December 1815.

1833-40s

Between 1833 and the early 1840s, the Mexican government produced various pieces of legislation to limit the power of the church. In 1833 the government adopted several anticlerical measures, including one providing for the secularization of education and another declaring that the payment of the ecclesiastical tithe was not a civil obligation.

The rich and valuable lands held by the missions had long been a sore point among newly independent Mexican citizens who felt that all California lands, not only the government sponsored pueblos and the few grazing tracts granted to a select group of favorites, should be opened up to settlement. Consequently, increasing pressure was brought upon the government to recognize the temporary intention of the missions under the old Spanish Laws of the Indies governing their original establishment, and to support colonization attempts such as those envisioned by secularization proponents Jose Maria Padres and Jose Maria Hijar. Governor Echeandia issued decrees in 1826, 1830, and 1831 that weakened Indian dependence of the missions and set in motion the process of secularization of the 21 Alta California missions. The orders were immediately revoked by his successor. They were replaced by a secularization law adopted by the Mexican Congress in 1833. Finally, Governor Figueroa's proclamation of August 9, 1834, defined an immediate plan for secularization and dispersement of mission property.

The secularization plan provided to each mission resident head of family a lot 100 to 400 varas square and entitlement to the use of mission common lands, as well as a portion of the mission livestock, chattel, tools, seeds, and property. A civil administrator was appointed to inventory and apply the remaining mission property to pay outstanding debts and incurred expenses of secularization and civil maintenance. The padres were given charge of the church itself, its library and furnishings, and allowed a dwelling at the mission, and were to receive an annual salary as curates. The mission assets were also to cover church expenses and servants, as Indians were freed by the decree from their role as personal servants to the padres.

In spite of the decreed purpose to release mission Indians from conditions of near slavery and dependence and to open the land for settlement by petitioners, the immediate effects of secularization throughout California were to deprive a large percentage of the remaining mission Indians of their rightful property, and to disperse mission property quickly, frequently without regard for legal process, to a relatively few fortunately situated individuals.

Juárez Laws 1855-57

The first major confrontation between the Church and the state occurred during the presidency of Benito Juárez (1855-72). The 1855 Juarez Law drastically reduced traditional ecclesiastical privileges. On March 11, 1857, a new constitution was adopted that denied all ecclesiastical entities the right to own real estate and abolished most remaining ecclesiastical privileges. On July 12, 1857, Juárez confiscated all church properties, suppressed all religious orders, and empowered the state governors to designate what buildings could be used for religious services. Mexico's first religious civil war was fought between 1857 and 1860 in reaction to the legislation

Emperor Maximilian: 1864-67

Maximilian of Austria was a European nobleman invited to Mexico in the aftermath of the disastrous wars and conflicts of the mid-19thcentury. It was thought that the establishment of a monarchy, with a tried and true European bloodline, could bring some much-needed stability to the strife-torn nation. He arrived in 1864 and was accepted by the people as Emperor of Mexico. His rule did not last very long, however, as liberal forces under the command of Benito Juarez destabilized Maximilian’s rule. Captured by Juarez’ men, he was executed in 1867.

Maximilian was first approached in 1859 with an offer to be made Emperor of Mexico: he refused, preferring to travel some more, including a botanical mission to Brazil. Mexico was still in shambles from the Reform War and had defaulted on their international debts. In 1862, France invaded Mexico, seeking payment for these debts. By 1863, French forces were firmly in command of Mexico and Maximilian was approached again. This time he accepted.

Maximilian and his wife Charlotte arrived in May of 1864 and set up their official residence at Chapultepec Castle. Maximilian inherited a very unstable nation. The conflict between conservatives and liberals which had caused the Reform War still simmered, and Maximilian was unable to unite the two factions. He angered his conservative supporters by adopting some liberal reforms, and his overtures to liberal leaders were spurned. Benito Juarez and his liberal followers grew in strength, and there was little Maximilian could do about it.

When France withdrew its forces back to Europe, Maximilian was on his own. His position grew ever more precarious, and Charlotte returned to Europe to ask (in vain) for aid from France, Austria and Rome. Charlotte never returned to Mexico: driven mad by the loss of her husband, she spent the rest of her life in seclusion before passing away in 1927. By 1866 the writing was on the wall for Maximilian: his armies were in disarray and he had no allies. He stuck it out nevertheless, apparently due to a genuine desire to be a good ruler of his new nation.

Mexico City fell to liberal forces in early 1867, and Maximilian retreated to Querétaro, where he and his men withstood a siege for several weeks before surrendering. Captured, Maximilian was executed along with two of his generals on June 19. He was 34 years old. His body was returned to Austria the next year, where it currently resides in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna.

New Constitution 1917The constitution of 1917 highlighted and institutionalized many of the 19th-century secular reforms. The new constitution included at least five articles that affected all religious groups, regardless of denomination. These articles, which remained in effect until 1992, appeared to preclude any national role for the Roman Catholic Church. Article 3 forbade churches from participating in primary and secondary education. Article 5 prohibited the establishment of religious orders. Article 24 mandated that all religious ceremonies occur within church buildings. Article 27 gave the state ownership of all church buildings.

Article 130 contained the most extensive restrictions on the Roman Catholic Church. The article stated that the Roman Catholic Church lacks legal status; ecclesiastical marriages have no legal standing; state legislatures can determine the maximum number of clergy operating within their boundaries; and operation of church buildings requires explicit government authorization. Among the most contentious provisions of Article 130 was Section 9: “Neither in public nor private assembly, nor in acts of worship or religious propaganda shall the ministers of the religions ever have the right to criticize the basic laws of the country, of the authorities in particular or of the government in general; they shall have neither an active nor passive vote, nor the right to associate for political purposes.”

1926-29: Cristero Rebellion

Beginning in 1926 and continuing until the late 1930s, various federal and state administrations strenuously enforced these constitutional edicts and related laws. Their actions paved the way for the second Mexican religious war, the bloody Cristero Rebellion of 1926-29 in western Mexico. During this period, the governor of Sonora ordered all churches closed, officials in the state of Tabasco required priests to marry if they were to officiate at mass, and the Chihuahua government allowed only one priest to minister to the entire statewide Roman Catholic population.

Beginning on August 1, 1926, over 4,000 Priests were expelled or assassinated in eight years.  Only 334 priests were licensed (by the government) to serve some 15 million people.  All Church property was seized, public worship became illegal (no baptism, no Mass, no marriage), and priests were forbidden to vote or even speak against the government. 

The Cristero movement is an essential part of the Mexican Revolution. When in 1926 relations between Church and state, old enemies and old partners, eventually broke down, when the churches closed and the liturgy was suspended, Rome, Washington and Mexico embarked upon a long game of chess. These years were crucial, because they saw the setting up of the contemporary political system. The state established its omnipotence, supported by a bureaucratic apparatus and a strong privileged class. Just at the moment when the state thought that it was finally supreme, at the moment at which it decided to take control of the Church, the Cristero movement arose, a spontaneous mass movement, particularly of peasants, unique in its spread, its duration, and its popular character.

Church-state conflict officially ended with the administration of Manuel Ávila Camacho (1940-46). With the notable exception of Article 130, Section 9, the government tacitly offered non-enforcement of key constitutional provisions in exchange for the Roman Catholic Church’s cooperation in achieving social peace. Over the next four decades, enforcement of Article 130, Section 9, served the interests of both the government and the Roman Catholic Church. The constitutional restriction on ecclesiastical political participation enabled the state to limit the activities of a powerful competitor. It also permitted the Roman Catholic Church to sidestep controversial political issues and to concentrate on rebuilding its ecclesiastical structure and presence throughout the country.

The Roman Catholic Church hierarchy has emphasized that its renewed interest in political affairs does not equate with church involvement in party activities. According to the Mexican episcopate, priests should be above all political parties and may not become political leaders. However, the church hierarchy also argues that priests have a moral responsibility to denounce actions that violate Christian morality.

1980sBy the early 1980s, however, this unspoken consensus supporting the legal status quo had eroded. The Roman Catholic Church regarded the constitution's anticlerical provisions, especially those governing ecclesiastical political activity, as anachronistic. It demanded the right to play a much more visible role in national affairs. At the same time, the church became increasingly outspoken in its criticism of government corruption. The Mexican bishops' Global Pastoral Plan for 1980-1982, for example, contained a highly critical assessment of the Mexican political system. According to the Roman Catholic hierarchy, democracy existed only in theory in Mexico. The ruling PRI monopolized power, producing apathy and frustration among citizens and judicial corruption. The principal worker and peasant unions were subject to political control. Peasants and Indians constituted an exploited, marginalized mass barely living at a subsistence level and subject to continual repression. During the mid-1980s, the bishops of Chihuahua and Ciudad Juárez assumed prominent roles in denouncing electoral fraud in northern Mexico. In the south, the bishops of San Cristóbal de las Casas and Tehuantepec frequently accused the government of human rights violations.

1990s

The Salinas administration's 1991 proposal to remove all constitutional restrictions on the Roman Catholic Church, recommendations approved by the legislature the following year, allowed for a more realistic church-state relationship. At the same time, however, tensions remained in the relationship, particularly in southern Mexico in general and in Chiapas in particular. Local government and PRI officials and ranchers accused the Bishop of San Cristóbal de las Casas of having supported the rebellion that began in Chiapas in 1994, a charge that the bishop denied. Federal soldiers repeatedly searched diocesan churches in their pursuit of the rebels. The government also expelled foreign clergy who were accused of inciting violence and land seizures. In addition, the Vatican accused the San Cristóbal prelate of theological and pastoral distortions and named a coadjutor (successor) bishop for the diocese in the mid-1990s. For their part, the rebels insisted that the bishop continue to serve as mediator in their negotiations with the federal government.

Mexican Catholicism is extremely varied in practice. It ranges from those who support traditional folk religious practices, usually in isolated rural communities, to those who adhere to the highly intellectualized theology of liberation, and from charismatic renewal prayer groups to the conservative Opus Dei movement. Lay groups with different goals, purposes, and political orientations are well known and common in contemporary Mexico. The largest and best known include Mexican Catholic Action, Knights of Columbus, Christian Study Courses, Christian Family Movement, Legionnaires of Christ, and a wide range of university students’ and workers’ organizations.

One creepy symbol is the skeletal figure of La Santa Muerte, Saint Death, who serves as the patron saint of gangs. Santa Muerte is condemned by the official church but worshiped in countless clandestine shrines. Nor is she the only manifestation of a subversive pseudo-Catholicism that veers close to outright diabolism. Another wildly popular folk saint is the 19th-century bandit Jesús Malverde, "angel of the poor," patron of drug dealers and illegal migrants. Devotees of San Juan Soldado (Soldier John) venerate a man executed in 1938 for raping and murdering an eight-year-old girl. While such beliefs demonstrate a profound faith in spiritual realities, they also show the yawning gulf that separates popular practice from any traditional concept of Christian faith.

ConclusionIn opposition to the Marxist vision of the Church that considers it an instrument of the State to preserve the regime, we can see that, throughout Mexican history in the 20th century, the characteristic position of the institutional Church in the Mexican political spectrum has been that of the opposition to the Mexican State, even if that opposition has changed across time.

The Church is not an “ideological apparatus” of the State used to uphold the status quo. Although is true that, in many occasions, the Hierarchy has partnered with other elites, for example, the business and party elites; its purpose has been to fight for its own socio-Christian project and defend its own interests (such as obtaining legal recognition). The clergy supports lay groups to pressure the government, but when the objective is to negotiate with it, instead of using intermediates, the Hierarchy always prefers to deal directly with the Presidents of the Republic19. The Church did that in the arrangements to finish the Cristeros War, and with each and every one of the governments of the institutionalized revolution, even with the ultraliberal Salinas, to achieve constitutional modifications.

The Hierarchy in Mexico has been the hardest critic of the liberal and socialist ideologies, but paradoxically, at the same time it has been an important actor in opening the politics in Mexico, because of its role of counterbalance to PRI’s governments, in the context of an authoritarian and hegemonic party system.

The collaboration of the Church with the post-revolutionary governments, known as Modus Vivendi, never was a Hierarchy’s identification with or submission to the State; but a period to recover energy after Cristeros War, and the coincidence of a common enemy of the Church and the State: communism. In addition, in the same period, the Church made itself into an important actor able to indict the government. That fact, along with many other factors and actors, managed to undermine the PRI’s hegemony and, as a consequence, being an indubitable ingredient for Mexican democratization.