"Mexican Martyrdom" - Rev Wilfrid Parsons

p.falk · **Posted:** Sat Jul 16, 2022 2:58 pm

The author, Rev. Parsons, in the Introduction stated that he will not be giving too many footnotes... and that most of the sources that he'll be quoting from will be critical of the Catholic Church and Her aims regardless.

I thought this was kind of brash of him to do, but... the book was written in 1936 (a fact I need to keep reminding myself of as I read). The events were very close to him in history.

One interesting theme that I've noticed, while talking to my friends about this (who are also Catholic, and some of them very well read), is that most (all?) are admittedly ignorant about this bit of history. It is clear to me now that being a product of Catholic schools from the 80s to the 90s is not a guarantee that you'll know diddily about important bits of history with respects to our faith... still though: the brazenness of the Mexican authorities to take pictures prior to executions (as well as photos subsequent to that execution) and then to send them to journalists world-wide. The author seems unsurprised that the American press paid so little attention to the horrors south of the border.

The publisher notes that ".. the Great Mexican Revolution, unleashed in 1810 by the "Catholic" priest Miguel Hidalgo and culminating in the rule of Plutarco Elias Calles in 1928, never really varied in character throughout its long history and that it was always violently anti-Catholic and left-leaning". Disturbing that a Catholic priest played a role in the revolution's inception (if true)... but somehow I'm not too surprised.

This book puts a story to the iconic face and image of Fr. Pro. Again, a history (as well as face) that was blotted out from my Catholic education.

There's mention to a leftist journalist named Carleton Beals. Beals who was very much sympathetic to the aims of the revolutionaries, was living in Mexico City with other "Bright Young Things". Beal apparently was skeptical to the cries of the Church and the laymen and women. Some of these Waughian 'Vile Bodies' suggested that Beal actually look into it before fully dismissing it. He did... and was stunned by the brutality. It didn't win his heart over to the faith, but he admitted that the revolutionaries were indeed brutal to the Catholics.

Vern Humphrey · **Posted:** Sun Jul 17, 2022 8:42 am

Hidalgo was committed to improving the lot of the Indians by teaching them to grow grapes, keep bees, tan leather and other economic activities. The Mercantilist government of Spain shut down his activities. Hidalgo preached the Grito de Delores on the 16th of September, 1810, and that day is still celebrated as Mexican Independence Day. Hidalgo and his aims for the Mexican people couldn't be more different from those of Plutarco Calles if they had been on different planets,

p.falk · **Posted:** Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:16 pm

Thanks for the insight on that.

Is it true though, that he was instrumental in the overthrow of the monarchy?

It’s interesting in this book how the author compares the civilization building of the Spanish efforts contrasted with the pilgrims in America. The amount of architecture, arts,… It’s impressive to read such efforts. Masonry verse earth and daub.

He speaks of an Indian of Mexico named Miguel Cabrera who was known as the “Raphael of Mexico “.

I pulled up some of his paintings and they are beautiful.

The amount of architectural appropriation on the part of the Mexican government during the presidency of Calles is wild. However, it seems like some of that architectural appropriation away from the church of those beautiful buildings occurred even before the presidency of Calles.

p.falk · **Posted:** Mon Jul 25, 2022 6:27 pm

The author states that in one Mexican city alone the total value of Catholic properties (taken by the Mexican government) was officially appraised at 44,500,000 pesos in 1856.

A newspaper clipping that he quotes states “economy for the government of considerable proportions“. That the secular government grew massively from the buildings it took from the Catholic Church.

“The destinations is given: 44 federal schools and libraries; 22 for state schools and libraries; 70 to local governments for schools, centers of cultural and recreation fields; seven for telegraph officers; eight for military officers; two for agricultural centers; one each for the department of commerce, for the post office, and the department of health; eight others for various similar purposes“

“as a matter of fact, the above 152 confiscated properties are only a very small part of what was taken from the church during the years of 1926 to 1929 the movement was only getting underway when is preliminary report was published.”

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Jul 31, 2022 6:39 pm

In 1931; going into the 400th year celebration of our Lady of Guadalupe, the author of the book mentions how one governor in Mexico decided to drastically limit the number of priests allowed for the population. A percentage so low that it became impossible to serve the needs of the Catholics of that state. Eventually that governor grew tired of monitoring how many priests and registering them that he just decided to ban all priests entirely. The author also mentions how numerous other states followed his lead. All of the states severely limiting the amount of priests allowed per the population.

And how wild the turn of events is , considering that just a few months prior the president of Mexico allowed greater relaxations on the restrictive interpretation of the Mexican constitution.

Starting in 1931 it became almost impossible for the average Catholic to expect to receive the necessary sacraments. Out of all the things that I have learned about the faith during my schooling, or my independent reading, this is one of the most harrowing things I have read. How so many governors quickly began to implement this novel approach to interpreting what the needs of the Catholics are and cutting back the amount of allowable priests to practice in their state.

p.falk · **Posted:** Thu Aug 04, 2022 9:55 pm

The intensity of the hate towards all things Catholic just increases the further you get into the book. Reaffirming my confusion as to how this history was omitted from my years in Catholic education.

I'm going to quote a few sections from the book below:

Quote:

Sooner or Later every Revolution gets around to schools. The very first thing that the Communists did in Russia was to capture the schools, for they realized that they had no hope of converting the older people, especially in the country; but they could fashion the minds of youth so that they would never know anything different from what was taught them by the Community party... It is curious that this did not dawn upon the Mexican revolution until very late. Any Catholic school found operating as such before 1934 was closed, but this merely had the effect of putting thousands of children out on the streets without any schooling whatever."

From Dictator Calles

Quote:

"The reactionaries say and the clericals say that the child belongs to the home and the youth to the family; this is a selfish doctrine, since the child and the youth belong to the community, to the collectivity, and it is the Revolution that has the obligation of doing away with prejudices and developing the national soul... For this reason I call upon all Governors throughout the Republic, on all public authorities, and all Revolutionary elements to proceed at once to the field of battle which we must make, because the child and the youth must belong to the Revolution.

Sex Education in the School... also used as a litmus test of secular, socialist support

Quote:

The then Secretary of Education, one Narciso Bassols, one of his (Calles') favorites, had introduced into the public schools a system of sexual education for all children.

Quote:

The system was carried out in the most extreme fashion, along with the Tabasco model. What happened is well authenticated. Children were taken to stockyards to see the coupling of animals. They were taken into maternity wards to witness parturition. They were undressed in schools of both sexes and had explained to them the process of copulation.
One teacher put on a school dance in which all the boys and girls were unclothed.

Many Catholic teachers simply resigned.

Quote:

In one place a more bizarre incident is recorded. The teacher, a substitute for one who had resigned, cam into the schoolroom one morning naked from the waist up because, she said, she was going to give the children a lesson in sexual education. One small boy darted out of the room and went running around the town shouting that the teacher in school was naked. The townspeople gathered with sticks and stones..

Constitutional Amendment essentially breaking up all Catholic, religious education.

Quote:

General Cardenas was elected in July, 1934, on a program of the Six Year Plan, elaborated by General Calles. An integral part of this plan was to be an amendment abolishing all private schools of whatever character, and imposing a Socialistic curriculum on all schools

Secular, Atheistic Affiliation Oath/Test

Quote:

For the teachers in the public schools the problem was of another kind. The largest number of them were Catholics.
They were forced to take an oath, of which this, from Yucatan, is a fair sample:
"In the presence of the Federal Board of Education, I__________, declare that I unconditionally accept the program of the Socialistic school and that I will make known and will defend it;
"I declare that I am an atheist, an irreconcilable enemy of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion, that I will endeavor to destroy it, detaching consciences from the bonds of any religious worship, and that I am ready to fight against the clergy anywhere and wherever it will be necessary.

GKC · **Joined:** Thu Feb 20, 2003 10:22 pm **Posts:** 20036

I was generally aware of the history and the subject matter you are presenting here. But this last post certainly strikes me with it's immediate, here and now relevance and warnings, for all local schools and educational systems.

"The reactionaries say and the clericals say that the child belongs to the home and the youth to the family; this is a selfish doctrine, since the child and the youth belong to the community, to the collectivity, and it is the Revolution that has the obligation of doing away with prejudices and developing the national soul... For this reason I call upon all Governors throughout the Republic, on all public authorities, and all Revolutionary elements to proceed at once to the field of battle which we must make, because the child and the youth must belong to the Revolution."

This surely was said some time last week, by the NEA and AFT.

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Aug 07, 2022 7:22 am

Quote:

Meanwhile another voice, an impartial one, had raised itself. Dr. Charles S Macfarland, General Secretary Emeritus of the Federal Council of Churches, also went to Mexico during 1935. Dr. Macfarland had been friendly to the revolutionary regime because he was attracted by its social program. What he found in Mexico, however, on his latest visit, namely...

Dr. Macfarland set himself two questions; "Does the State in Mexico suppress religious liberty?" And, "Is the Mexican State persecuting the Church?"

His answer to the 1st is pretty straightforward, but here's his reply to the 2nd:

Quote:

Is not that questions answered sufficiently when I pass the beautiful Cathedral and find flaming posters of the State plastered on its walls attacking it in violent terms as an institution, or when I go into a church and find it filled with cartoons, some of them vile caricatures of religion itself? Is it not answered when the Government goes into the Cathedral, makes trash heaps of alters and crucifixes, and pastes seals on its paintings of the Madonnas and in the Church offices on the typewriters, certifying that they are the property of the Government? Is it not answered when the 'Red Shirts,' even though not authorized, are permitted to invade church property in riotous manner? It is idle to discuss this question. Even a hasty review of this volume makes it perfectly clear that the Mexican State is persecuting the Church. For the Foreign Secretary and the Ambassador to the United States to reiterate denials is as disingenuous as it is inept

p.falk · **Posted:** Sun Aug 07, 2022 11:31 am

A very concise explanation as to why the hostility existed between the Mexican Revolutionary government and the Church:

Quote:

The royal right of Patronato green was not admitted by the Church to have descended to Republican Mexico. That, as Bishop Kelley has shown, is the ultimate source of all the grief. And one form or another Mexican governments have always demanded the right to rule the church as it was ruled by the Spanish Kings. From the very beginning into the present, the regime of Diaz was not excepted, it has been the misfortune of the church to be in the position of refusing to be ruled by Mexico’s republican government. It was Calles who in 1926 brought the century all debate to a climax

"Mexican Martyrdom" - Rev Wilfrid Parsons

Who is online