Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T18:21:30.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Church and State in Mexico: A Corporatist Relationship

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 December 2015

Karl Schmitt
Karl Schmitt*
Affiliation:
University of Texas, Austin, Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Conventional wisdom holds that two sharp breaks occurred historically in Mexican church-state relations: the first during the Reforma (1857-1861), and the second during the Revolution (1910-1920). These breaks reflected growing estrangement and hostility between secular and ecclesiastical authorities, culminating finally, with the Constitution of 1917, in the most anti-clerical and even anti-religious legislation ever enacted in the hemisphere. This paper has no quarrel with the above interpretation as far as it goes. What I will argue here is that, despite these very real changes, certain basic continuities have persisted in the conceptualization of the relationship between Church and State. Moreover, a number of specific quarrels and modes of government response have roots that extend well into the colonial period. Anti-monasticism has some precedent in the expulsion of the Jesuits in 1767, and the nationalization of Church property in 1859 and again in 1917, in the royal Consolidation of 1804.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Americas , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , January 1984 , pp. 349 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Malloy, James M., “Authoritarianism, Corporatism and Mobilization in Peru,” The Review of Politics Vol. 36 (January 1974), No. 1, p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 For a discussion of democratic and authoritarian forms of corporatism see Schmitter, Philippe C., “Still the Century of Corporatism?,” The Review of Politics Vol. 36 (January 1974), No. 1, pp. 102–04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3 McAlister, Lyle N., “Social Structure and Social Change in New Spain,” The Hispanic American Historical Review Vol. 43 (August 1963), No. 3, pp. 361–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Farriss, N.M., Crown and Clergy in Colonial Mexico, 1759–1821. The Crisis of Ecclesiastical Privilege (London: The Athlone Press, 1968), pp. 171–72.Google Scholar

5 Ibid., pp. 369–70.

6 Ladd, Doris M., The Mexican Nobility at Independence, 1780–1826 (Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin, 1976), p. 6.Google Scholar

7 Costeloe, Michael P., Church and State in Independent Mexico. A Study of the Patronage Debate (London: Royal Historical Society, 1978), p. 18.Google Scholar

8 For the text of the Cadiz Constitution see Ramírez, Felipe Tena (ed.), Leyes Fundamentales de México, 1808–1978, 8th ed. (México: Editorial Porrúa, S.A., 1978), pp. 60–103.Google Scholar

9 Robertson, William Spence. Iturbide in Mexico (Durham: Duke University Press, 1952), pp. 138 and 160.Google Scholar

10 Costeloe, p. 48.

11 Tena Ramírez, pp. 126, .128, and 135.

12 For the text of the Constitution of 1824 see Tena Ramírez, pp. 168 ff.

13 Costeloe, pp. 69–75 thoroughly analyzes the constitutional debates on Church-State issues.

14 Ibid, pp. 75–81.

15 Ibid., pp. 116–17.

16 This ambivalence among the Puros is well exemplified in the thought of José María Luis Mora, the leading theorist of the time, who advocated both guarantees of individual liberty and the strengthening of state authority. See Hale, Charles A., Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821–1853 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), pp.298–302.Google Scholar

17 For the text of the Leyes Constitucionales of 1836, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 206ff.

18 For the text of the Bases Orgánicas of 1843, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 406ff.

19 Costeloe, pp. 150–53.

20 Mecham, J. Lloyd, Church and State in Latin America. A History of Politico-Ecclesiastical Relations (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1934), pp. 428–32.Google Scholar

21 For the text of the Constitution of 1857, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 607ff. For commentary on the debates, see Scholes, Walter V., “Church and State at the Mexican Constitutional Convention, 1856–1857,” The Americas Vol. 4 (October 1947), No. 2, pp. 151–74.Google Scholar

22 Knowlton, Robert K., Church Property and the Mexican Reform, 1856–1910 (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1976), p. 51.Google Scholar

23 For the text of these laws, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 636ff.

24 Knowlton, pp. 141–44.

25 For the text of the law, see Bassols, Narciso (ed.). Leyes de Reforma que afectan el Clero (Puebla: Imprenta del Convictorio, 1902), pp. 200–201 Google Scholar. On November 11, 1874, funeral ceremonies were declared exempt from the restriction; Bassols, pp. 204–05.

26 For the text of the constitutional reforms, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 697–98, and for the text of the organic law, see Bassols, pp. 205–11.

27 As business and labor organizations established themselves and grew in importance in the latter third of the nineteenth century, every administration from that of Benita Juárez onward has attempted to associate them with government and the political leadership with the object of restricting their autonomy and bringing them under government control. See Shafer, Robert Jones, Mexican Business Organizations. History and Analysis (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1973), pp. 17–21 Google Scholar; Ashby, Joe C., Organized Labor and the Mexican Revolution under Lázaro Cárdenas (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1967), pp. 3–5 Google Scholar; and Walker, David W., “Porfirian Labor Politics: Working Class Organizations in Mexico City and Porfirio Díaz, 1876–1902,” The Americas Vol. 37 (January 1981), No. 3, pp. 257–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 For a brief statement of his views, see Madero, Francisco, La Sucesión Presidencial en 1910, 3rd ed. (México: Lib.de la Viudade Ch. Bouret, 1911), pp. 304–05Google Scholar; for a debate over the issue with one of his supporters, see Estrada, Roque, La Revolución y Francisco I. Madero (Guadalajara, 1912), pp. 178–80Google Scholar. Estrada opposed Madero’s plan to abrogate all the Reform laws.

29 For the text of the Constitution of 1917, see Tena Ramírez, pp. 817ff; for analysis of the convention debates, see Niemeyer, E.V. Jr., Revolution at Querélare. The Mexican Constitutional Convention of 1916–1917 (Austin: Institute of Latin American Studies by the University of Texas Press, 1974), pp. 61–95.Google Scholar