MEXICO

Text of Decree on

Nationalization of Property

Appeal of the

Bishops of Mexico

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE
1312 Massachusetts Avenue, N. W.

Washington, D. ۥ



Sd-cc
f
C*p« m

Copyright, 1935

by the

NATIONAL CATHOLIC WELFARE CONFERENCE

Washington, D. C.



FOREWORD*
HPHE decree, a translation of which we present

herewith, approved and promulgated August 31,

1935, by General Lazaro Cardenas, President of

Mexico, is a mockery of law. Shakespeare speaks

of certain “vain blows that are malicious mockery.”

Law presupposes order. Law presupposes justice.
Law presupposes the freedom, if injustice has been
done, to seek and secure redress. A law not founded
on these fundamentals is no law but arbitrary

tyranny. This decree of General Cardenas contra-

dicts, nullifies and voids, the basic law itself of Mex-

ico. This decree is not law: it is but animus and

hatred. Ruthlessly it would destroy religion, re-

ligious worship, religious institutions.

Government itself cannot endure when it is so

weak that it must resort to this official violation of

the inalienable rights of citizens. Administration of

law then becomes meaningless.

The alleged purpose of this decree is to enforce

Section II, Article 27, of the Queretaro Constitution.

That section is as follows

:

“Article 27, II. Religious associations known

as churches, irrespective of creed, shall in no case

have legal capacity to acquire, hold or administer

real property or loans made on such real property.

All such real property or loans as may be at pres-

ent held by the said religious associations, either

on their own behalf or through third parties, shall

vest in the Nation, and anyone shall have the

right to denounce property so held. Presumptive

* This foreword was written before the publication of the

appeal by the Mexican Hierarchy, a full translation of which

appears later in this pamphlet.

3



4 FOREWORD

proof shall be sufficient to declare the denuncia-

tion well-founded. Places of public worship are

the property of the Nation, as represented by the

Federal Government, which shall determine which

of them may continue to be devoted to their pres-

ent purposes. Episcopal residences, rectories,

seminaries, orphan asylums or schools of religious

associations, convents, or any other buildings

built or designed for the administration, propa-

ganda, or teaching of the tenets of any religious

creed shall forthwith vest, as of full right, directly

in the Nation, to be used exclusively for the pub-

lic services of the Federation of the States, within

their respective jurisdictions. All places of pub-

lic worship which shall later be erected shall be

the property of the Nation.”

This constitutional mandate was enacted by a con-

vention that did not represent the Mexican Nation,

a convention born of and sustained by intense par-

tisanship. The provision is reactionary, and it turns

back the pages of Mexico’s history to the middle of

the 19th Century, to the anti-religious fanaticism of

the Juarez Revolution. The revolutionary decrees

of Juarez asserted that churches could not have the

legal right to acquire, hold or administer real prop-

erty. But the 1857 Constitution, although based for

the greater part on those decrees, did not embody

fully their spirit of hatred. As finally ratified with

amendments, the 1857 Constitution recognized in a

limited way the legal right of “religious corporations

and associations” to acquire title to, and to adminis-

ter “buildings immediately and directly destined to

the services or purposes of the said corporations and

associations.”



FOREWORD 5

The Queretaro Constitution substitutes for this

right the provision : “The Federal Government shall

determine which of them (that is, church buildings)

may continue to be devoted to their present pur-

poses.”

But this new decree, this law of August 31, 1935,

the purpose of which is to enforce Section II of Ar-

ticle 27 of the Constitution, ignores completely this

constitutional mandate. For the constitutional man-

date requires the Federal Government to state what

church buildings shall be continued to be devoted to

their present purpose. This mandate, if it means

anything, means at least that the privilege of being

used for religious purposes shall be accorded to at

least some church buildings by the Federal Govern-

ment.

But this decree of August 31 prescribes detailed

procedure by which the Federal Government shall

take title to all the property of the church. It pre-

scribes no procedure for the setting aside of particu-

lar properties, that is, particular churches for re-

ligious purposes, as it is commanded to do even by

the very article it pretends to enforce. On the con-

trary, it transfers to the revolutionary government

all church property now available for religious wor-

ship and refuses to provide for the people of Mexico,

or for any religious congregation, gathering or

assembly of those people, protection against being

arbitrarily deprived of the right to continue to wor-

ship in buildings used at present for worship or

which in the future may be erected for religious

worship.

Article 9 of the present Constitution of Mexico

guarantees the right of peaceable assembly. This



6 FOREWORD

decree of August 31 violates that provision of the

Constitution.

Article 14 of the present Constitution of Mexico

guarantees the right to life, liberty and property.

This decree of August 31 violates that provision of

the Constitution.

Article 16 of the present Mexican Constitution

guarantees the sacredness and right of the home.

This decree of August 31 violates that article. Any

home in which a religious service would be held or

religious instruction given, might on denouncement

to the Federal Government be taken away from its

present owners and become the property of the

nation. No trial would be necessary. No appeal

would be possible.

Article 27 of the present Constitution of Mexico

insures security against confiscation. This decree of

August 31 violates that provision of the Constitu-

tion.

Article 130 of the present Constitution of Mexico

declares : “The Congress shall not enact any law es-

tablishing or forbidding any religion whatsoever.”

The decree of August 31 violates that provision for

it refuses any security whereby they who profess a

religion may meet definitely and continuously in any

building and conduct their worship.

The suppression of religious worship in Mexico

through the confiscation of church property has been

a measure of reprisal employed by every so-called

revolutionary government in Mexico.

The very day on which this Cardenas decree was

promulgated the Catholic people of Mexico City pro-

claimed in terms that are unmistakable how firmly

they hold to their religious heritage. It was the

feast day of St. Rose of Lima. The Minister of



FOREWORD 7

Peru, Mr. Rafael Belaunde, proposed that St. Rose

of Lima be honored by the celebration of Holy Mass

in a special, public manner in Mexico City. The

diplomatic corps, including the Ambassador from

the United States, its dean, approved the plan and

in a body attended the Mass. The Archbishop of

Mexico City was celebrant. The Auxiliary Bishop

of Morelia preached a sermon aflame with the love

of country. His appeal was an appeal for elementary

justice, for co-operation and peace, among the

nations and people of our continent. Ambassadors

and Ministers representative of the United States,

Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Guatemala, El Salvador, the

Dominican Republic, Great Britain, Honduras, Peru,

Venezuela, Panama, Bolivia, Ecuador, France, Nica-

ragua, Holland, Argentina were present.

Their presence is evidence of the conviction of the

civilized world that freedom of religious worship is

both the obligation of Governments and the rights

of peoples. When will the Government of Mexico

learn the lesson? Such is now the agony of its war-

fare against religion that it needs must scrap its

own Constitution to express that hate in further

reprisals.

JOHN J. BURKE, C.S.P.,
General Secretary,

National Catholic Welfare Conference.



The following translation of the de-

cree on the nationalization of church

property, issued by President Carde-

nas, of Mexico, on August 26, 1935,

was made by the N\ C. W. C. News

Service and is published with its per-

mission.



Decree of the Mexican Govern-

ment on the Nationalization

of Church Property

(The Decree was 'promulgated by being published

in the “Diario Oficial,” August 31, 1935.)

Lazaro Cardenas, Constitutional President of the

Mexican United States, to all her inhabitants, to

wit:

Exercising faculties conceded to me as Chief Ex-

ecutive of the Union by the Decree of December 29,

1934, to legislate regarding goods which are federal

property, deem it good to promulgate the following

:

Law for the Nationalization of Property

Title I

Article I. The following are property of the Na-

tion, represented by the Federal Government:

1. Any temple used at the present time for pub-

lic worship, or which at any time since May 1, 1917,

has been so used, as well as any that may be erected

for this purpose in the future

;

2. Bishops’ residences, rectories and seminaries;

asylums or schools of religious associations, corpora-

tions or institutions
;
convents, and any other build-

ing which has been built or used for the administra-

tion, propagation or teaching of a religious cult
;
and

3. Real property, or any investment secured by

mortgages on real property, held or administered

by religious associations, corporations or institu-

tions, whether directly or indirectly.

9



10 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

Article II. Temples are those buildings open for

public worship with the authorization of the Min-

istry of Government. Moreover, the following are

presumed to be such:

1. Any building which by its construction or

through some objective datum reveals that it was

constructed or has been used for the celebration of

acts of worship

;

2. Any other premises in which acts of public

worship take place habitually and with the knowl-

edge of the owner.

Article III. It shall be understood that a property

has been used for the administration, propagation

or teaching of a religious cult when, with the knowl-

edge of the owner

:

1. Acts which imply public propagation of a re-

ligious creed are carried out habitually; or

2. There is established therein an office or head-

quarters of persons who exercise authority among

the faithful of any religion or sect, or who perform

functions relating thereto; or

3. A school or teaching center under any denomi-
nation with religious tendencies or orientations is

installed therein
;
or

4. The products of or income derived from prop-

erty of which this treats is in any manner related

to religious projects or objects; or

5. In general, although none of the facts enumer-

ated in the foregoing sections is present, when, from

direct evidence, or from any circumstance which

upon investigation justifies a presumption, it can be

inferred that the property has been so used.

Article IV. In any of the cases stated in the pre-

ceding article, the nationalization shall proceed with-



NATIONALIZATION DECREE 11

out taking into account the resultant effects upon a

moral person or institution of any character what-

soever.

Article V. It shall be presumed, and no proof to

the contrary shall be admissible, that the owner of

an immovable property had knowledge that the

property had been used in the manner referred to in

the foregoing articles, if the simple fact is estab-

lished that during more than six months the immov-

able property has been used in any of the forms to

which the said articles refer.

It shall be admissible for the owner, before the

expiration of the period fixed in the preceding para-

graph, to bring the facts to the attention of the

Ministry of Finance. In such case, the truth of the

statements being proved, the Ministry of Finance

shall order the property or premises vacated in the

manner prescribed by Articles 61 and 65 of the Law

on Immovable Property Belonging to the Federa-

tion.

Article VI. For the purpose of this statute, any

person shall be held to be an agent representing a

religious association, corporation or institution

:

1. Who with simulated title holds or administers
immovable property in the name or for the benefit

of them; and

2. Any moral person that has been constituted

for the purposes stated in the preceding section,

even though this is not so expressed in its charter

or in its constitution and by-laws, and also any

moral person that after its constitution shall receive

properties for this purpose.

No moral person charged with being the agent
representing a religious association, corporation or



12 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

institution shall effectively allege in its defense the

fact that it has claimed to be, or has been recognized

to be, a welfare association.

Article VII. For the purpose of this statute any

participation, by any title whatsoever, in societies or

associations which are the owners or holders of

landed property, shall be held to be immovable

property.

Article VIII. It is presumed, and no proof to the

contrary is admissible, that a civil or business so-

ciety shown to be the owner or holder of landed

property or of investments on landed property, is

the agent representing a religious association, cor-

poration or institution when:

1. At least half the capital stock is owned by

priests of the same religion or sect, or when a less

amount is so held if two or more partners have such

a character;

2. The majority of the partners or those who rep-

resent at least half of the capital stock or agents

representing a religious association, corporation or

institution
;
and

3. In any society, the capital stock of which is

represented by shares, a priest figures in the coun-

cil of administration or among the commissioners,

or serves as manager.

Article IX. It shall be presumed, in the absence of

proof to the contrary, that a juristic person is the

agent representing a religious association, corpora-

tion or institution

:

1. When from the records a priest is shown to

be the owner, holder, or the creditor secured by

mortgages on any landed property which, at any



NATIONALIZATION DECREE 13

time during the five years preceding the date upon

which he acquired his rights, was considered to be

the property or possession of some other priest of

the same religion, unless it is found that the two

priests are related to each other within the fourth

degree of consanguinity; and

2. If in any stock company which is the owner,

holder or administrator of landed property, meet-

ings of stockholders are not held within five years,

or the board of directors does not meet annually.

Article X. In addition to the cases provided for

in the foregoing articles, the Ministry of Finance

shall have power to declare that a person is the agent

representing a religious association, corporation or

institution in the possession or administration of

landed property, or of investment secured by mort-

gage on landed property, if the person is proved to

have this character by facts which directly prove

this or by circumstantial evidence on which pre-

sumption may be established.

Article XI. When a property that has been na-

tionalized later passes from under the dominion of

the Nation, it can be nationalized again only upon

facts posterior to the first resolution.

Title II

Article XII. Liens or mortgages upon, and any

other rights to, property nationalized under this

law, shall be respected in general with the follow-

ing exceptions:

1. When the creditors or those holding the lien,

or in the case of owners of fee property, have had

knowledge of facts giving cause for nationalization



14 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

without having informed the Ministry of Finance;

or

2. When the creditors of those holding the lien

shall themselves be agents representing some reli-

gious association, corporation or institution, or have

been informed that those for whom they are the
agents, or with whom they have contractual rela-
tions, have that character.

If the property nationalized is jointly owned by a

person who is shown to be an agent representing a

religious association, corporation or institution, the

rights of the other joint-owners shall be respected if

they be in good faith and, in addition, provided that

they themselves are not covered by any of the ex-

ceptions specified in this article.

Article XIII. Personal property which is found on

a nationalized estate or in a nationalized edifice shall

become the property of the Federal Government also,

only in the following instances

:

1. If the movable goods should in reality be con-

sidered immovable under the provisions of the com-

mon legislation; and

2. If the property has been nationalized because

of the use to which it has been put and the movable

properties had some connection with that use.

No separate declaration for the nationalization of

such properties shall be necessary.

Article XIV. Leases and concessions limited as to

time, to which the property nationalized may be sub-

ject, shall forfeit any right they may have in the

case of the issuing of an order of nationalization

only when the lessee or concessionaire has inter-

vened directly or indirectly in the acts that moti-

vated nationalization.



NATIONALIZATION DECREE 15

Article XV. Upon finding under this act that a

business society is the agent representing a reli-

gious association, corporation or institution, the pro-

cedure provided in Article 3 of the General Law of

Business Societies shall not be followed but shall

be subject to the provisions of this present law.

Article XVI. Likewise upon finding during a na-

tionalization process that a title of ownership, or

the constitution of real or personal rights, is simu-

lated, the dispositions of Article 2183 of the Civil

Code shall not be applicable.

Title III

Article XVII. The Federal Executive Power alone

has the authority, acting through the Ministry of

Finance and Public Credit, to find that a property

is nationalized under the provisions of this law, and

to dictate and to order the execution of the measures

directed towards the administrative occupation of

the said property.

Article XVIII. When upon the denunciation of

some private person, or by any other means, knowl-

edge is obtained of the existence of some property

nationalized in conformity with this law, the respec-

tive office of the Ministry of Finance shall ask

data of the Public Registry of Property on the ante-

cedents of, and liens, on, the immovable property,

and shall also ask for all information, declarations

and documents which it deems necessary.

Article XIX. If the data received in conformity

with the above article discloses any evidence justi-

fying the contention that the property is one na-

tionalized in conformity with this law, the tempo-



16 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

rary order of occupation shall be issued. This order

must be inscribed in the Registry of Property or in

the Registry of Commerce, or in both, depending on

conditions, and notifications given to those affected.

Article XX. In any temporary order provision

may be made also for the disposition of lease con-

tracts and other temporary concessions in accord-

ance with Article XIV.

After the temporary order has been issued and in

the course of the process, action may be taken af-

fecting leases and concessions.

Article XXL Properties that have become subject
to a temporary order may be immediately turned

over for use by the public services of the Federation

or of the States.

Article XXII. Persons alleging an interest in the

property subject to the order can register opposition

in writing and before the office of the Ministry of

Finance within fifteen days following the date on

which the notification of temporary order, to which

the above article refers, has been put into effect.

Once the period to which the preceding para-

graph refers has transpired, no opposition shall be

admissible, and in so far as those who have con-

sented to a temporary order are concerned, this or-

der shall be final without prejudice to that which

Article XXVIII of this law provides.

Article XXIII. The temporary order of which

Article XIX speaks shall be issued by the Chief of
the Federal Office of Finance who exercises fiscal

jurisdiction in the locality where the nationalized

property is located.

Opposition admitted by the office dictating the



NATIONALIZATION DECREE 17

temporary order shall be expedited to the Ministry

of Finance which shall announce the date on which

a hearing shall be held for the receiving of evidence

of those interested. These shall have the right to

examine the relative document at any time.

Article XXIV. In nationalization processes, every

class of proof except that of confession shall be

admitted.

Article XXV. The reception and evaluation of

evidence shall be made by the Ministry of Finance

in accordance with the Federal Code of Civil

Procedure.

Article XXVI. Within five days following the

hearing of evidence, those interested may present

their allegations in writing and the Ministry of

Finance shall dictate the final order within ten days

following, declaring whether or not the nationaliza-

tion shall proceed and resolving at the time, if

need be, regarding contracts and liens found to be

in force with regard to the immovable property

concerned.

Article XXVII. In the final order all evidence

having bearing on the decision shall be taken into

consideration, including that which the Ministry of

Finance has been able to collect after the issuing

of the temporary order, to establish the basis of the

nationalization.

Article XXVIII. The Minister of Finance, when

issuing any order finally quashing a petition for na-

tionalization, shall determine whether at his discre-

tion the benefits of this order shall extend also to

those affected who have not opposed the temporary

order.



18 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

Article XXIX. In every instance the final order

on the nationalization of property shall be dictated

and signed precisely by the Minister of Finance or

by the one acting as head of the office.

Article XXX. Final orders of nationalization shall

be recorded in the Public Registry of Property or in

the Registry of Commerce, as circumstances re-

quire. When in the negative, they shall have the

effect of canceling the registration of the temporary

order.

Article XXXI. Final orders dictated in a matter

of nationalization shall be neither revoked nor modi-

fied in any form. Nevertheless, new processes on

the same property may be initiated provided the

facts presented are posterior to the former order.

Article XXXII. The notification of temporary

and final orders shall be made personally as speci-

fied by the Federal Code of Civil Procedure, or by

means of certified, sealed documents with receipt

when the domiciles of those affected are known ; or

by edict published in any of the journals of large

circulation in the Entity in which the immovable

property is located, and in the Diario Oficial of the

Federation, three times at intervals of eight days

for each publication, when such domiciles are un-

known. Notification by edict shall take effect the

day following the final publication.

Article XXXIII. Those denouncing properties

specified in the first article of this law shall enjoy

the participation determined by the second article

of the Law of November 8, 1892.

Article XXXIV. In any matter not provided for



NATIONALIZATION DECREE 19

in this law with respect to procedure, the procedure

of the Federal Code of Civil Procedure shall be ap-

plicable.

Article XXXV. The Executive Office shall issue
the regulations necessary for the better application

of this law.

Transitory Provisions

Article I. Nationalization judgments in which no

executory sentence has been dictated at the entrance

into force of this law, shall be withdrawn from

court and placed before the Ministry of Finance so

that the process may continue in accordance with

the provisions of the present law.

Article II. The execution of decisions already

handed down, or which in the future may be handed

down, as the result of action in the courts in amparo

cases already initiated against acts of court author-

ities who have intervened in any process for nation-

alization, shall be within the jurisdiction of the Min-

istry of Finance and Public Credit.

Article III. In cases of occupation or nationali-

zation administratively decreed before the entrance

into force of this law, the order shall be held to be

temporary and the process shall continue in con-

formity with this law after the respective notifica-

tion.

Article IV. All laws and dispositions contrary to

the present law are revoked.

Article V. This law shall enter into force from

the date of its publication in the Diario Oficial.



20 NATIONALIZATION DECREE

In compliance with what is set forth by Fraction

I of Article 89 of the Political Constitution of the

Mexican United States, and for its publication and

observance, I promulgate the present Law in the

Palace of the Federal Executive Power, in Mexico

City, Federal District, on the twenty-sixth day of

the month of August, one thousand nine hundred

and thirty-five.

LAZARO CARDENAS (Seal)

EDUARDO SUAREZ (Seal),

Minister of Finance and Public Credit.

To the Minister of Government.

TPHE Mexican Government has taken steps im-
1

mediately to see to it that this law and its pro-

visions do not remain inoperative. Definite official

instructions were issued through the Executive

Order of President Cardenas of Mexico, under date

of September 12, to the Minister of Finance to

whom has been given the carrying out of the Act.



A Brief in Protest
'T'HE following, a protest and an exposition, shows

how this Law for the Nationalization of Property

definitely seeks to destroy religion and freedom of

all and any religious worship in Mexico. It was

written by Eduardo Pallares, an attorney of Mexico.

The following is the complete text in English

:

Exercising the rights which as a citizen are

granted to me by the Constitution of Mexico, I pro-

test against the Law for the Nationalization of Prop-

erty promulgated in the Diorio Ofacial, August 31,
just passed.

In formulating this protest I am not defending
the interests of any militant religion and I hold no

brief for obscurantism whatever be the form or

nature of its activities. My sole purpose is to fight
for the cause of liberty of conscience.

The Law for the Nationalization of Property is of

such a nature that it completely does away with

liberty of conscience which without exception civil-

ized nations have always considered and still con-

sider an element of primary importance in the

political life of nations. Under pretext of regulat-

ing the nationalization of properties of religious in-

stitutions this law deals a mortal blow to religion

itself because with unusual violence it interferes

with the teaching and the preaching of religious doc-

trines and beliefs. In Article III it declares that

every property is to be held as being used for the

administration, preaching or teaching of a religious

cult for no other reason than the fact that in such

property there has been established a school or a

center “under the auspices of any denomination,”

having religious tendencies or orientations. It is

21



22 BRIEF IN PROTEST

necessarily to be inferred from this provision of the

law that hereafter it will not be possible to teach, to

preach or to conduct schools having religious tend-

encies or orientations. In other words, the simple

preaching, teaching or training in any religion is

considered illicit acts from the moment when the

buildings or properties where such activities are

conducted become the property of the nation. It is

well known that this Article III has for its purpose

to prevent the teaching, the preaching and in gen-

eral every activity having for its purpose the diffu-

sion of religious creeds and dogmas. What legal

effect, what social force then remains in Article 24

of the Constitution which proclaims religious lib-

erty? With the provisions of this new law in force

religious liberty is reduced to zero.

Every provision of this law exudes a fierce hatred

for religion and for the priests and ministers of the

various cults existing in our country. I offer no ex-

planation and assign no reason for this hatred or for

the indisputable fact that in the Republic of Mexico

social-religious forces are weak and decadent. There

was a time when the Church was powerful, rich, in-

fluential and capable of directing consciences, and

then there was nothing unusual or extraordinary in

the fact that the laical state looked upon the Church

as a powerful rival and attacked her as did Juarez

and his partisans, but in our day conditions have

changed completely and no one capable of judging

with an unbiased mind can today support the thesis

that the Church actually is a danger to the cause of

progress or to the much talked of emancipation of

the proletariat.

It is deplorable that a law having the importance

of the law we are now analyzing should embody pro-



BRIEF IN PROTEST 23

visions which manifest this fierce hatred and an in-

quisitorial spirit worthy of past epochs. The follow-

ing facts and circumstances are under this law all

that is required for the nationalization of a particu-

lar property:

1. That a priest establish his office in a house

(Art. III).

2. That a person who exercises authority among

the adherents of a religion or sect establish his office

in a house (Art. Ill)

.

3. That any school or center for teaching or

preaching with religious tendencies or orientations

be established in a building (Art. Ill) . From which

is to be deduced that the three or four bookstores

existing in the City of Mexico whose principal busi-

ness is the selling of religious works cannot continue

to engage in this business without running the risk

of having the buildings in which they are established

declared to be the property of the nation. I would

add that the same applies to any commercial estab-

lishment whose chief business is the sale of religious

objects and to entire departments of the large com-

mercial firms engaged in this business.

4. No priest can own even one share of the capital

stock of a civil or mercantile organization without

exposing that organization to the imminent danger

of being held to be the agent representing a religious

association, corporation or institution and to the

further danger that being thus held its properties

be declared to be the property of the nation (Art.

VIII).

5. Furthermore, no priest can be a member hav-

ing administrative powers in an organization with-

out exposing that organization to the same danger.

6. If the members of the executive board of an



24 BRIEF IN PROTEST

organization fail to hold a meeting in any year the

property of that organization becomes property of

the nation (Art. IX).

7. Any building is to be presumed to be a temple

and for that reason held to be property of the nation

which by its appearance shows that it was con-

structed for the celebration of acts of public wor-

ship. For instance, the Hotel of San Angelin in

which there is a chapel and which, therefore, shows

that it was constructed for public worship, if Ar-

ticle II of this law is enforced, could be held to be

property of the nation.

8. Any home or building decorated with images

and having any hall which shows that the same was

constructed to accommodate the exercise of any act

of public worship could also be held to be property

of the nation under Article II, the language of which

is the following

:

“Every building is presumed to be a temple (a)

which by its construction or by any other objec-

tive datum shows that it was constructed or that

it has been used for the celebration of acts of

public worship.”

It is to be observed that the law uses the phrase

“Objective Datum” and the words, “has been used”,

and these words imply that every colonial construc-

tion built for the exercise of acts of public worship

is now to become property of the nation.

9. What is more, if anyone who rents a house in-

spired even by some passing whim engages in re-

ligious propaganda within the house or living quar-

ters which he occupies, and does this clandestinely

preventing the owner of the property from having

any knowledge of his activities, the building would



BRIEF IN PROTEST 25

become property of the nation (Art. V). In this

way stupendous frauds can be committed and the

owners of property find it necessary to convert

themselves into spies over the acts of their renters

unless they are willing to run the risk of losing their

building.

The foregoing is aggravated by the procedure of

nationalization prescribed in the law. Nationaliza-

tion is to be effected in a manner almost identical to

that which was used under the Agrarian Reform for

taking their properties from the owners of landed

estates. The first part of the procedure consists in

the establishment of provisional possession of the

goods to be nationalized by virtue of a denouncement

or by reason of the direct knowledge of the authori-

ties of the finance department. This provisional

possession takes from the owner his property with-

out any form of trial and authorizes an administra-

tive authority to turn over immediately to a public

service the property even before it has been nation-

alized. If the interested party does not oppose this,

the case is closed and the property is nationalized

without further procedure. If the interested party

does oppose, then the case is transferred to the Min-

ister of Finance, who after a hearing decides

whether or not permanent possession is to be ap-

proved and a decree issued nationalizing the prop-

erty. In case of an affirmative decision orders are

issued to the office of Public Registry to make the

corresponding notations in his records and to record

the property in the name of the nation. The owner

has no recourse other than that of lamenting his ill

fortune because the Supreme Court has decided to

wash its hands of this kind of case, holding that



26 BRIEF IN PROTEST

action by the Government is final action no matter

whose interest may be affected.

Anyone who reads this law will naturally ask

himself : Are we really living in a country that has

legal institutions? Has the right of property or

possession of property any protection under the laws

and authorities ? Does religious liberty exist ?

The worst feature in this matter is that we are

rapidly accustoming ourselves to juristic abuses of

all kinds and are no longer surprised no matter how

absurd the abuse may be. People now only bow

their heads and are thankful to escape with their

life.

Mexico, D. F.,

September 6, 1935.



Appeal of the Bishops of Mexico

to the President of the Republic

[Translation of the full Spanish Text

by

William F. Montavon, K.S.G.]

Mexico, 1935.

The Citizen President of the Republic of Mexico,

present

—

We, the undersigned prelates of Mexico, exercis-

ing the right of petition granted to us by Article 8 of

the Constitution, appearing before you in the man-

ner provided by law do hereby make known that

:

I. We come before you to petition from you the
repeal of the law promulgated on the 31st day of

August of the present year to which was given the

title, An Act for the Nationalization of Property.
II. We petition in like manner that you exercise

your influence with the Honorable Congress of the

Union in the manner provided by laws now in force,

to the end that Articles 3, 24, 27 and 130 of the Con-

stitution be amended so that the texts of these ar-

ticles may be changed and made to agree with that

which we set forth later in this document.

III. Our petition is justified by the following con-

siderations based on public law and natural justice.

IV. The political constitution of every civilized

nation, that respects the principles of social morality

and is an effective democracy, clearly in terms that

cannot be disputed recognizes religious liberty with

everything that religious liberty properly implies

and in this way in modern public law it is axiomatic

that that liberty won with so many sacrifices, is an

essential element in the life of cultured nations.

What is more, international law, confirmed expressly

27



28 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

in treaties and conventions in force at this time,

emphasizes the obligation of the various sovereign-

ties which make up the community of nations, both

each state in its own laws and public authorities in

their acts, to respect religious liberty. It is there-

fore no exaggeration to say that religious liberty is

a principle recognized by the laws of the world, and

is violated and ignored only where liberty itself is

dead and tyranny reigns as it does in Soviet Russia.

V. Our Political Constitution, in spite of the fact

that it is the child of a Congress itself notoriously

hostile to religion, in Articles 24 and 130 does recog-

nize liberty of conscience expressly. The first of

these articles says

:

“Article 24. Everyone is free to embrace the

religion of his choice and to practice all cere-

monies, devotions or observances of his respective

creed,” etc.

Article 130 embodies a prohibition which is of

vital importance in this connection. That article

says:

“Article 130. The Congress shall not enact any

law establishing or forbidding any religion what-

soever.”

The Constitutional Congress of Queretaro, there-

fore, unquestionably did not deny to the people of

Mexico a liberty so essential as is religious liberty

nor was it the will of the members of that Congress

to appear before posterity as the enemies of the

conscience of man, the creators of one of the worst

tyrannies invented by Communism, spiritual

tyranny.

VI. For that Congress to have acted in any other

manner whatsoever would have been absurd because,



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 29

in spite of the ideological radicalisms of every class

and complexion which since 1914 have swept over

the Republic like a devastating hurricane, the people

of Mexico continue for the most part to be Catholic

and to believe. It would therefore be an absurdity

for the Political Constitution of a country the people

of which have faith and are Catholic to deny re-

ligious liberty. Have institutions by any chance

been given to free people to oppress them and to

harass them trampling on the ideals that to them

are most dear?

VII. The Supreme Government which you repre-

sent, and you, Mr. President, personally on more

than one occasion both within the country and

abroad speaking through duly accredited ministers,

have stated that there is in Mexico effective religious

liberty and no religious persecution. Without doubt

these statements have been made having in view

Articles 24 and 130 of the Constitution as we have

quoted them and giving to these articles the full im-

portance and respect due them. In any case, the

statements here referred to are convincing evidence

that the Government of the Republic deems it dis-

honorable for our country that in it conditions are

such as to render it impossible for religious liberty

to exist.

VIII. With reason therefore we can bring to an

end this first part of our appeal with the following

conclusions

:

1. The Constitution of Mexico expressly recog-

nizes liberty of conscience as sacred and imposes on

the public authorities of the country an obligation

to respect it and to make it effective.

2. Both the present Government and those that



30 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

have preceded it have publicly stated their will not

to persecute religion.

3. The laws against religion violate Articles 24

and 130 of the Constitution in those provisions

which we have quoted and therefore cannot and

should not remain in force.

IX. In 1926, General Plutarco Elias Calles dic-

tated a law which amended the penal code for the

Federal District, which law is contrary to religious

sentiment and faith as well as to the simplest and

most insignificant manifestations of religion. As

was to be expected that law produced a grave con-

dition which ended in armed revolution and in the

shedding of the blood of thousands of believers who

acting independently of us and on their own re-

sponsibility took up arms in defense of their reli-

gious convictions. That fight was brought to an end

by means of an agreement reached between Pro-

visional President Emilio Portes Gil and the ecclesi-

astical authorities in Mexico. That agreement is

stated in the following terms made public in the

press by Mr. Portes Gil

:

“I have had conversations with Archbishop

Ruiz y Flores and Bishop Pascual Diaz. These

conversations took place as a result of the public

statement made by Archbishop Ruiz y Flores on

May 2 and the statement made by me on May 8.
“Archbishop Ruiz y Flores and Bishop Diaz in-

formed me that the Mexican Bishops have felt

that the Constitution and the laws, particularly

the provision which requires the registration of

ministers and the provision which grants the sep-

arate States the right to determine the maximum

number of ministers, threaten the identity of the



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 31

Church by giving the State the control of its

spiritual offices.

“They assure me that the Mexican Bishops are

animated by a sincere patriotism, and that they

desire to resume public worship if this can be

done consistently with their loyalty to the Mexi-

can Republic and their consciences. They stated

that it could be done if the Church could enjoy

freedom within the law to live and exercise its

spiritual offices.

“I am glad to take advantage of this oppor-
tunity to declare publicly and very clearly that it

is not the purpose of the Constitution, nor of the

laws, nor of the Government of the Republic to

destroy the identity of the Catholic Church or of

any other, or to interfere in any way with its

spiritual functions. In accordance with the oath

of office which I took when I assumed the pro-

visional government of Mexico to observe and

cause to be observed the Constitution of the Re-

public and the laws derived therefrom, my purpose
has been at all times to fulfill honestly that oath

and to see that the laws are applied without favor

to any sect and without any bias whatever, my ad-
ministration being disposed to hear from any

person, be he dignitary of some church or merely

a private individual, any complaints in regard to

injustices arising from undue application of the

laws.

“With reference to certain provisions of the

law which have been misunderstood, I also take

advantage of this opportunity to declare

:

“One. That the provision of the law which re-

quires the registration of ministers does not mean

that the Government can register those who have



32 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

not been named by the hierarchical superior of

the religious creed in question or in accordance

with its regulations.

“Two. With regard to religious instruction,

the Constitution and the laws in force definitely

prohibit it in primary or higher schools, whether

public or private, but this does not prevent min-

isters of any religion from imparting its doc-

trines, within church confines, to adults or their

children who may attend for that purpose.

“Three. That the Constitution as well as the

laws of the country guarantees to all residents of

the Republic the right of petition, and therefore

the members of any church may apply to the ap-
propriate authorities for the amendment, repeal

or passage of any law.” (Statement issued by

President Portes Gil, June 21, 1929.)

XI. The ecclesiastical authorities consented to

this modus vivendi not because they deemed it just

or legal but in order to avoid greater evils and in the

hope that the passing of time would produce a

change in the radical anti-religious policy. Un-

fortunately things have not been thus, and the proof

that they have not been thus we have in two juridical

acts of great importance, social, historical and

moral. We refer to the amendment of Article 3 of
the Constitution whereby so-called socialistic educa-

tion is prescribed and to the law of August 31 of the

present year entitled, Law for the Nationalization

of Property.

XII. Article 3 of the Constitution as amended is

notoriously anti-religious and in addition is a viola-

tion of Article 24 of the Constitution for the fol-

lowing reasons:

1. Because it prohibits the teaching of religion in



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 33

private schools of every grade and in that way pre-

vents parents from instructing and educating their

children in the religion of their choice. Can reli-

gious liberty exist, we ask, in a country where the

teaching of religion is prohibited? It is axiomatic

and of common sense that religion as a science, as

an art, can exist and survive only by means of edu-

cation, of preaching, and of the communication of

ideas to new generations. If these means of reli-

gious culture are prohibited religion is mortally

wounded before religion is born and religion is per-

secuted in a manner not only undisguised but with

fury and ill-dissimulated cleverness.

2. Article 3 is also anti-religious and what is more

it is contrary to Articles 24 and 130 because it im-

poses on private schools the teaching of so-called

scientific socialism (although the socialism to be

taught is far from being scientific) and it is a mys-

tery to no one that the socialism to be taught is pro-

foundly irreligious, atheistic and deems it meritori-

ous to mock and ridicule Christian ideas and senti-

ments. It is precisely the advocates of socialism

who carry on the official propaganda of mockery and

scoff against the Catholic religion and this propa-

ganda is carried on in schools and other institutions

dependent upon the State. Because all of this is

publicly known it is evident that Article 3 is in open

conflict with Articles 24 and 130 of the Constitution

and constitutes a flagrant violation of the liberty of

conscience.

XIII. Perhaps someone will say that the Consti-

tution is not contrary to the liberty of education

because it still permits the teaching of religion in-

side the churches where it is also possible to carry

on religious propaganda. But these laws are to be



34 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

considered not as instruments of oppression and in-

justice but as instruments honestly designed for the

preservation of order and justice. It cannot be seri-

ously held that liberty of education exists when in

everything regarding religious questions it is cir-

cumscribed to the inside of a church. True educa-

tion requires action that is systematic, permanent

and realized under conditions which can be found

only in schools. Temples are not schools. Public

worship is not to be confused with public education.

Common sense requires that religious education be
imparted in the same manner as other types of edu-

cation in a place that is appropriate for the purpose,

at designated hours, and under proper favorable

conditions. The education that it is possible to give

inside a temple will never constitute a fully rounded

education even in its religious aspects.

XIV. It is moreover, truly a derision of the rights

of citizens, an ill-dissimulated mockery of all who

profess religion, to hold that tolerating the teaching

of religion inside the temple, the law in Mexico re-

spects liberty of conscience and liberty of education,

because it is publicly known that in several States of

the Republic no temples at all are open for worship,

and that in States where temples are open the num-

ber open is restricted so that they cannot be used for

Sunday services because the number of persons at-

tending these services is such that they cannot be

contained in them. It is also publicly known that in

some towns local public authorities have gone to the

extreme of prohibiting catechists to teach Christian

doctrine even inside the Church.

XV. We do not oppose the emancipation of the
proletariat, nor are we against a social order which

respects the rights of man, public liberty and demo-



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 35

cratic institutions. We cannot be the enemies of a
social order which restores precisely rights which

have been trampled upon by economic systems con-

demned by the Church years ago, because we recog-

nize Christ as our Lord and Teacher, and Christ was

the first to love the poor and the disinherited, and

gave to them his Gospel of Peace and of Justice.

These truths have been proclaimed by eminent

Popes like Leo XIII and Pius XI, whose encyclicals

have deeply stirred the whole world
;
but we cannot

accept a socialism, saturated with hatred for God,

which preaches violence and hatred among men.

XVI. We hold that the law of August 31 of the
present year brings shame to the Republic of Mexico

and is a blot on the history of our social and political

institutions, because every one of its provisions

breathes hatred, ruthless hatred for religion, and

there can be no doubt that, if this law is enforced,

religious liberty will be completely extinguished in

Mexico. This law makes it impossible in any way to

teach, preach or communicate ideas, with a religious

purpose, even though no dogmatic doctrine is in-

volved; this law makes a crime of the act of teach-

ing, preaching or communicating anything religious,

because it commands the nationalization of any

premise in which such an act is performed. Under

this law it is a crime in Mexico to teach, to communi-

cate or in any manner propagate outside a church

anything relating to religions, for instance the cate-

chism of Father Ripalda, the Bible, the tenets of

Theosophy or of the cult professed by any masonic

body for the Supreme Being. Any act whatever of

religious propaganda is sufficient ground for na-

tionalizing homes, buildings or even simple utensils

found in the place where such act has been realized



36 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

even though of itself the act is in no sense illicit or

immoral.

This law violates the right of free assembly guar-

anteed by Article 9 of the Constitution; the liberty

of thought guaranteed by Article 6, and the liberty

of the press guaranteed by Article 7, and for all of

these reasons this law is flagrantly unconstitutional.

Sight must not be lost of the fact that Emilio

Portes Gil, as Provisional President of the Republic

of Mexico, solemnly stated “it is not the purpose of

the Constitution, nor of the laws, nor of the Gov-

ernment of the Republic, to destroy the identity of

the Catholic Church.” Now, therefore, we demand:

Is not the identity of the Catholic Church in Mexico

attacked when her ministers are prevented from

having a simple office? Is not the very existence of

the Church attacked when “every form of religious

preaching and teaching” is systematically perse-

cuted?

This is absurd; it is monstrous; and we are pro-

foundly disheartened when we reflect that there is

authority and permission for the multiplication of

houses of prostitution and vice, but only relentless

persecution for the teaching and preaching of the

maxims of Christian morals, the purest that have

ever been taught.

Nor is this all. The law of August 31 prevents

the priest and any person having authority among

the adherents of the Church to have an office, even

a simple room in which to work
;
it does not permit

them to be stockholders of any corporation, and, as

if this were not enough, it makes impossible the

existence of any bookstore or religious agency en-

gaged in the selling of books, pamphlets or leaflets,



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 37

in which there is to be found anything indicating a

religious tendency.

Loaded on all of this there is the aggravation of

a system of presumptions and circumstantial evi-

dence which open wide the door to abuse, fraud and

calumny.

XVII. Not satisfied even yet, this law empowers

an administrative authority, without court proce-

dure of any kind, to despoil a private person of his

possessions, properties and rights, all of which, as is

well known, is in violation of the principle of the

division of powers and particularly of Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution ; in practice this law will

result in grave abuses and unheard of cruelties, and

worst of all inevitably it will react on the courts of

justice and in general will encourage in certain au-

thorities a spirit of arbitrariness and in the people

a spirit of shameful submission and cowardice in

asserting their rights and privileges as citizens.

XVIII. With equal success, Mr. President, we

could prove to you that Section II, Article 27 of the

Constitution is a violation of conscience because it

does not permit a religious association to hold real

property of any kind, not even that which is strictly

necessary for its purpose. Now, there is no one who

does not know that religion, like any other mani-

festation of the life of man, requires for its existence

and development in society the economic means to

satisfy its indispensable needs. This law of August

31 bases its authority on that section, but it gives to

that section an interpretation and scope contrary to

the ordinary principles of our legislation and cer-

tainly incompatible with liberty of conscience. For

the nationalization of a house or building, all that is

required is that there be some material part which



38 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

though constructed in the remote past, indicates that

that part was constructed for public acts of worship

of any kind, even though at the time the nationaliza-

tion procedure is begun the house or building is not

used for that purpose. If this is not an abuse, we are

ready to confess that we are unable to imagine any

act that would be a more flagrant or more scandalous

violation of equity and justice.

XIX. In formulating the petition embodied in

this appeal, we assure you we are moved by no desire

to assume an attitude of rebellion or of obstruction

against the administration of which you are the

head. Our desire is, on the one hand, to defend

rights which we hold as sacred and which are sup-

ported by Articles 24 and 130, and, on the other, to

lay before you a question of natural justice, of equity

and of what, for lack of a better name, could be

called probity in the government of the people of

Mexico. If the majority of the people of Mexico are

Catholics, adherents of the Catholic religion; if the

Constitution expressly recognizes religious liberty;

if the Government of the Republic, in diverse

solemn acts has stated that it does not persecute reli-

gion and that it has respect for the individual con-

science, then, probity and the most elementary jus-

tice require that that conscience be not made an

object of mockery; that when any provision of law

recognizes it, it be understood that it does so seri-

ously, formally, really and positively and not in such

a manner as to subject consciences to oppression and

the most sacred rights to oblivion. We deem it more
in accord with probity of the government of Mexico

to repeal those clauses in Articles 24 and 130 which

recognize religious liberty and to declare to the

world that in Mexico religious liberty does not exist,



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 39

than to retain these provisions in the law side by

side with a system of law that denies liberty.

XX. This is the problem of equity and justice

which we submit for your high consideration. With

due respect we pray that in arriving at your solution

you consider the social and historical implications of

the problem, not considering it from the point of

view of partisanship, and with even greater reason

not from the point of view of extreme Jacobinism,

but taking into account the following postulates : (a)

A majority of the people of Mexico are Catholic,
true believers, and there is no right to persecute the

religion of their ancestors nor to deny them a right

as essential as is the right to religious liberty, (b)

The progress of the Mexican nation heretofore has

been neither as effective nor as rapid as it should

have been because all that was necessary was not

done to unite the Mexican people in a broad spirit of

brotherhood and mutual helpfulness, due chiefly to

oppressive institutions, laws which breed hatred and

strife. Now is the time for all of us to work for
country with tolerance and in a spirit of positive co-

operation. The Catholic Church in Mexico never

was better disposed to collaborate in an effort to-

wards true progress in our country, but it is indis-

pensable to this that she enjoy those rights which

civilized nations grant her to develop her spiritual

functions strictly within the limits of justice and

law. (c) To suppress liberty of conscience or to de-

clare implicitly but none the less effectively that

liberty of conscience does not exist, and at the same

time to go on enforcing legislation that annihilates

liberty of conscience will in the end result in a social

and historical fact that will not do honor to the

people of Mexico.



40 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

Basing our action on the explanations we have
thus far made we address to you the following

:

Our Petition

I. The repeal of the law of August 31, 1935, and

of the executive order enforcing it.

II. That you take steps to recommend and support

in the Congress of the Union an act amending Ar-

ticles 3, 24, 27 and 130 of the Constitution along the

following lines

:

(a) In Article 3 the right of private schools to

teach religion should be recognized and it should be

clearly provided that education imparted in official

schools will not be anti-religious and will not be in

opposition either theoretically or practically to the

natural rights of man nor promote class hatred.

(b) Article 24 should be amended to provide

clearly that laws enacted under this article shall not

negative religious liberty by instituting new crimes

as is done by the “Calles Law" amending the Penal

Code in religious matters.

(c) Section II of Article 27 in its entirety should

be stricken out and in a new section authority should

be given to religious associations to hold property,

movable and immovable, necessary for their support

and for public worship.

(d) All the provisions of Article 130 which di-

rectly or indirectly contradict religious liberty

should be repealed.

III. These amendments which we propose are in

no sense extraordinary or exceptional in character

but are in line with the public law of our day. Simi-

lar provisions are to be found in the legislation of

the most progressive nations of the world. For in-



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 41

stance, the German Constitution f contains the fol-

lowing mandate

:

“Article 136. Civic and civil rights and duties

are neither conditions nor limitations on the exer-

cise of religious liberty. The exercise of civil and

civic rights together with eligibility for employ-

ment in the public service, are independent of the

religious profession of the individual. No one is

obliged to declare his religious convictions. Pub-

lic authorities have no right to inquire to what re-

ligious denomination any individual belongs ex-

cepting in cases where that information may be
necessary for the establishment of some right or

for a statistical report authorized and required

by law.

“Article 137. There is no State religion. Lib-

erty to form religious associations is guaranteed.

These associations may form federations without

any restriction whatever. Religious associations

without exception are free to order and adminis-

ter their affairs subject only to the provisions of

the general law and to provide for their support

without interference from the State or from local

authorities.
* * * Religious associations that are

persons under public law have the right to collect

contributions on the basis of the civil registry un-

der the laws of the land.

“Article 138.
* * * The property and the rights

of religious societies and associations to their es-

tablishments devoted to the service of worship,

education, or benevolence and to endowments and

other properties are guaranteed.

t The Constitution referred to has been rendered ineffec-

tive and practically void by the Hitler Government. (Trans-

lator’s note.)



42 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

“Article 149. Religious education is ordinary

matter in the school curriculum excepting in the

curriculum of the lay schools. It is provided for

in the school laws. Religious instruction is given

in harmony with the teachings of the interested

religious community without prejudice to the

right of the State to control.'’

From these provisions of the Weimar Constitu-

tion, it is seen that in that country, one of the most

advanced, respect for religion, for religious associ-

ations and for religious education is fully guaran-

teed.

The Constitution of Ireland provides

:

“Article 8. Subject only to the requirements of

public order and morality, to every citizen is guar-

anteed liberty of conscience and liberty to profess

and practice any religion whatsoever. No law

can be promulgated which either directly or indi-

rectly subsidizes any religion, prohibits or re-

stricts the exercise thereof, authorizes privileges

or imposes any disadvantages for reason of reli-

gious belief, restricts the right of children to at-

tend without their being obliged to receive reli-

gious instruction in the same, any school which

receives public funds, establishes differences in

the aid given by the State to schools conducted by

diverse religious denominations or takes from any

religious or teaching institution the right to its

property.”

The Constitution of Czecho-Slovakia in Title 6

provides for the protection of national minorities,

religious and racial. In that title, Article 130 pro-

vides as follows

:



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 43

“Article 130. General laws authorize cities to

establish, direct and control at their own expense

charitable, religious and social institutions

;

schools and other educational establishments; all

citizens without distinction of nationality, lan-

guage, religion or race shall enjoy equally the

right to the free use of their own language and to

the free exercise of their religion in establish-

ments other than their own.”

The Constitution of Lithuania contains the fol-

lowing :

“Article 34. The State recognizes the equal

right of all religious organizations existing in

Lithuania to administer according to their own

canons or statutes, to freely preach their doc-

trines and celebrate the ceremonies of their wor-

ship, to found and administer buildings used for

their worship, schools, educational and benevolent

institutions, to found monasteries and religious

congregations, fraternal associations, to impose

on their members assessments, to provide funds

for the necessities of the religious organizations,

to acquire property, movable and immovable, and

to administer the same.”

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts,

United States of America, provides:

“Article XI. As the public worship of God and

instructions in piety, religion and morality, pro-

mote the happiness and prosperity of a people,

and the security of a republican government;

therefore, the several religious societies of this

commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorpo-

rate, at any meeting legally warned and holden



44 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect

their pastors or religious teachers, to contract

with them for their support, to raise money for

erecting and repairing houses for public worship,

for the maintenance of religious instruction, and

for the payment of necessary expenses
;

* * * and

all religious sects and denominations, demeaning

themselves peaceably, and as good citizens of the

commonwealth, shall be equally under the protec-

tion of the law
;
and no subordination of any one

sect or denomination to another shall ever be es-

tablished by law.”

The Constitution of the State of Virginia pro-

vides :

“Article I. Section 16. That religion, or the

duty which we owe to our Creator, and the man-

ner of discharging it, can be directed only by rea-

son and conviction, not by force or violence ; and,

therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free

exercise of religion, according to the dictates of

conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all

to practice Christian forbearance, love and char-

ity towards each other.”

Similar provisions are to be found in the consti-

tutions of the other States of the American Union.

The Constitution of the Argentine Republic pro-

vides in Article 2 that:

“The Federal Government supports the Roman

Catholic Apostolic Religion.”

The Constitution of the Republic of Chile says

:

“The profession of every religious belief, lib-

erty of conscience and liberty to practice every

religion that is not contrary to morals, to good



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 45

customs or to public order is assured by this con-

stitution; and therefore diverse religious creeds

may build and repair churches and buildings de-

pendent thereon under the laws of public security

and public health. The churches, religious de-

nominations and religious institutions without re-

gard to the creed they profess or their manner

of worship shall have all the property rights au-

thorized and recognized by law; but under the

provisions of this constitution shall be subject to

the common law with regard to the exercise of

ownership in community property. Churches and

buildings dependent thereon used in the service

of any religion are exempt from the payment of

any tax.”

The constitutional law of Central and South

America is altogether favorable to liberty of educa-

tion and of religion.

Legislative mandates similar to these we have

quoted, or to which we have referred, are to be found

in the laws of Poland, Rumania, Italy, Belgium,

Holland and other countries; it is therefore no ex-

aggeration to say that without exception the nations

who stand in the first rank of civilization respect,

really and effectively, the liberty of religion and of

education and not one of them embodies in its leg-

islation any command, absurd and unjust, as that

which has given rise to this appeal.

In formulating this petition, we exercise a right

which belongs to us as citizens and act in the name

of the Catholics of Mexico whom we legitimately

represent as their hierarchical superiors.

We designate the Office of the Secretary of the



46 APPEAL OF BISHOPS

Archbishop of Mexico City as the address to which

correspondence may be directed.

With assurances of distinguished consideration,

we are,

Respectfully yours,

(Signed)

Q&JOSE OTHON NUNEZ, Archbishop of Oaxaca
*JOSE MARIA GONZALEZ, Archbishop of Durango
ggRAFAEL GUIZAR, Bishop of Vera Cruz

Q&NICOLAS CORONA, Bishop of Papantla

9LUIS MARIA ALTAMIRANO, Bishop of Tulancingo
i^LEOPOLDO DIAZ ESCUDERO, Bishop of Chilapa

JESUS VILLARREAL, Bishop of Tehuantepec

8&PASCUAL DIAZ, Archbishop of Mexico

fi&IGNACIO PLACENCIA, Bishop of Zacatecas

fl&GERARDO ANAYA, Bishop of Chiapas
8&GENARO MENDEZ, Bishop of Huajuapan de Leon

^VICENTE M. CAMACHO, Bishop of Tabasco
g&LUIS GUIZAR B., Bishop of Campeche

iJlALEJANDRO RAMIREZ, Vicar Apostolic of Baja Cali-
fornia.

I who have signed the foregoing in my own name
now affix the signatures of the following prelates

who have authorized me as their proxy to do this

:

*LEOPOLDO RUIZ Y FLORES, Archbishop of Morelia
^MARTIN TRISCHLER, Archbishop of Yucatan
5FRANCISC0 OROZCO Y JIMENEZ, Archbishop of Gua-

dalajara

*PEDRO VERA Y ZURIA, Archbishop of Puebla
fl&JOSE GUADALUPE ORTIZ, Archbishop of Monterrey
fiBJOSE AMADOR VELASCO, Bishop of Colima
gBEMETERIO VALVERDE TELLEZ, Bishop of Leon

g&JESUS MARIA ECHAVARRIA, Bishop of Saltillo

IMMANUEL FULCHERI, Bishop of Zamora

g&JUAN NAVARRETE, Bishop of Sonora

gBANTONIO GUIZAR, Bishop of Chihuahua



APPEAL OF BISHOPS 47

g&FRANCXSCO GONZALEZ, Bishop of Cuernavaca

©AGUSTIN AGUIRRE RAMOS, Bishop of Sinaloa
ijgJOSE DE JESUS MANRIQUEZ Y ZARATE, Bishop of

Huejutla

ij&SERAFIN MARIA ARMORA, Bishop of Tamaulipas
iJjJOSE DE JESUS LOPEZ, Bishop of Aguascalientes
^GUILLERMO TRISCHLER, Bishop of San Luis Potosi
®MARCIANO TINAJERO, Bishop of Queretaro
^MANUEL PIO LOPEZ, Bishop of Tacambaro
ANASTASIO HURTADO, Vicar Capitular of Tepic

(Signed)

Jose Othon Nunez,

Archbishop of Oaxaca

.

Mexico City, September 29, 1935.



/

,7