Afex/ceis, A/r
7

AA@_££6?

MEXICAN “M’s”

\

MESTIZOS
j

MISSIONARIES
\

MEDDLING

AND
j

MUDDLING j

MONEY
j

MURDER \

MIRACLES
|

MASONRY
jj

MANNERS j

THE REV. JEREMIAH P. GLEESON





MEXICAN “M’

The Rev. Jeremiah P. Gleeson

Copyright 1935 by the Author.



Nihil Obstat:

Aquinas Knoff,

Censor Deputatus

Imprimatur,

*KJohn Francis Noll, D. D.

Bishop of Fort Wayne

DesgU&tf



MESTIZOS

The term, Mestizos, is defined as the

offspring of mixed Spanish and American-

Indian parentage. Numerically consider-

ed the Mestizo (half caste or half blood)

approximates eight millions from a total

population of fifteen millions of souls: the

component parts of the minority in this

tribal trinity being six millions of pure-

blooded Indians and one million pure-

blooded Spaniards—or, Castilian Creoles.
To understand in some measure, or to

venture an estimate of the character, mo-

tives and ambitions of the Mestizo—who
in reality is the true Mexican—we should
first consider the racial strain in this

Indian-Spanish hybrid.

The history of his Indian progenitors

is steeped in conjecture where one guess

is as good as another, it being a fertile

field for ethnologists,—our chief concern
is with his immediate antecedents—the
Aztecs, and to learn what manner of

men they were.

Certain writers as Prescott, the emin-

ent and romantic litterateur—if not al-
ways reliable historian—(who, by the
way, never cast a glance nor trod a pace

on Mexican soil) in his exquisite literary



4 MEXICAN “M’S”

opus, “The Conquest of Mexico,” seem

to delight in picturing the Aztec Indian

in the colors of super-Spanish civiliza-

tion, who in the halcyon days of his ex-

istence had attained a high degree of

culture: predicating of this pristine hu-

man of Mexican forest, mountain and

plain, certain unwarranted, presumed

and unproved intellectual and artistic pre-

rogatives which he did not possess prior

to his so-called degradation by the fire-

water of the white-man’s civilization

—

his eventual embarrassment and humilia-

tion of intellect at the superinduced esti-

mate of his inferiority—his final moral
degeneracy and depravity by the com-

municated vices of his civilized Spanish

Conquistator superior.

Now, let us face the facts honestly:

As Bishop Francis Clement Kelly—an
authority on Mexico—so pungently puts
it:

“Spain? There’s the rub. Ever since the

Spanish Armada, the tradition of hatred for

Spain has been in the blood of English-

speaking peoples. The Reformation made the

virus stronger. Strange how a prejudice will

hold its own in spite of the healing hand of
time. We took from England our dislike for
Spain and the Spanish, our conviction that

whatever Spain did must be wrong. We fed
that conviction on false history—if we can
call falsehood history at all. We swear by



MEXICAN “M’S” 5

Prescott and Bancroft, not because we have
confidence in them, but because they con-

demned Spain. The reason why we of the
English speech weep salt tears over it’s de-

struction (supposed Aztec Civilization) is

because we have never found an antitoxin
for the poison of unreasonable hatred.”

Yea, verily, that’s the rub! Spain!

And the logical consequent—Spain’s
nineteen-centuries-old connection with

the Catholic Church! Strange, the men-

tal contortions of a prejudice-infected

mind. “’Tis true, ’tis pity, and pity ’tis

’tis true”: the language of Chaucer and

the Bard of Avon has degenerated into

a medium and fashion for manifest Ro-

maphobia. Ever since the so-called Re-

formation, the misnomer for ‘off with

the old, on with the new”, credit where

credit was due has not been the policy or

the predominant passion of too many

English-speaking historians and encyclo-

paedists. Shameful omissions of the

names of famous Catholic pioneers in

the new world as Marquette, Rocham-

beau, Jocques, DeBrebeuf, Pinzon, La

Salle, DeMaisonneuve, Barry, Gallitzin,

Gaston, Charles Carroll, etc., etc., are

frequently found in works classed as

popular text books and encyclopaedias.

So many writers go out of their way to



6 MEXICAN “M’S”

insult Catholic readers and slander the

Catholic Church which was the inspira-

tion and encouragement of the noble

band of discoverers, explorers and colon-

izers of this continent of ours.

Prescott, in exquisitely trenchent

sneering English, presumes to trespass

on his reader’s intelligence with samples

such as the following:

“The religion taught in that day (16th

century) was one of form and elaborate

ceremony. In the punctilious attention to dis-

cipline, the spirit of Christianity was per-

mitted to evaporate. The mind, occupied

with forms, thinks little of substance. In a

worship that is addressed too exclusively to

the senses, it is often the case that morality

becomes divorced from religion, and the

measure of righteousness is determined by

the creed rather than by the conduct.”

Bancroft in “The History of the Uni-

ted States” flagrantly violates the truth

by his statement, “Luther resisted the

Roman Church for it’s immorality; Cal-

vin, for it’s idolatry.”

Parkman, in telling English, pictures

the Catholic Church as “the right arm of

tyrants,” “dark with the passions of

hell,” “masked in hypocrisy and lies,”

“clearly of earth, not of heaven.”

Belknap, in his “Biographies of the

Early Discoverers,” minutely describes



MEXICAN “M’S” 7

De Soto’s prolific pigs while he ignores

the twelve Catholic missionaries who ac-

companied him.

Mackenzie, in his “America—a His-
tory,” supplies Belknap’s omission by

the information that De Soto’s “camp

swarmed with priests”—twelve of the
priestly pest was considered a “swarm”

in his pious mind. His rampant histori-

cal generosity runs riot when he furth-

er concedes that Champlain, “although

a bigoted Catholic, was a sincere Chris-

tian”
;
but, was it a lapse of memory that

left poor Father Marquette out in the

cold when he informs his readers that

the Mississippi was discovered by “an ex-

ploring party composed of six men”?

One of Terry’s outbursts—but only
one of many—in “Mexico” is his applica-
tion of the terms “ignorance” and “sup-

erstition” to the Catholic party.

Carlton Beals boorishly states in his

recent scintillation “Mexico” that “the

present methods of the Catholic Church

in Mexico are still superstition, the con-

fession, and female fanaticism.” Such

rot! And this gent rises to inform us

that he taught school in Mexico. But then

one must not be too severe on Mr.



8 MEXICAN “M’S”

Beals and his ilk for he was for some

months an instructor to Carranza’s staff

—the Mr. Carranza, El Presidente, whose
revolutionary forces robbed, desecrated

and destroyed churches, sacked towns,

murdered the innocent, tortured and kill-

ed priests, violated maidens and raped

nuns. I wonder if Mr. Carlton Beals ever

read the thrilling and blood-curdling in-

dictment “Mexico under Carranza” by

Thomas Edward Gibbon—or, the authen-
tic statements contained in “The Book of

Red and Yellow” which Bishop Kelley

laid before the Senate of the United

States of America? And “Carlton” is

such a nice name—so similar to “Carroll-
ton” of Charles Carroll, one of the sign-

ers of “The Declaration of Indepen-

dence,” one of the Carrolls of Maryland

who believed in justice and truth, and

who experienced the curse of Penal Laws

and religious hate. “Carleton” and “Car-

rollton”—a euphonious similarity—noth-
ing more.

With apologies to Mr. Frank G. Car-

penter for pronouncing his name with

my next breath, I must say that his de-

lightful descriptive “Mexico” is not en-

tirely faultless where the Catholic Church



MEXICAN “M’S” 9

is concerned. In depicting Church and

State in Mexico he says there is “one

Catholic priest for every three thousand

Mexicans” and “only one Protestant Mis-

sionary to every twenty thousand of the

population.” Now I ask you, is that fair?

The comparison is entirely deceptive.

The population of Mexico is 99 per cent.

Catholic. To quote the figures correctly,

it should have been written thus : In 1925

(prior to the decade of almost complete

suppression of religion), one Protestant

minister to every 115 baptized Protest-

ants—one Catholic priest to every 3500
Catholics (all Catholics are baptized).

Graham, in his “History of North

America”, with a bigoted sneer and mani-

fest lack of Christian charity, much less

gratitude, terms the noble efforts of the

martyr Jesuit Missionaries among the

Indians as the “substitution of one super-

stition in place of another”—to his puny,
prejudiced mind, preaching the Gospel

of Christ, exhorting to chastity, charity

and honesty are “superstition.”

One could go on in this strain indefin-

itely—throwing the spot-light into dark
places—but space will not permit.

Hence, in the face of all this, it is too



MEXICAN “M’S”10

much to expect that Spain and Spanish

sons, in their successful armada headed

by Cortez in Mexico, with its permeation

and thorough savor of Catholicity, would

be given more deference or credit by

scriveners and pseudo-historians — the
warp and woof of whose character seems

so surfeited with the dross of ignorance

and bigotry—than that given the Old
Church of the Castilian Conquistadores,

their spiritual mother who reared and

taught them.

It is too much to expect fairness from

men who in the abundance of their ignor-

ance, decry piety as “mental intoxica-

tion”, “vagaries of insane mysticism”,

—

self-mortification “a disgusting exploit”,

and Catholic belief in the miracles of

Christ, rank superstition.

The Ancient Order of “Sob Sisters”

and “Soft Brothers” weeps copious tears

over the so-called “destruction of Aztec

civilization” which gave way to the

Christian civilization of the Spaniard.

There is some basis for the belief that

a certain degree of civilization did exist

among the Aztecs prior to the coming of

Cortez—and, according to their ancient
traditions, even a hazy knowledge of cer-



MEXICAN “M’S” 11

tain Christian truths: the belief in One

Supreme, Invisible, Eternal God Teotl

the Creator of all things: and possibly

the belief that the Creator had placed

the first man and woman in a beautiful

garden—the woman the called the
snake-woman : they had a fairly good

idea of the Deluge, the Tower of Babel,

the confusion of tongues. These things,

however, are catagorically denied by that

greatest of all English speaking histor-

ians (re Mexico), Bandelier, who says

that “Monotheism was unknown” and

that the basis of the Aztec creed was “a

rude pantheism”. There are no traces of

early Christian teachings. The so-called

“Cross” of Palenque is, first, not a work

of Mexicans, but of Maya tribes, and,

second, it is not a “Cross” but an imper-

fect Swastika. In consequence of the

pantheistic idea of a spiritual essence

pervading creation, and individualizing

at will in natural and human forms,

numberless fetishes, or idols, were manu-

factured which entailed a very elaborate

cult and a very sanguinary one from the

time that historical deities (deified men)

began to assume prevalence. The chief

idols of the Mexicans were historical per-



12 MEXICAN “M’S 1

THE

BELLS

OF

SAN

JUAN

CAPISTRANO,

CALIF.



MEXICAN “M’S” 13

sonages, probably Shamans (Priests) of

very early times.

In other words, according to this most

eminent historian, the Aztecs were steep-

ed in a crude and cruel paganism, and

hundreds of human beings, generally pri-

soners of war, were offered yearly as

sacrificial victims: Authorities generally

state that the number of victims yearly

sacrificed to pagan deities was approxi-

mately 20,000. Father Motolinia, in writ-

ing to Emperor Charles V, 1553, says

that 80,400 men were sacrificed in a four-

day service on the occasion of the open-

ing of the great temple in Mexico: this

number seems rather exaggerated to

Fathers Mendieta and others who give

the number as 20,000—this is also the
number given by the Vatican and Teller-

ian manuscripts. Father Durin, another

authority, speaking of the great number

of human victims, says it “seemed so in-

credible, that if history, and the fact

that I found it recorded in many places

outside of history, both in writing and

pictorially represented, did not compel

me to believe it, I should not dare to

assert it.”

These human sacrifices prove that the



14 MEXICAN “M’S”

Aztecs, under the warlike Montezuma,

were victims of a barbarous and bloody

superstition. Whatever remnants of civ-

ilization were extant in Cortez’s time, as

for example the great ruins in Yucatan,

of Palenque and Mitla in Oaxaca, the

baths of Netzahuacoyotl in Texcoco, the

pyramids of Teotihuacan and Cholulu,

prove rather the degree of civilization

attained by such as the Maya, Tzapotec,

Nahua and Toltec nations and which the

Aztecs destroyed. The greatest culture

in these primitive races was to be found

among the Toltecs who flourished from

the sixth to the eleventh century. The

Chichimec empire made up of the Indian

Confederacy (Acolyhuas, Aztecs and Te-

panecs), marked a serious retrogression

from Toltec culture : and, from the mid-

dle of the fifteenth century, when the

Aztec attained supremacy, to the date

of the Conquest, 1519, nearly every vest-

ige of pristine civilization had disappear-

ed. In the words of Bandelier, “most

features of Indian Civilization have been

considerably exaggerated.”

The heart of true civilization is reli-

gion, and the religion of the Aztecs was

essentially bloody and cannibalistic: to



MEXICAN “M’S” 15

quote Orozco of Berra: “The Cult was

truly horrific: it demanded a constant

shedding of blood. . . the mind shudders

in horror at the sight of the human vic-

tim, not only immolated by the stroke

of the knife, but offered up in other ex-

quisite forms under a refinement of

cruelty. Any religion omitting such a

barbarity is better than that. To sweep

it from the face of the earth was an im-

mense distance on the road of civiliza-

tion. To us this conclusion is evident,

axiomatic, as clear as the light of mid-

day.”

It is true that glowing accounts of

splendor, wealth, vast empires, populous

towns, and stately palaces fill the pages

of reports sent by Cortez and his follow-

ers to their imperial Spanish Sovereigns.

They would seem to lack the preponder-

ant human trait of “blowing one’s own

horn” had they written otherwise : they

wished to paint their exploits in the

brightest colors possible—to make the
best possible case for themselves. Com-

ing from the highly civilized shores of

sunny Spain they were surprised to find

even the slightest traces of civilization

among savages—and, quite naturally be-



16 MEXICAN “M’S”

came more or less boastful—just as a
fond father might be justly excused for

his pride, exaggeration and boastful rav-

ing over the incredible talents, wonder-

ful accomplishments, and discovery of

genius in Little Willie who has finally

mastered the difficult manual contortion,

the necessary preface, for the legible

writing of “cat-rat-hat”.

Susan Hale, in her “History of Mex-

ico,” gives a very reasonable and com-

mon-sense description of ancient Indian

civiliation as found by Cortez : “Empires

and palaces, luxury and splendor, fill the

account of Spaniards: and imagination

loves to adorn the halls of Montezumas

with the glories of an Oriental tale. Later

explorers, with the fatal penetration of

-our time, destroy the splendid vision, re-

ducing the Emperor to a Chieftain, the

glittering retinue to a horde of savages,

the magnificent Civilization, devoted to

art, literature and luxury, to a few hand-

fuls of pitiful Indians, quarreling with

one another for supremacy; one sighs to

think his sympathies may have been

wasted on the sufferings of an Aztec sov-

ereign, dethroned by the invading Span-

iard.”



MEXICAN “M’S” 17

Thus, upon closer scrutiny, the much

vaunted Aztec “Civilization” is reduced

to ordinary Indianism.

Under Spanish tutelage the Mexican

Indians have at times shown highly de-

veloped traits of cultural development

and even attained to eminence in their

respective fields. Similarly may the Mex-

ican Mestizo point to his attributes of civ-

ilized progress and if permitted and en-

couraged to develop after the manner

intended by his Spanish sponsors he

could be an honor and an ornament to

humanity and would hold among the

peoples of the world a preeminence sec-

ond to none. However it is a notable and

undeniable fact that in Mexico to-day, as

in the past, the cream of the population

is to be found in the Mexican Creoles

(Mexicans of pure Spanish extraction)

;

and by “cream” is meant the leaders in

literature, art, science and religion. This

contrast is especially evident among the

Mestizo “Politicos”. This half-breed,

who wields the sceptre of government, is

jealous of his Creole superiority; and, in

turn, he looks down on the Mexican

Peones (pure blooded Mexican Indians),

priding himself on his partial Spanish



18 MEXICAN “M’S”

racial strain, knowing in his heart, that

whatever polish he possesses, whatever

civilization he enjoys, can and must be

traced back to his Spanish forebearers.

During the three hundred years of

Spanish colonial rule, the pagan, uncivil-

ized, inert, sedentary Aztec seemed to

shake oif much of the crudeness of his

Indianism, and, in some measure at least,

to have become a useful member of civil-

ized society. Learned and pious monks

instructed him in the saving tenets of

Christianity, schools were founded,

churches erected, secular and Sacred

learning was making rapid strides among

the Indians,—the racial crossing by inter-
marriage of Indian and Creole was fos-

tered by Church and State with the result-

ant Mestizo hybrid, indicating a note-

worthy advance in the Indian racial scale:

peace and prosperity were the handmaid-

ens of education asd religion—in every
truth might it be said that the Three

Graces were being courted by this racial

trinity in New Spain.

This infusion of new blood, begun by

the original three-hundred thousand

pure-blooded whites among the Indian

masses, gave every promise of gradually



MEXICAN “M’S” 19

raising the native stock to the level of

the white man’s civilization—the Mexi-
can would become a worthy son of his

Spanish foster-parent and benefactor.

But the Fates decreed to dash down such

high hopes: the Mestizo Politico, con-

scious of his savage racial strain, became

ashamed of his Indianism, inordinately

proud of his Spanish stirps, and vindic-

tively jealous of his Castilian superiors.

His history is a keen disappointment.

Having shaken off the paternalism of

Spain, he abuses his new found freedom

—his new status turns his head, with the
result that from the date of Mexican In-

dependence, 1821
, to the present day, if

we except the period under the Dictator

Diaz, his passage has been one of blood,

loot, rape, and revolution,—a veritable
miasmic fratricidal debauch.

His Indian savagery predominates and

has dragged down and all but crushed

the saving savor of his Spanish blood and

culture. He stands before the world, not

the intended cultured Aztec Spanish

complex, but rather the predatory In-

dian clothed in civilized Spanish rags

and remnants. The Mexican Mestizo

Politico has been a failure.



20 MEXICAN “M’S”

Let me quote from “The People of

Mexico,” the learned and estimable work

of Wallace Thompson:

“Intellectually and psychologically, the

Mexican Mestizo is more of a hybrid than
he is physically. His body type has varied

characteristics, although perhaps tending

disproportionately to the Indian, but in his

brain there seethes the continual conflict of

intellectual and psychological predispositions

which go back to cultures—which in the his-
tory of humanity are thousands of years

apart. In his mind the blind, unchanging

grasp of tradition and superstition which

mark the Indian combine with the brilliant
logic of the Spaniard to create a person,

unstable and at the same time inexorable,

bound by racial prejudices which he does not

understand and yet which he justifies with

an occidental logic that confuses both him-

self and the observer. Brave and often de-

voted, cruel and blindly selfish, proud and

childishly sensitive, admiring material and

spiritual achievement extravagantly, yet al-

most incapable alone of the concentration

and sacrifice which create these achieve-

ments, sentimental and poetical, yet almost

untouched by great passions and desires, the

Mexican is the victim of his mixed racial and

cultural heritage, the plaything of primal

forces which tend ever to neutralize one

another into a personality often unworthy

alike of his rich Spanish intensity and of his

Indian simplicity. Though he conceives his

revolutions, his social reforms and his ma-

terial progress in high-sounding terms of

altruism, the forces with which he has torn

his country to tatters and even those with

which, from time to time, he has bound her

wounds, have been selfish ambitions and

narrow personal desires which partook neith-

er of the white man’s militant altruism nor



21MEXICAN “M’S”

of the red man’s love of glory. Yet to-day

Mexico is a Mestizo, a half-breed land. The

characteristics of Indian and of Spaniard

are merged in her population and in her

rulers. But as we watch her progress down-
ward through revolution after revolution

and as we shall observe her life. . . we find
forced upon us the realization that in this

welter of conflicting cultures and psycholo-

gies the predominating factor to-day is

Indian, and that sooner or later, unless the

white world again takes up the burden,

Mexico must inevitably slip back to the plane

of pre-Spanish barbarism.”

Unless conservative elements inter-

vene, the future of Mexico is not bright.

Divorced from the stabilizing influence

of Spain, cursed with an exaggerated

and distorted idea of civic rights, and,

almost invaribly saddled with a set of

mail-fisted, self-seeking, irresponsible

Mestizo leaders—ambitious of honor,
wealth, and power, politicos and pseudo-

patriots of itching palms, consumed with

the vice of insatiable greed,—Mexico’s
ship of state seems headed for the rocks.

Here is a land bountifully blessed by

Nature’s God—yet withal, a land where
poverty predominates, where ignorance

is the proletariat’s lot owing to neglect

of education and its consequent retro-

gression since Spanish days, a land of

beautiful churches where religion is per-

secuted, a populace ninety-nine per cent



22 MEXICAN “M’S”

Catholic yet ruled by a succession of

anti-Catholic governments, a land colon-

ized and Christianized by Spain—stamp-
ed with her maternal tongue—yet where
the Spaniard is “a pernicious foreigner”,

and persona non grata.

Poor, beautiful, bleeding Mexico
—

“the

world’s treasure house”—hungry and
persecuted

!

Truly a paradoxical land! And, in

Mexican history to date, sad to say, the

Mestizo Politico has been the leading

factor in the destructive part of the

paradox.



MEXICAN “M’S 23

MISSIONARIES

The advent of Spanish activity in Mex-

ico dates from 1519. Coincident with

Spanish arms appeared the Christian

Cross. When Hernand Cortez and his

army (a mere handful of 550 men, 13 with

light arms, 16 horses and 14 artillery

pieces) landed at Tabasco, three priests

had accompanied them in the role of chap-

lains and missionaries. This policy of the

Crown and the mitre was typically Span-

ish—to conquer for King and Holy Faith,
to extend the limits of their Catholic

Majesties’ domain and through conver-

sion to extend the Kingdom of God on

Earth.

The history of Mexico’s “twelve Apos-

tles” (her first twelve Missionaries) reads

like a fairy tale. Their efforts, and the

fruit of their zeal, seem almost incredible

:

yet they are substantiated facts. That

former pagan Aztec land, though still

largely Indian and Mestizo, is today 99%
Christian and Catholic.

The influence of the Church on Mexican

civilization was so great in the 18th cen-

tury that the Baron von Humboldt (non-

Catholic historian) wrote that “Mexico



24 MEXICAN “M’S”

was more advanced in the arts and

sciences than the United States”. Today

Mexico, deprived of this influence, to a

very great extent, is notorious for the

shhme and disgrace of ignorance and law-

lessness.

Take the foreigner and his works from

Mexico, and we have left only the decay-

ing culture left by the departing Spaniard.

Sad as this history is, however, as the for-

eigner from Canada and the U. S. A. trav-

els in Mexico there is forced upon him the

disquieting fact that where he destroyed

the Spaniard built up: he took the native

Indian and preserved, civilized and Chris-

tianized him—while we have nothing to
show but a transplanted European civil-

ization and the dying embers of Indianism

cooped up in Indian reserves: and, too

often, an Indian robbed, demoralized and

spurned.

From the point of view of religion, the

Mexican is a marvel. The visitor is thrill-

ed at the sight of intense, fervent faith on

all sides: the churches (magnificent tem-

ples), before the current atheistic drive,

were crowded with men and women—not
only on Sundays but during the week : sa-

cred emblems, religious statues (especially



SAN

JUAN

BAUTISTA,

CALIFORNIA

MEXICAN “M’S 1 25



26 MEXICAN “M’S”

of Our Lady) and other paraphernalia of

a pious people are prominently displayed

wherever one chances to go—even in fac-
tories, storewindows and little shops of

every description. The many religious fes-

tivals were most diligently observed by

these peaceful Catholics—though to the
bigot this was superstition and priestcraft.

We have heard a lot of the supposi-
titious “plauge of priests”. The facts tell

another story.

At the zenith of the Catholic Church in

Mexico (1810) there were 4,000 priests in

parish work, or one for every 900 Catho-

lics, while in 1910 the proportion was one

priest for every 8,500 Catholics, while in

Canada and the United States the propor-

tion is one priest for every 750 Catholics,

and the chronic cry of Catholic people is

the shortage of priests. Among non-

Catholics in Mexico the proportion is one

Minister to every 115 Protestants.

The Catholic Missionaries in this In-

dian empire have written one of the most

glorious pages in the history of the

Church. They were not content with

bringing them the Gospel of Christ, and

the consequent transformation from a pa-

gan to a Christian people—their efforts



MEXICAN “M’S” 27

were also manifest in the field of educa-

tion.

During the Spanish colonial days 33,000

Catholic schools were erected and func-

tioned—practically every parish through-
out the length and breadth of the land had

its own school. The first Theological Sem-

inary in North America was founded by

Bishop Zummarga, the first Bishop of

Mexico. The first major College, that of

Santa Cruz at Tlaltelolco, was founded in

1536 also by Bishop Zumarraga. On the

teaching staff were such eminent profes-

sors as two graduates of the two greatest

Universities in Europe—one from the Uni-

versity of Salamanca and one from the

University of Paris. Besides these two an

even greater educational luminary: Saha-

gun, the foremost Mexican antiquity au-

thority.

The first University (after the best

European standards) that was erected on

the North American Continent was the

University of Mexico City (1553), erected

by Bishop Zumarraga. It was patterned

after the University of Salamanca and

antedates Harvard by nearly a century

(though Harvard is often referred to as

the oldest in North America). By 1571



28 MEXICAN “M’S”

the University of Mexico had an endow-

ment of $100,000 from the Spanish Gov-

ernment—by the end of the 16th century
it had 1,000 students in attendance, while

Harvard, at the end of the 17th century,

had 50 students in attendance.

The first Medical school in North Amer-

ca was opened in 1580—nearly 200 years
before the Medical school of the Univer-

sity of Pennsylvania—the first Medical
school in the United States.

The first paper mill, printing press, and

printed book in North America appeared

in Mexico City in 1544, also the work of

a Bishop.

Before the year 1600, hundreds of books

—still extant—were printed: and yet, the
Massachusetts Bay Psalm Book (1638) is

often referred to as the first book printed

in North America. Mexico Also produced

the first drama and erected the first thea-

tre on this Continent.

Even in 1910 (in spite of “Reform

Laws”) there were, according to Govern-

ment figures, 12,518 Catholic schools and

only 9,692 State schools. In 1926, accord-

ing to Moises Saenz, sub-secretary of Ed-

ucation under Calles, there were 12,257

state schools, and, by the way, the majori-



MEXICAN “M’S” 29

ty of the state schools were and are corn

fiscated Catholic property. Today, be-

cause of suppression, there are no Catho«

lie schools.

The Church educational programme has

been crippled for 75 years and as a conse-

quence there are 80% illiterates in the Re-
public.

The Revolutionary Government has in-

troduced the barn-yard to the school: It

mates animals for the enlightenment of

the young (one striking example was a

bull labeled “God” and a cow “The Blessed

Virgin”)
;
in state schools boys and girls

have been stripped naked to study nature

in mixed groups; children have even been

escorted by their teachers to maternity

homes to witness child-birth—some of the
children went raving mad.

On the verbal testimony of Mr. Fred

V. Williams of San Francisco, California,

who spent some thirty years in Mexico

—

the children in state schools open class

with the following “prayer” : “There is

no God— there never was a God—there
never will be a God : down with the

Church : death to the priests”.

Mr. Williams, who is a journalist and



30 MEXICAN “M’S”

special news correspondent, saw the ani-

mal act and heard the anti-God cry.

In some States, Margaret Sanger’s

Birth-Control pamphlets in Spanish trans-

lation (and Spanish is much plainer spok-

en than English) were distributed by the

thousands among the children of the pub-

lic schools. In plain (and often obscene)

language the act of generation, preventa-

tives, contraceptives, etc., are described.

Sex hygiene has also been taught in these

schools by means of illuminated slides di-

rected by government appointed MEN
lecturers. Attempts have been made, also

in schools, to persuade young boys and

girls to become drug addicts: in some

cases young boys have been held down

while an injection of morphine was forci-

bly administered.

On Saturday, January 19, 1935, the

leading secular daily of Mexico, “Excel-

sior” (not a Catholic paper), in a scath-

ing editorial, denounced government au-

thorities for their brutalizing, bolshevistic

educational program.

Education under Church auspices pro-

duced most of the great Indians in Mexi-

co’s history. For example: Adiano de



MEXICAN “M’S” 31

Tlaltelolco the linguist; Ixtilxochitl and

Valeriana, historians, Ricon, grammar-

ian of the Aztec tongue; Miguel de Ca-

brero, historian; Panduro and Velasquez,

artists; Altamirano, orator, novelist, poet

and journalist; Juan Esteban, great teach-

er
;
Francisco Pascual Garcia, famous law-

yer; Ignacio Ramirez, distinguished jour-

nalist; Rodriguez Gavan, poet; Diego

Adriano and Augustin de la Fuente, expert

printers
;

Diaz, soldier and statesman

;

Mejia, great soldier; Urrutia, clever sur-

geon; Munguia, philosopher; Carrillo y

Ozcona, scientists
;
Estagnol, talented par-

liamentraian
;

Sanchez Santos, lawyer,

the Church colonized, christenized and to

a very considerable extent educated mil-

lions of savages.

On the other hand of the 250,00 In-

dians in the United States who have cost

the Government approximately $700,000,-

000, there is none pre-eminent except as

fighters and their educational status is

45% illiterate. The anti-Catholic Joel

Poinsett, first American Ambassador to

Republican Mexico, was forced to admit

“most of the people in the Mexican cities

can read and write”—and this in spite of
the cycle of revolutions that had cursed



32 MEXICAN “M’S”

the country and disrupted educational

progress.

Later, the extension of missionary ef-

fort, without and beyond the confines of

Mexico was the logical consequence of the

conquest. This Catholic land became the

mission door to the North. This evangel-

ical exodus to extend Christ’s Kingdom

had the added impulse to stem the tide of

influence of semi-barbarous Russians,

from Siberia and Alaska, who had begun

to move southward.

The first Mexican Missionary to pene-

trate Upper California was Juan Rodri-

guez Cabrillo, who started from Novidad

in the state of Sinaloa, Western Mexico,

in 1592.

Prior to this, in 1528, Florida was the

scene of the first Missions and the Super-

ior of that first Mission Band was none

other than Father Juan Suarez (Bishop-

elect of Florida). He was one of the

twelve Apostles of Mexico. The Jesuit

Missionaries entered the field of Arizona

and New Mexico in 1540. The first at-

tempt to convert Texas was made in 1544

by Friar Andrew de Olmos. Later Ven-

erable Antonio Margil, called the Apostle

of Texas, came from missionary successes



MEXICAN “M’S” 33

in Yucatan. This great apostle founded

missionary colleges at Zacatecas and

Queretaro from whence came many of the

noble missionaries of the Southwest.

Twenty-one mission churches were erected

in the vicinity of San Antonio. The oldest

Church in North America was erected by

the Padres at Tlascala in 1521. The old-

est Church in the United States is that of

Santa Fe, New Mexico, erected by Fran-

ciscan Friars, 1609. The first martyr of

the United States was Fr. Juan de Padilla

(1554). Evangelization prospered with

the blood of missionary martyrs—and it
is interesting to note that no less than 105

missionaries won the martyr’s crown

within the present limits of the United

States.

The Apostolic zeal of these noble priests

impelled them to extend their efforts to

the Philippines, to China and Japan.

Among the Canonized martyrs of Naga-

saki, in the land of the Mikado (1597),

was Philip de las Casas, a native of Mexi-

co City; San Filippe de Jesus was the first

native North American to be canonized a

Saint.

In Southern U. S. A., Mexican and Span-

ish missionaries had established Catholic



34 MEXICAN “M’S”

settlements and civil well-organized gov-

ernment many years before the- English

landed at Jamestown (1607), or the Pil-

grims had reached Plymouth Rock (1620),

or the Puritans had reached Boston

(1630). The Jesuits entered lower Cali-

fornia in 1683 and labored for eighty

years.

The greatest missionary of all this

epoch was Peter of Ghent (cousin of Em-

peror Charles V,) who regenerated in the

saving waters of Baptism some 300,000 In-

dians. His famous school at Tlaltelolco is

now used as a delapidated custom-house.

Finally in 1769 Fra Junipero Serra and

General Joe De Galvez started from Mexi-

co to found the world-renowned California

Missions in the present Sunset State. A
more glamorous or romantic tale of phy-

sical and spiritual heroism would be hard

to find. Twenty-one missions in all dotted

the Pacific Sea Coast from San Diego

(erected in 1769) to San Francisco (1823).

El Camino Real (The King’s Highway)

will forever stand a mighty tribute to the

glorious zeal and undying devotion of the

Padres. Yes, even in spite of the subse-

quent history of greed and bigotry, which

destroyed their noble work and dispersed



MEXICAN “M’S” 35

fifty saintly Franciscan missionaries and

fifteen thousand highly civilized and evan-

gelized Indians. All that is left today, as

a result of the order of secularization,

1838, is the “mirage of the missions”. Dese-

crated and ruined were those precious pro-

totypes of present day mission architec-

ture—those lovely old fanes of missionary
effort erected in times of bloody turmoil by

converted savages under the direction of

Padres, architects and builders.

The eminent non-Catholic historian,

Chas. Lummis, thus describes this great

missionary effort: “It was the most just,

humane and equitable system ever devis-

ed for an aboriginal people. The historic

and impregnable fact is disquieting to

thoughtful Americans that in fifty-four

years Spain had converted about 100,000

of these Indians from savagery to Chris-

tianity, had built twenty-one costly and

beautiful temples for them to worship in

—and the best of those Indian Churches
could not be replaced today for $100,000

—

had given them schools and industrial

schools, in far greater number than they

have today after fifty-four years of Amer-

ican rule, had taught them a religion and

a language they have not yet forgotten,
t



36 MEXICAN “M’S”

and to which 99% of them are still devot-

ed to the exclusion of anything we have

been at pains to teach them: had taught

them to build great houses, to be good car-

penters, masons, plasterers, blacksmiths,

soap-makers, tanners, shoemakers, cooks,

brickmakers, spinners, weavers, saddlers,

shepherds, cowboys, vineyardists, fruit-

growers, millers, wagonmakers, and so on.”

What a consstent story of shame is the

calumny that has so often been directed

against this great Christian Spanish-

American nation!

It has been charged against the mission-

ary Bishops and Prisets of Mexco that

during the days of conquest, through bigot-

ry, they destroyed traces of Aztec civiliza-

tion such as paintings, writings, etc. This

statement is however not founded on fact.

While a few Priests accompanied Cortez,

the real work of conversion did not take

place for three years after the conquest

when the twelve “Apostles” arrived. The

first Bishop did not reach Mexico for some

seven years after the conquest. Conse-

quently they could not have been guilty of

this so-called destruction.

As a matter of fact the missionaries

collected, preserved and attempted to in-



MEXICAN “M’S” 37

terpret the Indian writings and paintings

:

sixty years later they were used to com-

pile an official history.

Finally, the missionaries could not have

been guilty of this destruction for the sim-

ple reason that many of the paintings and

writings are still extant.

WALL OP SAN GABRIEL, CALIF.



38 MEXICAN “M’S :

MEDDLING AND MUDDLING

The major story of foreign meddling

and muddling manifest in Manana Land

has for its author what Mexicans term “El

Colossus del Norte.”

The Monroe Doctrine professes to ab-

stain from prescribing the form of gov-

ernment in Latin America and demands

that Latin America shall be free of Old

World domination : thus it prevents Europe

from policing Mexico and consequently,

“in extremis” obliges the United States

to do so.

This so-called good neighbor policy has

certainly been good for Uncle Sam : in 1821

he took over Florida; in 1845 he bagged

Texas; California, Nevada, Utah and parts

of Wyoming, Colorado, Arizona and New

Mexico were acquired in 1848—and five
years later he completed the boundary

acquisition.

This policy of the Monroe Doctrine has

engendered a prevailing sentiment of sus-

picion and resentment against the Colos-

sus of the North, not only in Mexico but

also in Central and South American Re-

publics. One phase of this is the Mexican

regulation that the foreigner may not own



MEXICAN “M’S” 39

property within sixty miles of the border

and thirty miles of the coast.

It will be intersting to quote an extract

from the speech of protest delivered in

the United States Senate by Senator Cor-

win, former United States Ambassador

to Mexico:

“The President has said he does not

expct to hold Mexican territory by con-

quest. Why then conquer it? When
stripped naked it is that atrocious idea

promulgated in the president’s message,

and now advocated here, of fighting on un-

til we can get our indemnity for the past as

well ar for the present slaughter. You have

overrun half of Mexico, you have exas-

perated and irritated her people, you

claim indemnity for all expenses incurred

in doing this mischief and boldly ask her

to give up New Mexico and California :

and as a bribe to her patriotism, seizing

on her property, you offer three millions to

pay the soldiers she has brought out to

repel your invasion on condition that she

will give up to you at least one third of her

whole territory. You have taken from

Mexico one-fourth of her territory and you

now propose to run a line comprehending

about another third.



40 MEXICAN “M’S”
“
‘Why/ says the chairman of this com

mittee on forign relations, ‘it is the most

reasonable thing in the world! We ought
to have the Bay of San Francisco.’ Why?

‘Because it is the best harbour on the Pa-

cific!’ In criminal courts in the course of

my life, I never yet have heard a thief

arrainged for stealing a horse, plead that

it was the best horse that he could find in

the country! We want California.”

From the point of view of the Irish

Canadian and Irish American mentality,

the religious situation in Mexico is what

one might term a pious scandal ; by “scan-

dal” is meant the suffranee of tyranny by

Mexican Catholics is such a shock that he

cannot understand it, and he persistently

asks—Why do they stand for it? why do
they not rebel against it? why don’t

they fight? where is their militant Cath-

olicity? why not show something of the

spirit of the old Crusades? To one whose

.forefathers were crushed for centuries un-

der the depot’s heel and whose living coun-

trymen and blood relatives struggled un-

der the yoke of the tyrant and had to use

force to throw it off, as did the Irish to re-

gain their own country, Mexico is an enig-

ma of the first order. The “pious” part



41MEXICAN “M’S”

comes from the utter passive submission

without physical force—the turning of
the other cheek in the whirligig of cease-

less slapping: the Mexican, faced with

the theft and strangulation of his faith, is

patience personified. The hot blood and

the brawny bone of the Irish for Mother

Church just couldn’t stomach it.

I asked these same questions from many

Mexicans and rarely got a reply: finally,

from no less an authority than Mr. A—r,
an explanation was tendered: “We have

begged the Bishops to permit us to form a

Catholic political party, but of this they

disapprove. We have begged the Bishops
to sanction our taking up arms to protect

and preserve our natural rights—we are
willing to go to martyrdom—but the bish-
ops will not permit it.” The Mexican

loves his clergy and implicitly obeys his

bishop, so that explains his extraordinary

patience.

Mr. A—r, by the way, is himself a very
extraordinary person. He is a native

Mexican—was educated in France—lived
for years in England—is very learned—

a

most exemplary Catholic and a thorough

patriot. He represented the Catholic

laity of Mexico at the Vatican. He rep-



42 MEXICAN “M’S”

resented the Catholic laity in an appeal

and an explanation before the Apostolic

Delegate, Most Reverend Ernesto Filippi,

before his forced and hurried departure

at the command of Obregon. Mr. A—

r

was also spokesman and representative of

the Mexican Catholic laity in a confi-

dential interview with John “Confidential”

Lind, whose warped and twisted Mexican

ideas considerably influenced Woodrow

Wilson who perpetrated the Carranza mess

and is largely responsible for the present

orgy of barbarism.

The “Laws of Reform”, 1859, sponsored

by Jaurez, their President-author, in-

augurated the exquisite form of meddling

that has prevailed even to this late date.

This meddling of the secular power in the

realm of things spiritual, reverts back to

the United States Government which boost-

ed the full-blooded Indian, Juarez, into

power by lifting the embargo on arms in

favour of his revolutionists: this state-

ment is based on the testimony of General

Sheridan in his “Personal Memoirs”.

The United States aided and abetted the

downfall of Porfirio Diaz by assistance and

recognition extended to Madero, the

weakling and dreamer.



43MEXICAN “M’S”

Mr. Carranza was lifted to power in the

same manner (according to the testimony

of Mr. Nelson O’Shaughnessy, Charge

d’affaires of the U. S. A. at that time.)

Obregon, Calles, Portes Gil, Rubio, Rod-

riguez and Cardenas were and are sustain-

ed in power by the United States clamping

down the embargo on arms against an in-

furiated populace who are in danger of

being ground into a state of pre-Columbian

barbarism. Less than one percent of the

people of Mexico has ever taken part in

the revolutions so prevalent there and that

insignificant minority has invariably been

supported by the United States Govern-

ment.

When Victoriana Huerta came to town

in 1913, the meddling of the United States

Government inoculated her southern

neighbor with the malignant germ of Wil-

son’s watchful waiting program, indica-

tive of a creeping national paralysis, which

gave promise of a slow and tortuous death.

General Huerta was a shrewd and capable

old Indian militarist with a decided Diaz

bent for strong government
;
but he was a

Catholic and had leveled at his head the

presumed and unproved charge that he had

murdered Madero. If given a free hand



44 MEXICAN “M’S”

he could have whipped his country into the

line of national rectitude : the governments

of England, France, Japan and Germany

knew this and extended to him their official

recognition. The United States continued

to harass his every effort for stable gov-

ernment, intercepting arms and ammu-

nitions bought by Huerta; finally, after

Wilson lifted the embargo on arms in

favor of the revolutionists, who were later

officially recognized, Mexico’s national

emaciation blossomed forth in the Car-

ranzista debauch. Carranza was murder-

ed and Oberegon was recognized. Today

the last state of Sonora Gang rule, which

is worse than the first, continues to enjoy

Uncle Sam’s official benediction.

There is one name in Mexico today held

in deepest disdain; and that name is, not

Plutarco Elias Calles but, the late Am-

bassador of the United States of America,

Mr. Dwight Morrow. This fact does not

enhance Senor Plutarco’s reputation one

whit but there are some extenuating cir-

cumstances which make him less despised

than Mr. Morrow.

Calles is not “ex professo” a paragon of

Christianity—he does not pretend to be

—

the world knows him for what he is.



MEXICAN “M’S” 45

Mr. Morrow at least wore the trappings

of Christian charity but his Mexican record

does him scant praise in the eyes of the

Mexican populace. He is heartily condemn-

ed for his lassitude in behalf of a perse-

cuted people and for playing up to a dis-

reputable, discredited government clique

actively engaged in the process of strang-

ling the religious life out of a nation of

believers. It is common knowledge that

Mr. Morrow made absolutely no attempt

to save the lives of Father Pro and his

three martyred companions. A mere hint
from the United States Ambassador would

have ben sufficient. But no; Mr. Morrow

couldn’t meddle in domestic affairs even to

prevent murder—-besides he was very
busy at this particular time enjoying the

hospitality of Mr. Calles in a trip hither

and yon in the Republic in the Presidential

million dollar train.

On the testimony of Mr. Fred V. Wil-

liams, who visited the Morrow Cuernavaca

home, the prominent display of a set of

precious vestments (for priestly use at

Holy Mass) as an ornamental wall-tapes-

try was a stinging affront to Catholic sen-

sibilities. It is also reported that certain

sacred vessels of gold made their way to



46 MEXICAN “M’S”

New Jersey, via the plane of a famous

air pilot.

The present American Ambassador to

Mexico, Mr. Josephus Daniels, about whose

head a veritable barrage of complaint has

for some conriderable time been directed,

was the same Secretary of Navy, Daniels,

whose war cruisers lay for seven months

in Vera Cruz harbor to help “make the

world safe for democracy”, and to ease out

a neighboring President with the meddling

fanfare of war. Mr. Daniels, at the close

of his watchful waiting, permitted the na-

tionals of his own democracy to be saved

by ships of the German and English navies

while their own United States ships were

ordered seven miles to sea—though hun-
dreds of American lives were at stake. In

fact, the Wilson administration after med-

dling in the internal affairs of a sovereign

state, practically abandoned twenty

thousand of its own people.

The Mexican Herald of December, 1914,

describes the United States’ protection of

its nationals as an “idea built on the

cafeteria plan : ‘Come and get it. We don’t

carry it to you.’
”

Mr. Wilson was evidently too busy

about this time shipping $10,000,000 worth



MEXICAN “M’S” 47

of munitions to Carranza : a goodly por-

tion of the cartridge shipments were dum-

dum bullets, outlawed by civilized nations

;

in the trafficking were also thousands of

rifles and a great quantity of dynamite.

And then, Johnny Lind’s letter from

Wilson
—

“The United States will not hesi-

tate to consummate matters, especially in

times of domestic trouble, in the way that

they, the United States, consider best for

Mexico.” What a far-away call to the

present administration at Washington,

which declines to interfere in domestic

trouble below the Rio Grande when mil-

lions of that Sister Republic are being de-

spoiled physically, financially, mentally

and morally. If the world could only de-

pend on that and if poor ravaged Mexico

could be permitted to put her own house in

order, the name of Roosevelt would be

forever blessed. The United States in-

stalled the present band of ruffians, now

let the United States make redress and

continue the present President’s non-inter-

ference policy. Let him keep his war-

ships out of Vera Cruz waters and his land

forces north of the Rio Grande. Let him

lift his embargo on arms and be neutral

and fair—then shall the wicked mourn



48 MEXICAN “M’S”

BASILICA OF OUR LADY OF



MEXICAN “M'S” 49

(VDALUPE, MEXICO CITY, MEXICO



50 MEXICAN “M’S”

and Mexico will have her desired oppor-

tunity to work out her own salvation. The

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) pro-

vided that all disputes between the United

States and Mexico should first be sub-

mitted for arbitration.

Franklin K. Lane, Wilson’s Secretary of

the Interior, admitted in the New York

World that “American warships went to

Vera Cruz to show Mexico that we were

in earnest in our demand that Huerta must

go.”

As a consequence, millions of Christ-

ians are deprived of religious services and

the consolations of religion.

At the present moment every bishop and

priest has been driven out of fourteen

states and in these states practically every

church has been closed, confiscated or de-

stroyed.

The Papal Delegate, Archbishop Ruiz

of Morelia, has been expelled from Mexico

and is an exile in Texas. Archbishop

Orozco of Guadalajara (the second lar-

gest city in Mexico) is in hiding in the

Jalisco hills with a price on his head.

Bishop Zarate of Huejutla is also an

exile on the run and marked for death.

Many other bishops and priests have been



MEXICAN “M’S” 51

expelled from their native land and are liv-

ing on the charity of Catholics in Califor-

nia, Arizona and especially in Texas. I

say “especially in Texas” because it is

there the Most Rev. Archbishop Dros-

saerts (that Dear old spiritual Daddy) is,

and has been for many years taking under

his paternal wing countless thousands of

exiled Mexican refugees fleeing from a hell

of persecution. Even in his Episcopal

City, San Antonio, he has designated his

Cathedral—the sacred and lovely old San
Fernando—the Mexican Church.

According to existing Mexican laws,

priests are not permitted to vote, to criti-

cise the laws, to own property even an in-

heritance share of their parents’ estate.

They are not permitted to wear clerical

garb (even the Roman collar). They are

forbidden to assist at services outside a

church (even to say a prayer over a

grave). They are not allowed to collect

alms to sustain charitable works, such as

orphanages, churches, schools, etc. In

Mexico City there are 400 native priests

forbidden to act as priests and who daily

appeal to Archbishop Diaz for a few cen-

tavos for bread and for the price of a bed

in ten-cent “flop-houses”.



52 MEXICAN “M’S”

It is true that a few churches and

fewer priests are operating in Mexico

City, but this is to “pull the wool” over

tourists’ eyes so that Government guides

may point to them and assure the visitors

that a man may worship God in Calles’

kingdom, according to his own conscience.

A Canadian or an American citizen who
happens to be a priest is not even allowed

to visit Mexico.

Within recent weeks an extensive and

intensive drive has been launched to at-

tract tourists to Mexico, especially Amer-

icans. There is a reason! The hand-

writing is on the wall and the open season

for Mr. Calles and his politicos is just

around the corner. In many states the

brave “Cristeros” are now under arms,

and a persecuted and desperate people is

about to rise “en masse” to dethrone their

oppressors. When the “lid blows off” the

power usurpers below the Rio Grande hope

to see many United States citizens trap-

ped. When bridges are blown up and

trains are dynamited, doubtless many non-

combatants will be killed ; this will be the

cue for the Calles’ crowd—they will appeal
to President Roosevelt to step in to assist

in putting down a rebellion—to protect his



MEXICAN “M’S” 53

nationals with the international cry that

Mexico is unable to cope with this so-

called fanatical “Bolshevism.” They hope

to entice the United States navy to Vera

Cruz and to see United States troops cross

the Rio Grande and thus permit Car-

denas et alii to enjoy a new lease of poli-

tical life.

Now of course, you, who are old fash-

ioned enough, (as the Jews, Protestants

and Catholics of America have recently

and frequently shown), to believe in fair

play and in truth that will shame the

devil, will immediately realize that all this

travel bally-hoo is an attempt to bolster

up the nauseating reputation of a despo-

tic, irreligious government, hated by

ninety-nine percent, of the Mexican “fan-

atics” who believe in God and the Ten

Commandments.

In the domestic field of meddling and

muddling “in sacris” the record of the

secular government of Mexico is bloody

red.

A superlative piece of deviltry was the
attempt, made by Cailles in 1925, to form

a schismatic church
; but which, thank

God, proved to be a rank fiasco. The

schismatics, led by an ex-priest, Perez,



54 MEXICAN “M’S”

who many years ago (though he died re-

pentant and reconciled to Holy Mother

Church), had been expelled from the

priesthood because of immorality, for-

cibly entered the beautiful Soledad church,

turned out the rightful pastor and took

possession; the faithful people protested

so vigorously that the Government came

to his assistance in as much as they closed

the church (refusing to restore it to its

rightful owners) and proceeded to estab-

lish Perez in the Church of Corpus Christi,

located on Avenida Jaurez, one of the

principal and most beautiful streets of the

city, where for many months, he remained

in charge.

I visited this sacred old edifice and was

stunned to see its interior Catholic ap-

pearance, (confessionals, altar, sanctuary

lamp, stations of the cross, statue of Our

Lady, etc.) while outside on the front wall

of the church a billboard was smeared with

notices of virulent anti-Catholic rot. Perez

was thus described by the editor of “Ex-

celsior”, the fine secular daily of Mexico

City: “A Spanish Pastor, Galician, born

in the province of Lugo, of bad moral

reputation
;

another Mexican ex-priest

also of no recommendable character, once.



MEXICAN “M’S” 55

it is rumored, Captain in the army: such

are the leaders of the New ‘Church’

Perez, while parish priest in Juitlahuaca,

Oaxaca, was suspended by Msgr. Guil-

low, then Bishop of Oaxaca, for leading

there a life shockingly immoral.

Another ex-priest, Luis Monje, asso-

ciated with Perez in this schismatic farce,

repented before ten days had elapsed, of

his part in the attempt to breed harmful

division among the Catholic faithful and

through Monsignor Pietro Fumasoni

Biondi, Apostolic Delegate at Washington,

petitioned the Holy See for pardon. With

the exception of these two unfortunates

not a single member of the Mexican

clergy wavered in his allegiance to the

Church of Christ, nor in his loyalty and

obedience to the Holy Father* Christ’s

Vicar. Their persecution has been and is

intense, and every conceivable allurement

was offered them—as high as three thous-
and pesos monthly “con casa y mujer”

(with house and woman), if they would

but come over to the New “Church.” Yet

in spite of it all, not one proved recreant.

It is not difficult to imagine what

frightful consequences would have re-

sulted if any notable part of the clergy



56 MEXICAN “M’S”

had followed Perez and Monje. Without

a doubt, this attempted schismatic move-

ment would have torn the Church wide

open.



MEXICAN “M’S : 57

MONEY AND MURDER
I. MONEY

“Money is the key to every lock”. This

is especially true in Mexico where filthy

lucre is the open sesame to that financial

mad-house. There the history of money

is a wide-open book. The script of that

book appears in ink of variegated hues

—

gilt, yellow, red, black and invisible. For

modern Mexican money
—

“the Greeks had

a word for it”,—and one need not be super-
proficient in the popular indoor sport of

cross-word puzzles to substitute a five-

letter word, written in capitals, which ap-

pears on the extensive face of “Mexican

hoy”—that’s right—the word is GRAFT.
The first chapter in gilt concerns Cortez

whose cupidity was whetted by Monte-

zuma’s samples of yellow metal and

whose exploits in the Vale of Anahuac

were largely subservient to the impelling

motive to seek out the golden source which

he fondly hoped would replenish the

coffers of Senor Hernando and Their Im-

perial Majesties.

The yellow ink is indicative of its per-

sonified calibre. Mexico is not singular



58 MEXICAN “M’S”

in its plurality of “yellow” backs. The

world at large has more than its share

of inhabitants whose backs are far too

well proportioned with an extensive, “yel-

low” streak: “yellow” creatures whose

god is gold.

The description of Mexico’s most im-

posing money temple is very modern and

very red. Its foundation is the basic

principle of blood-money,—and the ac-
countants’ figures “pro bono publico” in

this national pile are invariably written in

red.

The inheritance bequeathed to the P. N.

R. (Partido Nacional Revolutionary) and

their ilk of Maderistas, Huertistas, Con-

stitutionalistas, Obregonistas, etc., was

one unattached and probated to the full:

in other words, a fiscal sheet unencumber-

ed with national debt plus a very sub-

stantial surplus. Old Porfirio Diaz, after

his thirty years’ tenure, passed out of the

picture leaving 75,000,000 pesos surplus

cash credit in the National treasury. Gov-

ernment bonds were gilt-edged security,

while today they are but 5!/2 over the zero

mark—having sunk to a shocking level
almost on a par with the bonds of Godless

Russia.



MEXICAN “M’S” 59

In spite of Diaz’s handsome surplus, the

red herring of his fiscal supplanters, in the

space of ten years wriggled to the red

debit figures of $200,000,000 unpaid in-

terest on national obligations.

Almighty God has been bountiful to

Mexico, yet today she is a ravaged land.

Her natural resources rise up to mock

her. She enjoys the title, “The World’s

Treasure House”, because of fertility of

soil, coastal waters teeming with fish and

a superabundance of precious stones, to-

gether with hills and mountains bulging

with silver and gold, forests heavy with

costly woods—walnut, mahogany and
ebony, prolific oil wells gushing forth in

liquid gold so sought after by the commer-

cial world—yet withal, a land where pov-
erty predominates. Decay and ruin are

apparent on every hand. Business is car-

ried on in a hand-to-mouth manner. Count-

less thousands are seeking work. In a

country that should be exporting food-

stuffs, they are importing vast quantities.

The cost of living is excessive. Most

food staples cost nearly as much as in

Canada or the United States, while the

slave wages of the labourer are paid in a

notoriously debased currency.



60 MEXICAN “M’S’'

Solomon’s words of wisdom (“Where

much is, there are many to consume it”)

certainly do not apply to naturally rich

Mexico. The inverse ratio prevails so

that where much is, there a privileged

few are parasites and grafters. Mr.

Calles, the so-called “Iron Man”, (mail-

fisted) saviour of the prolateriat, is re-

puted to have on deposit in the Bank of

England a paltry 180,000,000 pesos while

the peon starves and his country is bank-

rupt. Not bad for a former bartender in

a Mexican border “joint”! He and his

crowd were described by Madame Kollon-

tai, recent representative of Soviet Rus-

sia, as a “gang of brigands”. Mexico to-

day stands before the world, a nation

raped.

The black ink chapter of our money

book refers principally to the solvency

epoch of the past pre-revolutionary days

and the personal bank balance present day

high finance of the despotic obligarchy

which rules to exploit. “Les Nouveaux

Riches” of the money-mad Mestizos—many
of whom make a speedy ascent up million-

aire mountain via the bandit-general-

politico “on the lam” route. Invisible ink,

“bilembique”, currency is also proper to



CATHEDRAL OF ST. JAMES AT SALTILLO,
MEXICO

j.

yy



62 MEXICAN “M’S”

the financial sphere of this modern Mexi-

can Mestizo Midas. This legal and illegal

tender is termed invisible because it was

only paper money without bullion backing

and it eventually disappeared entirely un-

redeemed. Senor don Venustiano Carran-

za, erstwhile “El Presidente”, who sud-

denly left this vale of tears after a quick

take-off for some distant happy landing,

accompanied by some faithful satellites

(and some, not so faithful), with a train-

load of loot, a goodly portion of which

was honest-to-goodness 100 percent bul-

lion!

The patriarchal, be-whiskered Carranza

was the fairy prince in this “Arabian

Nights” financial dream by introducing

printing press money backed up with

metal—but in this case the metal was
bayonets and bullets. He inaugurated and

financed his presidential tenure by an issue

of two billion paper pesos. This was bad

enough but the paper was so poorly print-

ed that counterfeits had little difficulty in .

keeping him company: the consequence

was a financial mad-house that all but

wrecked the nation. Other ambitious

worthies of the same stripe did lkewise:

malodorous Villa in the North, Zapata in



MEXICAN “M’S” 63

the South. Forced loans from banks and

individuals also entered the category of

invisible money because it was never re-

paid.

A certain General Alvarado, high in gov-
ernmental circles, cleaned up a cool $112,-

000,000 in American dollars on an invest-

ment of $34,000,0000 of invisible, unre-

deemed paper currency—and this in a
brief financial flare which exploited and

nearly crushed the Yucatan henequen in-

dustry. Mr. Carranza introduced what

has become a very popular little game

—

milking the oil industry : in fact his pupils

became so proficient that it has become a

symphony to the tune of $1,000,000 weekly

high pressure taxation en route to govern-

ment official pockets and pap to an over-

dressed flock of generals.

Contrast this picture of greed with the

Mexican money mart of Spanish days. A
charge often leveled at the Church is that

it was immensely rich—that the country
was overchurched—and yet the number
never exceeded 9,000 parish churches and

small chapels, or one church or chapel for

every 1,600 people. In Canada we have

many towns of less than 1,600 with three

or four or more non-Catholic churches.



64 MEXICAN “M’S”

The greatest wealth of the Church

(building and property) according to the

figures of the Mexican Government was

$100,000,000. And on the other hand,

there is one non-Catholic body (not an

exceptional case by any means) with a

total membership in the world of 9,000,-

000 members and in the United States

alone their funded wealth is $175,000,000

and we do not think it extraordinary. In

one non-Catholic American parish—the
Trinity Episcopal Corporation of New

York—there is to be found more wealth
than that held by the whole Mexican

Church.

Consider also the endowment fund of

the University of Chicago: $33,000,000.

The fabled millions of surplus wealth

supposedly sent to the Pope is an unwar-

ranted assumption—the Spanish Govern-
ment appropriated all surplus wealth to

the royal coffers—in fact, a little confisca-
tion of church funds was not unknown, as

witness the $10,000,000 grab from the

“Pious Fund” made by Charles IV. of

Spain. This “Pious Fund” was made up

of charitable donations for good works in

Spanish America.

A great portion of the Church’s wealth



MEXICAN “M’S” 65

was employed through the means of the

“Monte de Piedad” to relieve distress.

Loans were made to poor people at a low

rate of interest. Foreclosures were well-

nigh unknown and a spirit of true Christ-

ian charity animated these ecclesiastical

money-lenders. This spirit is so diametri-

cally opposed to the samples of present day

exaction and greedy interest which crush

the poverty stricken who formerly bene-

fited by the generous tolerant charity of

the Church. The slogan, “Crush the tem-

poral power of the Church”, means in

“praxi Mexicana” that the Church should

not be allowed to own any property.

Their cry, “Separation of Church and

State”, is “de facto” that the State insists

on absolute control of the Church, or to

parody Holy Scripture, “Render to

Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and

to Caesar also the things that are God’s.”

The confiscated property of the Church

was squandered and dissipated in ways

similar to the thieving orgy that prevailed

in Merrie England during Reformation

days, when the wealth of the Church, the

partimony of the poor, was brazenly

directed to found the fortunes of despoil-

ers and sycophants. Many of the landed



66 MEXICAN “M’S”

estates of today trace their titles back to

their “reformed” forebears whose hands

“dripped with the fat of sacrilege”.

Similarly in Mexico,—as for example, the
blood relatives of a former finance minister

under Diaz acquired by “purchase”

Church properties worth considerably

more than one-half million dollars for an

insignificant fraction of its appraised

value. Many of the great ranches and

fortunes of rich hacendados were born

in like manner. For example,—one might
wonder what Mr. Calles received for the

120 Catholic Colleges he boasted in Con-

gress of having put out of business. But

then one should not be to hard on Plutarco,

the Sonora home-town boy “who made

good” (and plenty) after such a humble

start.

“Money makes the mare go”, and “e

fortiori” when the mare happens to be a

financial gourmand, asinine politico.

Churches, hospitals, academies, colleges,

asylums, convents, bishops’ and priests’

residences have been “sequestered” (con-

fiscated) and have become museums, ware-

houses, barracks, stables, restaurants,

gymnasiums and “picking” for Calles’

henchmen.



MEXICAN “M’S” 67

It must be very thin gruel for this

bunch of parasitical grafters to have to

stomach the first decision of The Hague in

1902 whereby 45,000 pesos (representing

the California Mission Pious Fund) is

directed to be paid annually by Mexico

to the Catholic Church of the Sunset State

for confiscated Mission property.

MURDER II.
To the mind of one critical of Spanish

and Catholic influence in Mexico, there is

probably nothing which smacks of mur-

der, that stands out with more glaring

prominince than the “Inquisition”. With-

out attempting to countenance its opera-

tion or to condemn its abuses, we might

in all fairness sum up the verdict as the

temper of the times.

It is, of course, gratifying to witness in

these later centuries a return to the pris-

tine practices of Christianity when con-

victed and unrepentant heretics are dealt

with in a spirit more humane and chari-

table. The early Fathers of the Church

—

St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine,

St. John Chrysostom, St. Martin—repu-
diated the tenets of the Old Law of Moses

which inflicted capital punishment on con-

temners of the law and substituted the



68 MEXICAN “M’S”

spiritual chastisement of excommunica-

tion.

However, man is by nature an intolerant

creature. The Jews were intolerant of

error—the pagans of the Roman Empire
tormented to death those who dared to

defy their gods—and, in the Christian
dispensation which had been purchased

at the price of the blood of Christ and

which had been nurtured by the blood of

myriads of martyrs—it was well nigh
inevitable that the human equation should

demand death when heresy was esteemed

on a par with treason. The infliction of

the supreme penalty for crimes against

the Faith made its appearance in the guise

of the Inquisition, and, was established

and speeded on its way, largely through

the instrumentality of convert princes and

emperors who in their new religious zeal

demanded a transition from mental faith

and doctrine to external profession and

worship : this, especially, since most

heretical movements were sponsored by

disruptive social elements, and we thus

more readily understand the influence of

the secular power on the Church. Faith,

in the early centuries, was more vital and

passionate than it is in our day of better



MEXICAN “M’S” 69

perspective and cooler judgment. After

the solid establishment of Christianity,

its adherents considered God’s cause their

cause and since murder of the body de-

manded death—they argued that the
greater crime, heresy (murder of the soul),

should not be visited with less: and so,

inquisitional trials and penalties became

an instrument of civil and religious gov-

ernment.

Therefore, because it is human to err,

disciplinary measures may lean too much

to the right or to the left. No one denies

that there were abuses—one sad example
was that of Joan of Arc whose trial and

condemnation were directed by the in-

iquitous Bishop Cauchon. St. Joan was a

victim of political interests because the

aforesaid ecclesiastic was a bitter British

partisan.

This phase of Church and State in their

efforts to curb the rise of heresy was

quite pronounced from the date of the con-

version of Constantine, who presumed to

rule as a sort of quasi-Bishop “in foro

externo”. The same policy was fostered

by his successors: their viewpoint was

aptly expressed by Theodosius II, who

said, “the first duty of the imperial majes-



MEXICAN “M’S”70

ty was to protect the true religion, whose

worship was intimately connected with

the prosperity of human undertakings.”

The penalties in vogue were: exile,, im-

prisonment, confiscation of property, the

denial of the right to transmit property,

and finally death for heretics, who were

also disturbers of the peace. At a later

date (the thirteenth century) the worst

phase of all was the introduction of tor-

ture into the proceedings of the Inquisi-

tion. The Christians of this still later

day, agree with Evervin, a learned his-

torian of the time, that it was an “excess

of zeal”. It is consoling to note however

that in spite of these prevailing punish-

ments there were always found eminent

leaders of the Church (clerical and lay)

who strongly denounced such severe meas-

ures and proclaimed that extreme action

against heretics and schismatics should

never exceed the pressure of excommunica-

tion. It is also well to note that the term

“auto-de-fe” did not necessarily mean

burning at the stake—it referred to any
kind of punishment imposed. As a matter

of fact, in the words of the Protestant

and authoritative historian Lea, “the stake

consumed comparatively few victims.”



MEXICAN “M’S” 71

Now to consider the Inquisition in Mex-

ico, we find a startlingly weak exemplifica-

tion of this tribunal. During its two hun-

dred and fifty years of existence it never

amounted to very much—the average num-
ber of victims to pay the extreme penalty

was one every five years. The Indians of

Mexico were never at any time subject to

its decrees. Bishop Las Casas’ “Laws of

the Indies” have been described as “the

most humane code ever promulgated for

the well-being of aborigines” : in fact, the

intolerance of Las Casas to promote super-

tolerance toward the Indian speaks vol-

umes for the acquiescent tolerance of his

Spanish superiors.

The record of the Inquisition in this so-

called Manana land pales into comparative

insignificance when we consider the bloody

course of revolutionary governmental ac-

tivity* during the past two decades. Un-

der Carranza, Obregon, Calles and Car-

denas, the names on the list of martyrs

run to many thousands.

The record of this triumvirate and their

puppet presidential successors is written

in blood. Three hundred priests have

been shot down in cold blood under their

anti-religious rule since 1929. Five



72 MEXICAN “M’S”

thousand prominent Catholics in the Fed-

eral District have been assasinated since

1926, and the list of martyrs gives every

indication that it will continue to grow. In

defiance of these cold facts, Mr. Calles and

his parrot crew continue to insult the

world’s intelligence and “in a fine frenzy

rolling” proclaim there is no religious

persecution in Mexico: “We are only up-

holding the law,” say they—and, so spake
the Scribes and Pharisees who crucified

Christ.

Numerically considered, this radical

element is less than 1 percent of the entire

population in the Republic. Their fre-

quent revolutions are nothing more than

faction fights, one gang against another,

and the motive behind it all is greed. It

may thus be seen why the Church is the

popular target and a fertile field for loot.

Since 1821 Mexico has had 92 different

rulers.

In conclusion, a very important fact

to remember, in a consideration of super-

zeal and distorted religious activity, is

that the Inquisition under Catholic aus-

pices was not singular and alone; a Pro-

testant Inquisition “de facto” was even

more pronounced. One need but recall the



SAN

LUIS

REY,

CALIFORNIA

MEXICAN “M’S : 73



74 MEXICAN “M’S”

Penal days in England, in Ireland, in Scot-

land, in America to appraise the coercive

mentality of members of non-Catholic pro-

testing sects.

In Mother England at that time especial-

ly during the time of “good Queen Bess”

the so-called “Virgin”, it was a crime pun-

ishable by death to profess Catholicity.

In the British Isles and America, thous-

ands suffered death under an inquisition

known as Penal Laws, and these penal

laws were conceived and enforced by Pro-

testants against Catholics.

It little behoves English-speaking peo-

ples to point the finger of scorn at the

Spaniard. “Let those who are without

sin cast the first stone.”



MEXICAN “M’S 75

MIRACLES

Miracles are the divine evidence of

truth. Jesus Christ, the Saviour of men,

used this sign-language of God to pro-

claim and to prove His divinity. The

power of miracles, was transmitted to His

Apostles as a testimony of their teach-

ings. The Church, Christ’s Spouse, has

enjoyed this same prerogative and even to-

day in spite of the accumulated mountain

of supernatural evidence, the Great and

Good God deigns from time to time in His

infinite mercy and love for men, to sign

with the seal of miracles, Saints and

Shrines and symbols.

The predominant miracle bequeathed to

Catholic Mexico was the appearance of

Our Lady of Guadalupe. In the year 1531,

ten years after the conquest, this great

manifestation was made thus : A certain
neophyte, Juan Diego, was on his way

from beyond Tepyac hill to Mexico City,

three miles distant, to assist at Holy Mass

:

at the foot of Tepyac, Our Lady appeared

to him as she appeared to St. Bernadette

of Lourdes under the title of “The Im-

maculate Conception” and requested the



76 MEXICAN “M’S”

man to convey to Archbishop Zumarraga

the commission to erect a shrine in her

honor. The errand was made and as we

may well imagine much to the consterna-

iton of the aforementioned ecclesiastic. He

no doubt received poor peon, Juan, with

charity and dismissed him with pity: Ca-

tholic Bishops are that way—and are most
consistently stubborn against being “taken

in” by revelations, manifestations, etc., of

supersensitive devotees : they are very

much “from Missouri” and have “to be

shown”.

In a similar manner was the scene en-

acted the following day except for the add-

ed injunction from the good Bishop that a

sign be given. The third day Juan was

impelled to the City with a different

motive—his uncle, with whom he resided,
was grievously ill and a priest was re-

quired to prepare him for death: in order

to avoid any interruption “per aliam viam,

regressus est in civitatem suam,” by a

different route he returned to the city ; but

again Our Blessed Lady waylaid him and

to overcome the impulsive remonstrations

of her client, assured him that his uncle

was now in good health and needed not

the priest (which Divine intervention was



MEXICAN “M’S” 77

true, as a later check-up of events demon-

strated). In complaince with the Bishop’s

request to give a sign, Juan was ordered

by the Lovely Lady to go to the top of the

mountain and in spite of its rocky forma-

tion and lateness of the season (Dec. 12)

told to pluck an armful of roses and to

convey them in his tilma to the Episco-

pal presence. The Blessed Virgin ar-

ranged them in the folds of his mantle and

enjoined that it was not to be unfolded

until he was received personally by the

Bishop: this Juan did; but, “gratias Deo”,

when the tilma was unfolded—upon its
texture was imprinted the likeness in gor-

geous colors of the glorious apparition:

the saintly prelate dropped to his knees in

humble and reverent gratitude to God

—

verily the sign had been given. The sub-

sequent history of the shrine of Our Lady

of Guadalupe is the religious romance of

Mexico. The shrine was erected—the
Sacred spring at the spot where Our Lady

appeared has never since ceased to flow.

Miraculous favors, physical, mental, and

spiritual have followed in the wake of this

passing tangible presence of Our Lady of

the Immaculate Conception.

Artistic Saints and sinners, believers



78 MEXICAN “M’S”

and scoffers, have, through the centuries

since that fateful day, examined the paint-

ing and submitted it to the most rigorous

tests and are compelled to admit they are

unable to explain it:—the tilma, a cheap
fibre-like substance absolutely unsuitable

to receive paint and unquestionably un-

fitted to retain it. Yet there it remains to

this very day, the proof of God’s provi-

dence towards Mexico.

This holy event made and continues to

make a tremendous impression on the

Mexican mind and conscience. It speeded

up with lightning rapidity the conversion

of a savage people. It continues to hold

them in spite of enforced ignorance, pov-

erty, and persecution: the Mexican heart

is savored of deep and lasting Catholicity

and burns with an intense and abiding

love for Our Lady of Guadalupe: this in

itself is a secondary Mexican Miracle.

Daily down the years hundreds of Mary’s

Mexicans frequent this hallowed spot and

on her feast days they come in thousands.

On the anniversary of the great day (Dec.

12) as many as 20,000 of her clients make

their wTay to what has become to be known

as their national home—the shrine of Our
Lady of Guadalupe. They come from far



MEXICAN “M’S” 79

and near by train, by automobile, by

burro, on foot, and even the last few miles

on their hands and knees—they realize
and appreciate the fact that it is holy

ground. Every man, woman, and child is

convinced that he is coming home to

“Nuestra Senora”—yes—to “Madre Mia”.
The Church has officially recognized this

miraculous visitation and in the person

of many Popes it has been unreservedly

approved. Popes Benedict XIV. and es-

pecially Leo XIII. have been intensely in-

terested and attracted to the devotion

to Our Lady of Guadalupe.



80 MEXICAN “M’S :

MASONRY
To approach a consideration of the sub-

ject Masonry I desire to be fair and chari-

table without any leaning of bias or big-

otry. Therefore, the following observa-

tions should be prefaced by the necessary

distinction to be drawn between Masons

and Masonry—between personalities and
systems. The Catholic Church condemns

Free Masonry and forbids her children

membership in the same. She knows that

many Masons are upright, conscientious

Christian gentlemen; but this in spite of

the system of Masonry.

The reasons for her condemnation are

many and varied. Masonry is condemned

by the Catholic Church not precisely be-

cause it is a secret society but principally

because the nature of the secret sworn to

is not known. In other words the Mason

swears blindly to uphold a secret propo-

sition of which he is not entirely cogni-

zant. This manner of procedure is dia-

metrically opposed to human dignity for

the simple reason that man is endowed

with conscience, soul, reason and will. He

should know what he is doing, and know



MEXICAN “M’S” 81

that it is conducive to his soul’s salvation

and in accord with his conscience.

A Catholic, who must necessarily believe
that he possesses the truth, may not enroll

in another religion. But, Masonry is a re-

ligion; it makes use of a specific religious

ritual—it uses symbols of a religious char-
acter whose exact meaning is known only

to leaders of Masonry. It is true that the

Bible is in the lower degrees of the craft;

but the profession of those of the inner

circle is anti-Catholic and anti-God.

The ordinary honest Christian “knife

and fork” Mason, who is never admitted to

the inner circle, looks upon the lodge as a

social institution promoting religious in-

terests and good fellowship. He will claim

that Anglo-American Masonry has nothing

in common with European Masonry. This

is not so, however, since there is a mutual

recognition among all classes of Masons

as members of one common brotherhood,

and so it is international. There is a

common correspondence and literature

—

they all meet in a general international

convention—they employ common signs,
passwords and symbols. Thus they are, to

a great extent, absorbed into the Latin

type which is essentially naturalistic and



82 MEXICAN “M’S”

anti-Christian. Even many moderate Ma-

sonic periodicals are manifestly anti-Ca-

tholic.

To substantiate these statements we

need but to quote the recognized authori-

ties and mouthpieces of Masonry. Brother

Albert Pike, in 1885, stated that Masonry

is international. Brother Kopp in 1903,

stated that Masonry is a religious society.

The Masonic “book of constitutions” has a

formulated creed. Again, in the words

of Brother Pike: “Masonry has a creed

taken from nature and reason, there has

never been a false religion in the world.

Christianity, Buddhism, Mohammedanism,

are but husks enclosing the kernel of Ma-

sonic truth”. Brother Pike admits also

that to “the blue” low degree Mason the

symbols are displayed to those to be ini-

tiated, but they are intentionally misled by

false interpretations. It is not intended

that he shall understand them but that he

imagines he understands them—under-
standing is reserved for “the adepts or

princes of Masonry.” Brother Masse, in

1898, says “it is the supreme duty of Free

Masonry to interfere each day more and

more in political and profane struggles

—

for success in the anti-clerical combat is



MEXICAN “M’S” 83

in a large measure due to Free Masonry.”

Brother Combes proclaims “The Republic

must rid itself of all religious congrega-

tions”. Senator Delpech—past President
of the Grand Orient—issues the following
blasphemy, “The triumph of the Galilean

has lasted twenty centuries, but now he

dies in his turn. A mysterious voice an-
nounces the death of the Impostor God.

The Romish Church founded on the Gali-

lean myth began to decay rapidly from the

very day on which the Masonic association

was established”. Hence, it is evident

that a Catholic may not be a Mason. It

should also be evident that a Catholic na-

tion does not approve of Free Masonry.

This society was introduced into the young

Mexican Republic by Joel Poinsett, the

first United States Minister.

To gage the temper of Mexican Mason-

ry, one might instance the case of Presi-

dent Huerta who experienced the force

and venom of Masonry. On November 24,

1914, his name was stricken from the rolls

of the lodge because he seemed disposed

to deal with justice toward the Church, his

expulsion was signed by the Grand Master

and Secretary of Concordia Lodge No. 17

of the Vera Cruz Grand Orient.



84 MEXICAN “M’S”

For the past several decades the Mexi-

can Government has been honey-combed

with Masonic members. Their “raison

d’etre” has been to embarrass the Catholic

Church and their anti-clerical activities

have been so pronounced that their anti-

Catholicism has become a grand “fait ac-

compli”.

This bigoted attitude prevails not only

in Mexico but has been duplicated over and

over again in other lands. It even, all too

frequently, gyrates to the surface in Ma-

sonic circles composed of men who out-

wardly decry prejudice and profess toler-

ance.

Free Masonry, south of the Rio Grande,

has been true to the tenets of the Grand

Orient.



MEXICAN “M’S 1 85



86 MEXICAN “M’S’

MANNERS
One cannot tarry long in Mexico without

becoming cognizant of an atmosphere of

geniality. High and low, rich and poor,

the aristocrat, and the peon have a certain

indefinable sweetness and simplicity of

character that warm the heart and seem to

make the whole world kin. Even the chil-

dren have that lovable attractiveness that

disarms restraint and puts the foreigner

and traveler at ease. Little girls, like lilli-

putian princesses, have a mature dignity

and a certain serene modesty that belie

their years. Mexican lads, like little dons,

with a knightly courtesy and flourish of

sombreros, will thrill the visitor with a

tug at his heart strings by this so unex-

pected gesture of friendliness and manli-

ness, that the stranger almost forgets he

is in the presence of youth. The rank and

file of Mexicans—even the humblest—are
staunch in Faith and loyal to Holy Mother

Church; and, when unspoiled by super-

ficial and greedy modernity, the Mexican

is in truth one of Nature’s Noblemen.

This Natioal trait of “toujours la poli-

tesse” is unquestionably an inheritance of

Spanish vice-regal culture. His genial and



MEXICAN “M’S” 87

social tolerance is not front-window dis-

play only. It is inculcated in the home at-

mosphere. In family life the Mexican ex-

cells. The husband and Father is head of

the house, but the Mother is a queen. The

family circle is above all a haven and a

sanctuary and it is an institution of the

most sacred intimacy. No greater compli-

ment can be bestowed on an acquaintance,

than to be admitted to this charmed circle.

To the tourist who tries to understand

him, who sympathizes with his ideals and

aspirations, who does not display that

crude and blatant snobbery, so frequently

found among English-speaking peoples, he

invariably attaches the complimentary

title “muy simpatico”.

The Mexican is generous to a fault; it

delights him to bestow gifts—even the
pauper will unhesitantly share his last

centavo or his last crust with his fellows.

The host will offer his guest his most

prized possession—even his house—of
course it is only a gesture but what a

gracious one! At times one is left at a

loss for words to describe this evident in-

herent and innate attribute of hospitality

and politeness—where did they get it?
How do they come by it?



88 MEXICAN “M’S”

To a great extent Mexico is a Nation of

peons. A Nation sadly lacking in scholas-
tic education, yet they possess a culture

and civilization of charity that many of

the so-called intelligentsia might (and

should) envy.

The Mexican is very receptive, and re-

acts promptly to “the good, the beautiful,

and the true”. At heart he is good, and in

temperament he is an artist. Even in the

most unpretentious homes—in the poorest
hovels—his artistic traits are manifest:
he will always have his flower garden, his

love for color, his artistic arrangements,

etc. His love of music is proverbial, and

invariably, even the smaller towns and vil-

lages have their local band. The Mexican

is almost without exception musically in-

clined and in great measure very talented.

What a sad and fallacious commentary

on Mexican character it is too see him

depicted as a moron, a thief, a gunman or

stiletto artist: much of this is attribu-

table, no doubt, to the prevalence of vice in

Mexican border “joints,” which to a very

great extent exist for tourists’ conven-

ience and patronage. Like the tourists’

Paris exist because of foreign influence

and atmosphere.



MEXICAN “M’S” 89

The real Mexico, and the real Mexican

is found in their proper element which is

considerably south of the Rio Grande; the

farther south the more sweet and social is

the Mexican character until again the in-

ternational region of the Guatamalan bor-

der is approached.

To sum up, this Mestizo, when wed to

civilized religious influence, is a gracious

person, with the simplicity of a child: he is

then an ornament to society,—and in this
lovely land, his name is legion.

The truth of statements herein con-

tained is based on

:

My personal observations as a special

news correspondent in Mexico. Inter-

views with Mexican leaders.

Historical works of Bandelier, Lummis,

Bancroft, Parkman, Prescott, Belknap,

Mackenzie, Graham, Thompson.

Testimony of Bishop F. C. Kelley, D. D.,

before the United States Senate sub-com-

mittee investigating Mexican affairs.

Letters and documents of Mr. Eber Cole



90 MEXICAN “M’S”

Byam (reputed to be the greatest living

English-speaking authority on Mexico).

Records of the Doheny Research Foun-

dation files.

The verbal testimony of Mr. Fred V.

Williams, news correspondent and investi-

gator.

Writings of Capt. Francis McCullagh,

author and news correspondent.

Writing of Pres. Theodore Roosevelt.

Statistics of the U. S. Bureau of Census,

—the World Atlas of Foreign Missions,
and leading Canadian and American pub-

lications.



SANTA

INEZ,

CALIF.

MEXICAN “M'S” 91



.