of the First Chief of the Revolution, Venustiano Carranza, the military acts which were considered restrictive of religious liberty have been diminishing in number and in gravity.

PROPERTIES OF THE CHURCH.

The Mexican Constitution and the laws of the Reform determine that neither the Catholic Church nor any other religious corporation, regardless of character, denomination, duration or object, can own landed property.

The reason for this ordinance is that the Catholic clergy constituted, previous to 1856, the strongest economic power existing in the country.

In 1856, an attempt was made to disentail the properties of the clergy, that is, to destroy the mortmain, compelling the clergy to alienate their landed property. This was the tendency of the laws of disentailment.

The clergy vigorously resisted this law, believing that their economic power was thus considerably reduced, and with this motive started the struggle called the War of the Reform or Three Years' War.

The laws of 1856 did not expropriate the clergy, but in view of the latters' completely rebellious attitude, in 1859 Benito Juarez issued in Vera Cruz a law called "Nationalization of the Lands of the Clergy," by which was expropriated all th landed property of the Catholic clergy who had resisted and struggled against the disentailment of these lands.

In virtue of this law, the temples became national property, the titles of ownership remaining in the hands of the State, but the usufruct of the same being reserved to the Catholic Church. As to the clergy's landed property and real estate investments, these were turned over to the nation and awarded to individuals.

The vital point of the laws of the Reform regarding the Catholic clergy lies in the declaration of civil incapacity of religious corporations to own lands. This measure, though it may appear extreme, was absolutely necessary in 1859, in order to deprive the clergy of their temporal power. The measure still continues to be absolutely indispensable, because if religious corporations were at this moment permitted to acquire landed property, a considerable mortmain would inmediate be created, from which a great amount of power would again be derived by the Catholic Church, who would thus recover their temporal power, which all countries have admitted should not be tolerated. Moreover, it can be said that the reason for which the Catholic. Church of Mexico has taken, as a Church, participation in the political struggle, and attemps to recover its influence and its

1611

no.5

temporal power, is that for several years past it has been successfully evading the law in so far as regards the possession of lands.

According to the Mexican law, the Catholic Church is incapacitated from acquiring lands, by which is understood not only landed property, but also capital invested in real estate.

The Mexican law also prohibits the feoffments which might cause the property to appear in the hands of an individual, when it really belongs to the Church, or is used exclusively for the benefit of the Church.

Feoffments from bishop to bishop are not permitted in Mexico, and the states owned by members of the clergy are considered as their personal property, to be freely transmitted to the voluntary or legal inheritors of the owners.

The estates of a bishop in Mexico, when not acquired through agreement or bequest, are to be transmitted to his legal inheritors.

For a long time past, Mexican bishops, rectors and even a number of laymen have been owning lands which apparently are their personal property, but the products of which in reality are destined to be turned over to the Church. These lands effectually constitute a mortmain, because their owners, before dying, have to bequeath them to the persons previously designated by the Church, whether to the succeeding bishop or to any other person especially designated to that effect.

That is how the Church has, against the law, been acquiring a large amount of landed property having the appearance of private property.

But, in practice, the lands personally owned could not always be taken over without difficulties by the new trustee designated by the Church, and experience showed that from time to time properties were lost to the Church which were claimed by the legal inheritors of the owner apparent.

These losses emphasized the advisability of finding other means to tie up the property to the Church, without ostensibly violating the laws of the Reform. In some places stock companies have been organized, without any determined mercantile end, but solely for the purpose of managing the estates which might be entrusted to these companies. The capital of the companies was made up of contributions by the members of the clergy or by individuals; the shares of the company, and therefore, its management, being retained by the bishops. Notable instances of this can be had in the bishoprics of Durango, Puebla, and several other parts of the country.

Briefly, it can be said that the Catholic Church, transgressing the law which prohibits it from acquiring landed property, has found means of necessary, just and legal appearance for possessing lands, which have served it to recover little by little its political influence.

The confiscation of the lands illegally possessed by the Catholic Church of Mexico is a necessary, just and legal confiscation, and in that sense, all the confiscations of lands pertaining to the Church are legitimate, for which reason the Constitutionalist Government is in the right in continuing the same policy, not only confiscating the properties which are openly in the ownership of the clergy, but also investigating those properties which apparently belong to individuals, but which, through the history of their former owners and through the form of their administration, can be clearly distinguished as properties of the Church.

As regards the temples, since the passing of the laws of the Reform, the ownership has been retained to the State, their use being reserved to the Catholic Church. In fact, the Catholic Church has for many years used the temples without restriction of any kind and without paying rents, pensions or contributions of any sort.

The limiting of the number of temples which are needed in each place for religious services would have to be left to the judgment of the Church, but as the Catholic clergy of Mexico exercise absolute control in religious matters, without intervention of any kind by the community, that is, by the parishioners, in the administration of the estates or in the management of the temporal interests of the parishes, or still less in the organization of the religious services, there is nothing to serve as a basis for determining the number of temples required by a certain parish or a certain city.

It is, therefore, with State alone that the Church can come to an understanding regarding the number of temples to be reserved for the service, and the Government, as administrator of the nation's property, has the unquestionable right to dispose of the temples, when required for uses which, in its estimation, are of higher importance than the religious service, and above all, when, because of the abundance of temples in a single city, the number of those available for religious services is considered excessive.

Up to the present time, the Government has not made use of this right.

Immediately after the passing of the laws of the Reform, and principally since 1867, the Juarez Government took over some

MG11
no.5

of the many temples in existence, for the purpose of turning them to public uses, so that in the principal cities of the country it may be seen that the libraries, universities, hospitals, and many other charitable institutions occupy buildings which originally were temples. Since 1876, the Catholic Church has enjoyed unmolested the possession of a great number of temples, and the Government up to the present had not tried to make use of its right to consolidate the property of some of them, nor had there been any ocasion to discuss the number of temples necessary for religious services.

The truth of the matter is that in some cities of Mexico the number of temples open to public service is considerably excessive, in proportion to the religious needs. A population of 10,000 inhabitants has enough with one or two temples open for worship; however, there are towns, such as the City of Cholula, in which the number of churches is so great in proportion to the population that a source of real curiosity is found by tourists in the vast number of temples, all of which are open for service, all affording occupation to priests, and, therefore, signifying a strong contribution on the part of the faithful.

Puebla is a city of 100,000 inhabitants, and it is curious to note that, until the time of its occupation by the Constitutionalist Army, it had nearly 200 temples open to the public.

Merida is a city of 60,000 inhabitants, and it has enough with twelve temples, that is, one for each 5,000 souls.

The city of Vera Cruz has a normal population of .50,000 inhabitants, and three churches have always sufficed for religious services.

Up to the present time, the number of temples destined for public service in each place has been unlimited. The Government notwithstanding its unquestionable right to dispose of the buildings and to determine which are those that should be reserved for religious services and which can be destined for other purposes, had not limited the number of temples which the Catholic Church controlled.

Lately, however, the attitude assumed by the clergy against the Constitutionalist Revolution brought about the closing of certain temples to religious services by a number of military chiefs and State Governors, on their capturing towns.

This could be regarded as an act of hostility, or as a sort of reprisal against the Catholic clergy, but in reality, and even supposing that such were the case, the closing of some of the temples, which never reached the extent of the total closing up of all the churches in a town, does not constitute an illegal act and is not censurable except in so far as regards the occasion

the attitude of the clergy themselves.

In substance: as regards goods and chattels, the Catholic Church has full capacity to acquire and handle property. But in so far as landed property is concerned, the Mexican Constitution forbids the Catholic Church to own real estate or capital invested in the same, and the only right granted the Church by the laws is to maintain the temples immediately or directly destined to religious service.

Concerning the temples open for worship, which are the property of the State, their number is considerably greater than is required to fill the demand, and the Government is not occasioning a damage, but simply exercising a right, when it consolidates the property of those temples which it is not essential should remain in the power of the Church.

CONVENTS.

The laws of the Reform established the abolition of all convents and of all religious essociations of monastic life. The monastic orders existing in Mexico, not only those of a merely contemplative nature, but also those of an educational and charitable nature, were abolished in virtue of these laws.

In 1874 they even went so far as to abolish the charity institution known as "Sisters of Charity," and the other regular orders, especially those of the Jesuits, were then expelled.

The abolition of the monastic orders in Mexico was a meassure clearly taken in defence of human liberty, which was found to be threatened by them.

This was especially so in regard to women, whose education was still very deficient, so that they were not in a condition to defend their liberty when the tremendous moral pressure of parents and relatives was brought to bear upon them in order to force them to enter a convent.

The Mexican woman, particularly the one who possessed riches in her own right, was always exposed to the danger of seeing her liberty restricted by her entrance into a convent, where it became impossible to prove that her permanence there was not absolutely voluntary.

The Mexican woman has not, like the American woman, an education which enables her personally to look after her own liberty, and before the passing of the laws of the Reform, experience taught that the existence of convents was a constant threat to feminine liberty.

Even subsequently to the passing of these laws, rich heiresses have always been the object of suggestions inducing them to take the religious vow in a foreign country.