080

Anne Staples
Clerics as Politicians: Church, State, and Political Power in Independent Mexico

Clerics as Politicians:
(Extract from Book: "Mexico in the Age of Democratic Revolutions 1750-1850. edited by Jaime E. Rodriguez.)
IN MANY WAYS, the goals of Church and monarchy were similar during the colonial period. The War of Independence, however, not only disrupted that unity of purpose but also radically altered the Church's political role. In the future, that role would be determined to a large degree by the station of individual clerics within the ecclesiastical hierarchy. The huge chasm that erupted at Independence between rural priests and city bishops, to cite an extreme example, became evident in the diverse positions they adopted when facing the issues that threatened the vice-regal peace. Bishops excommunicated insurgents or wrote tracts against the movement, such as those prepared by Manuel Abad y Queipo, but the hierarchy only fought the insurgents with words, money, and the enormous weight of its moral authority. Churchmen from the lower ranks, especially those from rural areas, however, became armed combatants, actively engaged in warfare on both sides of the conflict. New Spain had never before seen its clergy in such openly rebellious and radical political activity. During the colonial period, ecclesiastics had fought ferociously among themselves about the status of the regular orders, particularly whether the regulars were subject to episcopal authority or could function as practically independent religious authorities of the highest order. But, at least in public, the clergy had never before divided vertically into two different groups with opposing ideological and political goals.
The enlightened elite of New Spain embraced the idea, derived from the recent French experience, of a government based on the Three Estates. In that system, the Catholic clergy played a significant role, as it had from the time of the conquest The views and authority of the Church had been important in political decisions throughout the colonial period and they remained significant after Independence. To choose leading ecclesiastics as electors or to include them in the regency, ministerial cabinets, or state councils assured the Mexican government of the participation of the most versed, powerful, experienced, and best-organized sector of the nation.
The new regime could not function without the Church's blessing and cooperation, nor did it wish to, for, through the unifying force of its values and traditions, the Church represented Mexico's only major hope for stability and continuity. These values and traditions were vital to a country severely fragmented along linguistic, economic, geographic, and ethnic lines; a nation with very few routes of communication and only a superficial history in common. The three hundred years of Spanish domination had meant very different things to different people in New Spain. The colonial regime was hardly felt in outlying zones, high in the mountains, or deep in the jungles; it was dominant in urban centers, and present, but not necessarily all encompassing, in rural communities. The closest common denominator the region possessed was the experience of evangelization. Ideally, its legacy would hold the country together after the hegemony of the Spanish Crown was shattered.
This patchwork of peoples and places was mirrored in the clergy. Despite similar training, individual ecclesiastics mirrored the divisions within society, as much before Independence as afterward. Their personal goals were in great part molded by their social class and geographical origins. And, as long as the generation that had participated in the war survived, it carried the profound resentments generated by that struggle-a conflict in which same members of the higher and lower clergy found themselves pitted against each other in a contest that did not respect their priestly character, and condoned the execution of churchmen even without their first being defrocked. For some New Spaniards, the shock of that sacrilegious disregard for the sacred nature of the priesthood changed forever the reverence in which the clergy had once been held. For others, it provided so strong a motivation to defend the Church that entire indigenous communities rallied behind the flag of religious immunity, which protected the clergy from being prosecuted for crimes by the state judicial authorities. Thus, some were willing to give their lives to protect those of their spiritual fathers.
Mexico began its life as an independent nation during the reign of a pope who refused to recognize that country's separation from Spain. As a result, some members of the clergy soon became enemies of the new state. In 1827, Spanish friars and priests, regardless of how long they had been in Mexico, followed the same long road to exile taken by the Jesuits sixty years before, but with a difference: this time, not even the Church protested against losing its own people. Spanish clergymen were no longer welcome in a land that needed someone to blame for its continuous mishaps. Purged of that foreign element, and confronted by the reforms of 1833, the Mexican Church might have rallied around its newly appointed bishops, pursued policies that undermined or annulled the secularizing tendencies of the infant modern state, and forestalled or squashed the actions of the liberals, which culminated in the War of Reform in 1857. Instead, the clergy formed no such common front, as revealed by an analysis of the political careers of clerics who played important roles in various administrations or served as elected representatives in both state and national congresses.
Although a process of partial reconciliation within the Church occurred, the institution neither emerged from the divisive experience of Independence as a unified body, nor did it behave politically as a cohesive force by pursuing common goals for the good of the whole corporation. On the contrary, priests often allowed private interests, regional quarrels, and business investments to taken precedence over the general well being of the Church. The clergy also remained divided about the nature of its role in Mexican society and in the government. These differences were voiced openly in public or expressed in the opposing votes cast by churchmen in state and national legislative bodies. There were reformist and conservative movements within the Church. During Valentin Gómez Farias's attempts to reduce ecclesiastical privileges and reform the school system, same clerics, such as José Maria Luis Mora, were firmly behind him. The majority, however, solidly opposed such government encroachment on their traditional interests. An example from the congressional voting record, taken a decade later, indicates the nature of clerical division. A priest from Oaxaca, Juan Canseco, voted in favor of a projected centralist constitution, then changed his mind and voted nay; his colleague Joaquin Ladrón de Guevara, from Morelia, preferred a federalist constitution. So did Father Jesús Ortiz, the leading cleric of the Guadalajara diocese after the bishop.
Despite these political divisions, the Church began to reestablish its economic power after Independence. According to recent research, the Consolidation of Vales Reales, the 1804 decree that expropriated Church property to pay the Crown's war debts, proved to be less disastrous than pro clerical propaganda had earlier claimed. Similarly, recent studies have demonstrated that the Church substantially recovered its wealth after losing investments in rural properties destroyed during the war. When not in need of forced loans, friendly regimes, like those of Anastasio Bustamante and Antonio López de Santa Anna, permitted the Church to rebuild its financial base to the fullest extent possible in those dire economic times. The institution also restored its own internal structure. The key figures in its hierarchy had been replaced by 1831, save the archbishop, whose see was not declared vacant until 1838, even though he had left the country in 1822. Other prelates had followed him or died, so that by 1829 not a single bishop remained in Mexico.
Replacements negotiated with Rome in 1832 provided the Church with renewed strength, at least at the highest level. Although less well studied, it appears that the institution also benefited from the emergence of strong, eloquent, and erudite figures such as the bishops of Michoacán, Juan Cayetano Gómez de Portugal and Clemente de Jesús Munguia, who spoke with great authority when participating in the government or commenting on its policies. They were especially prominent when in disagreement with the regime. Indeed, it was the latter's independent attitude and ability to express himself well, both from within and from without the government, that eventually led to his exile.
At a lime when the number of educated men was limited, when few had the training necessary to conduct public affairs, and, above all, when only a small number of individuals possessed the talent for public speaking with clarity and style, the clergy distinguished itself because of its familiarity with the art of oratory. Soon, however, its excessive enthusiasm and especially its well-expressed criticism convinced civil governments, such as those of Valentin Gómez Farias, to restrain ecclesiastics. During the turbulent years of 1828, 1832, and 1833 the authorities felt compelled to remind the Church of the laws prohibiting discussion of public affairs either from the pulpit or in the confessional.
The priests' speaking skills and traditional authority influenced their parishioners, a fact that worried government officials who had witnessed the clergy's dominion over hearts and souls of the faithful. The priests' influence stood in stark contrast with the weakness of those new to public life-the young lawyers, military officers, doctors, and gentlemen-trying to piece together a modern state. The relative power of the groups in contention-clergymen vs. civilian politicians-was quite clear, and it was evident in public affairs large and small. Congressman Carlos Maria de Bustamante, for example, wrote a carefully worded letter to the father superior of the monastery of Santo Domingo, located in the center of Mexico City, tactfully pleading with him to silence the bells, which marked all parts of the liturgical day, during legislative sessions so that the congressmen could concentrate on their lawmaking. Bustamante reminded the friar that the state was but an infant, and that he was requesting the favor of an ancient, respected, and strong institution-the Church.
Clerical influence during the first years of Independence is evident in the ministerial cabinets. The bishop of Puebla, Antonio Pérez Martinez, who was endowed with the extraordinary ability to be almost simultaneously loyalist and rebel, served in the first regency. José Ignacio Garcia Yllueca and the Veracruzan botanist Pablo de la Llave, both priests, formed part of the cabinet in 1823. José Miguel Ramos Arizpe, who rose to the position of dean of the Cathedral Chapter of Puebla, served as minister of justice, minister of the treasury, and member of congress on several occasions. Another bishop, Juan Cayetano Gómez de Portugal of Michoacán, served as minister of justice under Antonio López de Santa Anna, helping him to reestablish political peace after the tempest created by Valentin Gómez Farias and other radical liberals.
The prominence and popularity of clergymen becomes evident in their participation in the political system where many won elections as senators and representatives. Although it is difficult to determine exactly the number of churchmen elected to office because the documentation does not always indicate the profession of elected officials, it is clear that many clerics occupied seats in the national congress. Priests, such as José Maria Berriel of Tlaxcala, Clemente Castillejo of Chiapas, and Eugenio Antonio Ortiz of Yucatán, participated in the Fifth and Sixth National Constitutional Congresses. Canon Luis Morales of Oaxaca; Lucas Alamán's half brother Dr. Juan Bautista Arechederreta, vicar general of nuns, representing his native state of Guanajuato; and Presbyter Mariano Esparza of San Luis Potosi served in the sixth congress. The Jesuit Basilio Arrillaga was an influential senator from mid-1837 until the end of 1838, when the First Centralist Constitutional Congress met. Father Francisco García Cantarines, along with Licenciado Demetrio Castillo and the curate José Agustin Dominguez, provided strong clerical representation from Oaxaca in that congress. Presbyter Luis Herrera of Yucatán and José Luciano Becerra, future bishop of Puebla, distinguished themselves in the congressional debates. Although many other examples might be offered, these suffice to indicate clerical presence in national congresses.
There were, however, restrictions in some states on office holding. The first state constitutions, written between 1824 and 1827, prohibited the election of a churchman to the office of governor, save in Oaxaca, which did not specifically disallow it. The other exception was the constitution of the state of Mexico which while forbidding "ecclesiastical authorities" from that office, appeared to leave the door open to parish priests, perhaps because they feared less conflicts of interest with the lower clergy.
Elections for legislative office were a different matter. While there were practically no restrictions on clerics being chosen primary or secondary electors, the federal Constitution of 1824 did not permit ecclesiastics either of high rank, as opposed to curates, or of the religious orders to be selected. The restriction did not exclude either parish priests or those who had been ordained but without a specifically assigned position within the hierarchy. There was a large number of unemployed priests more interested, perhaps from necessity, in the vibrant political scene than in the meditative, austere religious life. These men were often not excluded from politics by any legal barrier.
Six states followed the federal constitution's lead in barring only high Church officials. Tabasco, however, imposed no restrictions at all, while Jalisco and Querétaro, at the other extreme, prohibited all churchmen from running for any legislative office. The Jalisco constitution achieved that end by declaring anyone enjoying ecclesiastical immunity, and therefore exempt from many civil laws, ineligible to run for public office. That ban effectively eliminated all clergy. Five states disqualified members of the religious orders. The majority, including the state of Coahuila y Texas, restricted access to public office to those clerics not exercising ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the state or district that they would represent. Obviously, Coahuila and Texas sought to avoid investing ecclesiastical and political authority in the same person as had occurred earlier in the colonial era when same archbishops became viceroys. The state also did not want its citizens placed in the uncomfortable position of having to chose their spiritual director as their senator or representative to congress, or worse yet, having to vote against him.
Despite the restrictions placed upon them as candidates, a small but influential number of clerics served both in local and national legislatures during the early years of independent Mexico. It is interesting to note that the government seems to have been concerned more with bishops being elected to representative positions in the legislatures or to governorships than with curates being elected. An uncomfortable blending of secular and religious power undoubtedly would take place if bishops also wielded civil authority, although in some regimes they were very much present in regencies or juntas of the leading personages of the country.
This small but influential group of ecclesiastics did not always dominate politics. A detailed study of the composition of the First Centralist Congress found that lawyers comprised 20 percent of the members, military officials 17 percent, and individuals affiliated with the Church only 15 percent. That 15 percent, however, formed an important group. Altogether, it consisted of seventeen ecclesiastics, including ten cathedral canons, three of whom later became bishops: Pedro Barajas, first bishop of San Luis Potosi; José Luciano Becerro, of Puebla; and Pedro Espinosa y Dávalos, first archbishop of Guadalajera. One, Epigmenio Villanueva, was the bishop-elect of Oaxaca, and another, Juan Bautista Arechederreta, was offered, but rejected, the see of Michoacán. This select group worked more toward consolidating the position of the Church than that of the Central Republic, to which that body owed its renewed vigor. The debates and votes in the congress indicate that the clerics did not dedicate their energies primarily to drafting the Seven Laws, Mexico's new centralist constitution proclaimed in 1836. Rather, these ranking members of the Church opposed the reform movements that had been briefly successful in 1833. That unity of purpose, however, would not be characteristic of other congresses, where churchmen drawn from all ranks did not forget the interests of their particular districts.
A study of the Constituent Congress of 1842 indicates that clerics continued to participate in legislative affairs without undue hindrance from the state. It was imperative for them to play an active role because they had to protect the Church's prerogatives and wealth. Discussions about finances inevitably culminated in demands for loans from the Church, and proposals to liberalize censorship laws resulted in the erosion of the Church's heretofore undisputed authority to define society's ethics and moral values. In these, as in many other cases, the Church remained alert to encroachments on its interests.
The clergy represented 5 percent of the deputies to the congress of 1842; it constituted 13 percent of the Junta of Notables of 1843. While the percentage of ecclesiastics in those bodies was not important numerically, it was significant when examined individually. As in the past, clergymen distinguished themselves by their ability to speak in public and by their debating skills. But they now had to compete with the lawyers, men with similar training and abilities, who accounted for 38 percent of the representatives. This time, the clerics were not as high ranking as those of 1836; most were ordinary priests, although many belonged to cathedral chapters. The situation changed a year later when, once again, the highest churchmen in the land entered the legislative halls: two archbishops, a bishop, and members of cathedral chapters represented 92 percent of the clerics elected to the congress of 1843.
Churchmen, however, pursued differing strategies. The higher clergy possessed a clear idea of the need lo preserve their prerogatives and special position within Mexican society; in fact, the bishops swore to protect them all in their most minute detail. Parish priests, on the other hand did not always make common cause with their colleagues, and certainly failed to cooperate systematically with the Church hierarchy on issues such as disentailment, the tithe, and parish fees. While as a general principle they tended to unite to defend the Church, specific political issues divided them. Two kinds of clerics participated in the political life of the Country-those who engaged in politics occasionally and those who made a career of public life.
The ecclesiastics who participated in politics only occasionally were a diverse group. Father José Juan Canseco of Oaxaca, for example, also served as an adviser to the Institute of Sciences and Arts of Oaxaca and as a member of the local legislature. His colleagues Francisco Carrera, José Maria Santaella, and Nicolás Vasconcelos, also from Oaxaca, wore present only at the Constituent Congress of 1842. Father José Maria Oiler, canon from Puebla, expressed unorthodox opinions when he conceded that the Church should acquire property only under civil law even though it generally refused to recognize the very existence of civil law. Oiler served in the 1842 congress and in the Puebla legislature. Another priest from Puebla, Luis Gutiérrez del Coral, rector of the College of Espiritu Santo served as a member of the Departmental Junta of Puebla in 1842 and participated in the national congress in 1843. Also typical of this sort of politician was Domingo Rodriguez, a priest from Mexico City, whose name appears once in the records of congress and then disappears from the political scene. A cleric with highly diversified interests was Manuel Moreno y Jove, canon of the Metropolitan Cathedral and representative of the merchant class in the congress of 1846.
Clerics with full-time political careers wore not only more influential, but, at times, more interesting. Those men often either lacked other occupations or left their parishes, with or without permission, under the care of a vicar. Thus, they were able to devote their lives to the passionate game of politics. The Morelian J. Joaquin Ladrón de Guevara, for example, had supported Independence since 1809. He had belonged to the Metropolitan Cathedral Chapter since 1833, served in the legislature of Michoacán, and for twelve days, which must have been memorable, was minister of justice in Santa Anna's last regime. Ladrón de Guevara was reputedly anti aristocratic and pro democratic, to the delight of Santa Anna's followers, even though they could hardly be classified as such themselves.
Jesús Ortiz, another priest who did not strictly adhere lo the traditional pattern of clerical conduct. was professor of grammar and Latin; governor of the diocese of Guadalajara; and, surprisingly enough, opposed the idea that temporal authority derives from God. An antimonarchist, he served in two national congresses. José Luis Verdia of Guadalajara was also a cleric with a long political life, though with a more traditional ideology. An outstanding lawyer, Verdia helped draft the civil law code for his state in 1833. Throughout his long career he protested the confiscation of Church wealth, often from his position as dean of the Guadalajara Cathedral Chapter, or as a member of the stale legislature.
Two well-known priests participated in the National Legislative Assembly of 1843. One was the politically active and polemical José Maria Aguirre, parish priest of Santa Veracruz in Mexico City. The other was Basilio Arrillaga, already mentioned, a brilliant Jesuit lawyer and a champion of Church prerogatives and wealth. Arrillaga was totally convinced of the righteousness of ecclesiastical privilege, and he defended Church prerogatives against all attacks. He is, perhaps, the clearest example of a priest who entered politics with the specific goal of protecting the Church.
Juan Cayetano Gómez de Portugal, bishop of Michoacán for nineteen years beginning in 1831, combined pastoral duties with a great deal of political activity. He served in the national congress in 1824, in the First Centralist Constitutional Congress from June 1837 to December 1838, and as minister of justice. Because of his disagreement with the anticlerical policies of the National Assembly he resigned from that body in 1843. Gómez de Portugal opposed government intervention in Church affairs during his entire professional life.
The archbishop-elect of Cesárea (though never of a Mexican diocese), Juan Manuel Irrisarri y Peralta, enjoyed a long political career. He served in the national congress in 1824, the national legislative assembly and the council of state in 1843, and the congresses of 1846 and 1848. In 1824, another cleric of similar rank, Manuel Posada y Garduño, the future first Mexican archbishop, simultaneously served as governor of the archdiocese and as a member of congress.
It is doubtful that the Oaxacan priest Miguel Valentin y Tamayo had much time to minister to the spiritual needs of the faithful. In 1822, he served as regent of the short-lived Mexican Empire and of Sagrario Parish in Mexico City. He was president of the Chamber of Deputies in 1825 and in 1831, a member of congress in 1835 and 1836, and president of the chamber again in 1837 and 1845. He was also one of the drafters of the Seven Laws, the centralist constitution.
A final example of a professional political cleric is Mariano Vizcarra, canon of the Metropolitan Cathedral. He served in the legislature of the state of Mexico, the national congress in 1836, and as president of the Chamber of Deputies in 1840. These were important positions that provided excellent forums for expressing his anti reformist ideas.
Although there were legal restrictions upon clerical participation in the legislature at various times from Independence to the War of Reform, they were neither uniform nor consistent. Many high-ranking clergy, for example, were free to engage in politics. Political roles changed somewhat after the Constitution of 1824 was abolished in 1836. Other regulations were introduced in 1836, and still others in 1842-1843. But before the War of Reform, the opinions of the Church as an institution or of ecclesiastics-either as individuals or as a group-were expressed constantly, forcefully, and clearly in both the national and the state legislatures.
The writings of José Maria Luis Mora are the expression of one of the Church's best thinkers. Mora participated in the legislative debates of the state of Mexico; later in the Federal District; and, by his pen, in national debates about the nature of ecclesiastical properties and privileges. His important publications and his voluminous correspondence influenced subsequent generations of Mexicans. Educated, as were others in his profession in rigorous, logical, and well-structured thought, Mora's arguments can be appreciated even today for their solid structure and reason. He insisted on an egalitarian society, with no special privileges for anyone including the Indians. He believed in remaking society through laws that redistributed wealth, broke down group interests, and promoted individual values.
In obvious conflict with the reality of Mexican society of the 1820s when he proposed his most radical reforms, Mora brandished carefully polished arguments. As one writer acutely observed, in order to win and keep oneself from being slaughtered on the swampy treacherous battlefield of political warfare in Mexico, one had to possess the qualities of volcanic tufts: porosity and hardness. Mora lacked or did not practice the first. He stood firmly behind his ideas and did not engage in the give-and take needed to achieve victory on the political scene of his time. Nor was he above distorting the truth to obtain his ends. An implacable critic of clerical education, Mora invented the myth of the Church's monopoly on education in Mexico, something that in fact never existed.
Mora objected to clerical involvement in politics, even though he himself participated actively first in Mexico and later from his self-imposed exile in England and France. He felt that churchmen should be exonerated from legislative positions, so that parishes would not be abandoned by their pastors, and in order to avoid their "hateful pretensions," which often put obstacles in the path of needed reforms. Despite his lack of accommodation to the rough-and-tumble of Mexican politics, Mora personifies the ecclesiastic committed to change and to a regime in which the Church, in all things temporal, would be clearly subordinated to the state.
The political weight of many sectors of the Church had shifted with Independence. As Mora noted, the regular orders lost the great prestige that they had earlier possessed in Mexican society. Less-distinguished men from "questionable" families and "poorer cultural backgrounds" now entered the religious orders. As a result, the Church lost, not only status, reverence, and prestige but also political influence. Instead, members of the secular clergy became prominent. Individual clerics had learned how to pursue their own interests by aligning themselves with all parties. Thus, clerical politicians often found themselves on the winning side, regardless of which group triumphed. Mora criticized such unseemly behavior, probably wishing that he were more successful at such political maneuvering himself.
After Independence, and until the War of Reform, the government invited the most learned segments of the clergy not only to participate in legislative processes, but also sought their opinion and advice on many other subjects. The first and most important of these was the patronato, the system by which the state approved or disapproved candidates selected by the Church for various positions within the hierarchy, decrees and balls from Rome, the designation of new bishoprics, and other matters of ecclesiastical discipline. In 1822, representatives of the Mexican dioceses met to formulate the Church's official position concerning that fundamental aspect of the relationship between Church and state. In the opinion of the prelates, the new country did not possess the patronato because it had not been a sovereign right of the Spanish nation; rather it had been a privilege bestowed by the pope upon the kings of Spain in return for their work in evangelizing the New World. If the newly independent government of Mexico wished to exercise the patronato, it would have lo properly request it of the Vatican.
Not all members of the clergy were in agreement with the inter diocesan representatives. Friar Servando Teresa de Mier, a very outspoken critic, favored a national Church-similar to the Anglican or the French church during the Revolution-independent of Rome, backed by the state, and supportive of the government. But, in general terms, the hierarchy that remained in Mexico after the War of Independence agreed that the patronato could not be considered as an inherited attribute of the Spanish Crown and therefore transferable to Mexico. It would have to be acquired via negotiations with Rome.
The leaders of the new nation assumed that the state and the Church would continue to cooperate as they had during the colonial era. Immediately after Independence, for example, the new regime determined that, like the now extinguished Inquisition, it would use its authority to prevent the circulation of morally or politically subversive reading material. The Iturbide government, therefore, asked the Church for a list of forbidden works, which it formally prohibited as a sort of national index. The state and the Church worked in relative harmony to pursue common goals of social control. It was only natural, therefore, that the state continue to enforce the Church's mandates. This was true not only with regard to reading material and religious intolerance; it also extended to the enforcement of religious vows and the legal obligation to pay tithes.
The question of religious tolerance helped unite a Church given by the conflicting passions unleashed during the War of Independence. Virtually all churchmen, save José Maria Luis Mora, opposed tolerance with varying degrees of vehemence. Ecclesiastics could not discern a reason why the one true faith should be contaminated or the religious unity of the country destroyed merely for commercial gain, since only foreigners with different faiths urged religious freedom in order to work and worship in Mexico.
This fear of alien religions, which contributed to the restoration of consensus within the Church, reached its apogee with the Mexican-American War. Nothing was more effective in overcoming clerical apathy and debate than the threat of conquest by a "heathen people" who surely would destroy the Catholic faith. From that perspective, it is easy lo understand the fear that the invasion inspired among the clergy and the passionate sermons that they preached against the soulless foreigners. Nevertheless, that terrible threat was not sufficient lo convince the cathedral chapters to contribute money for the nation's defense. As a result, even a man as imbued with religious values as the Poblano Antonio Haro y Tamariz, minister of the treasury under Santa Anna, whose four sisters were in convents and whose two brothers were priests, had to force the Church to relinquish part of its wealth for national defense.
In quieter times, the political symbiosis between Church and state functioned more smoothly. The state had recourse to the Church on many matters. Besides aid in maintaining order, the new regime needed the Church's help to shift the loyalties of the former subjects of the monarchy from the personal father figure of a paternal king to the abstract idea of a modern state. In the past, the clergy had preached love of God and king in the same sentence, as if one depended on the other. To the schools, but in a much greater degree to priests, fell the task of transferring that engrained personal loyalty from the king to the Mexican state, and inspiring in the faithful a love of liberty and civic responsibility. Although ecclesiastics more often spoke against the government than for it, the hierarchy attempted to encourage priests to perform that worthy task. In Guadalajara, for example, a pamphlet appeared in 1822 that instructed them about inspiring their parishioners with "love for the public welfare and one's country."
Although basically committed to the new Mexican nation, Church leaders opposed many of the state's specific measures and almost universally repudiated the mid century Reform Laws. The bishop of León, Guanajuato, José Maria de Jesús Diez de Sollano, for example, wrote many manifestos and pastoral letters against both tolerance and reform. The bishop and ecclesiastical hierarchy of Chiapas published a paper in Mexico City addressed to the national congress with similar views. Nor did the energetic bishop of Michoacán, Clemente de Jesús Munguia, remain silent. He not only forbade the faithful from swearing allegiance to the Constitution of 1857, hut also demanded repeal of all offending legislation at any level.
The clergy's political role was not limited to participation in regencies, cabinets, and various legislatures and engaging in public debate for and against the government. After emancipation, armed struggle continued in many localities throughout the 1820s in the form of bandit attacks or political revolts. Priests occasionally became involved in armed attempts to topple the government or to impose a particular political plan. Father Joaquin Arenas instigated one of the best known of these pronunciamientos in 1827 when he declared that, in order to return Catholicism to its original purity, the country should once more swear allegiance to Fernando VII. Such action would, he insisted, result in the reestablishment of relations with the Vatican. The priest paid with his life for high treason. After Independence, no one could attempt to reestablish the Spanish monarchy in Mexico, not even for the benefit of the Church. Naturally Father Arenas was not the only one involved in the plot. He convinced many to follow him, among them the Franciscan Rafael Torres and his accomplices in Puebla. It is evident that as late as 1827 some churchmen were not in favor of an independent Mexico. Indeed, Independence was not completely accepted by many churchmen until the Mexican government defeated the Spanish general Isidro Barradas and his forces when they attempted to reconquer Mexico in 1829.
In some cases, parish priests joined political movements that backed the government. The Act of Telolcapan of February 1832 provides an example. The regime orchestrated the movement as a public manifestation of disapproval of an earlier pronunciamiento called the Plan of Veracruz. The government was delighted to use the priests' support in its efforts to undermine the opposition. In another instance, General Francisco Hernández, under instructions from the regime, requested the presence of the priest of Tlacotepec in the state of Mexico at a public meeting in which the village manifested it's loyalty lo the government and opposed the Plan of Veracruz. The curate lectured the assembled crowd, "as was his custom, and as he had done repeatedly inside the church and in private conversations, about the obedience his parishioners owed the state.'' He repeated these considerations in Nahuatl for the benefit of those "with lesser lights."
In Tampico, the military, state, and religious authorities also agreed to issue pro government political manifestos. In Tancanhuitz, San Luis Potosi, the civil and ecclesiastic authorities reached a consensus after holding a similar junta. Hoping to promote peace, the parish priest of Ixtapan de la Sal, state of Mexico, also signed a political manifesto favoring the governmenl. In Guadalcazar, the city fathers asked Friar Juan López to add, simply by his presence and respectability, to the junta that decided to support Antonio López de Santa Anna. Clerics were clearly on both sides of the issues.
The signatures of many priests are found in the proclamations and pronunciamientos of these years, especially in small rural areas. Not all such proclamations dealt with larger political interests; many addressed local concerns. Villages and towns like Temascaltepec in the state of Mexico gathered around the local priest in formally denouncing threats, such as those represented by the bandit Cástulo Remigio. Ecclesiastics did not play such vital roles in the cities where other men, able to read and write, often took the lead in political matters. In the countryside, however, priests were usually the only people able to communicate with their parishioners in their local language and were sufficiently knowledgeable to interpret and to translate into understandable terms the complexities of the larger world. Priests could also expressed local concerns in written form.
Priests also backed an impressive number of antigovernment pronunciamientos. The "impious" reform measures of Vice-President Valentin Gómez Farias aroused much opposition in 1833. The city council of Texcoco was one of the first to oppose the regime. The town supported General Gabriel Durán's plan to topple the radical vice-president, in part, out of fear of the unfriendly military presence of Colonel Lázaro del Corral and his troops. The authors of the pronunciamiento "invited" the local friars and parish priest to publicly support the plan, something they did with alacrity. On other occasions the clergy participated more spontaneously. When the Plan of Cuernavaca called for "Religion and Jurisdictional Privileges" (fueros), the clergy participated with enthusiasm. In same cases, they signed supporting documents within the temple walls, as occurred in Santa Catarina Mártir Parish in Mexico City. There, merchants and neighbors, along with their curate, signed their names to the Plan of Cuernavaca in June 1834. The community of Franciscans did the same in their provincial headquarters in Mexico City. Many other antigovernment pronunciamientos occurred throughout the country. Sometimes a priest was simply present; at others, the legal documentation was drawn up in the name of the city council and its resident curate. Such frank opposition to the established government on the part of some of the clergy had not been seen in Mexico since the rebellion of Father Arenas.
Father Epigmenio de la Piedra, the parish priest of Tenancingo located in the state of Mexico, conceived one of the most original political schemes of the time. A friend and admirer of Iturbide, the priest was known for his colorful life. For example, he once escaped from prison dressed as a woman. De la Piedra participated in the Second Constituent Congress, where he signed the Constitution of 1824. He also served several times in the legislature of the state of Mexico. A liberal who subsequently became a conservative, the priest decided that Mexico's ills could be solved by reestablishing a monarchy headed by one of the descendants of Moctezuma. He proposed that congress select twelve unmarried young men, descendants of the last emperor. Then, one would be chosen by lot and immediately crowned emperor of Mexico. The new monarch would be granted six months in which to marry. If the emperor selected were a dark-skinned Indian, then he would have to marry a light-skinned bride of European descent. But if he were white, then the bride would have to be pure Indian. This radical example indicates the extent
to which the Church, as an organization, or clergymen as individuals, sought to influence the political structure and development of the new Mexican state.
The active political participation of ecclesiastics-from the archbishop to the lowliest seminarian, including members of the regular orders-was a natural part of public life in early independent Mexico until the Constitution of 1857 and the War of Reform ended the practice. Before that turning point, the clergy remained active in political affairs, including matters that did not directly affect the Church. Ecclesiastics supported Opposition groups, initiating, promoting, or seconding pronunciamientos and coups d'état. They employed their learning as apologists and as publicists-in the best sense of those nineteenth-century terms- to convince and persuade. In doing so, they occasionally violated the laws of censorship. The Augustinian friar Luis de Castilla, for example, wrote an article that appeared in a newspaper called The Mexican Mosquito (El Mosquito Mexicano) that brought him into trouble with the law.Other ecclesiastics wandered so far from their proper religious duties that, in same cases, their actions cost them their lives, as in the case of the conspirator Arenas.
The voices, opinions, writings, and political activity of the clergy undoubtedly enriched public life during the first decades of Mexico's Independence. Instead of a monolithic church, it is evident that clergymen possessed a wide variety of interests, concerns, political views, styles, and means. There were curates or simple presbyters who pursued a political rather than an ecclesiastical career. If they had their own parish, same abandoned it in order to participate in the public discourse, either in support of the interests of the Church, the state, or their localities, or simply because they wore attracted by the heady exercise of political power
Mexico was a country in the making during its first years of Independence. The leaders of the new nation had great difficulty in determining the best course to pursue. In their efforts to promote the national interest (and themselves), they experimented with several forms of government. At times they favored a weak executive and at others, strong leaders. Similarly, they oscillated between promoting local liberties and severely curtailing them. But during those decades, Mexicans failed to agree on a single, definite political formula for the nation. At an individual level, the interests of group, family, and region prevailed. This was true also of many clergymen, who obtained a parish close to their place of birth. Mexicans of the time possessed a strong identification with local interests, a characteristic strengthened by limited means of communication with the national state and with the outside world. It is not entirely surprising, therefore, that clergymen would hold varying interests, political opinions, and loyalties. In many cases, the diverse activities and concerns of individual clerics were neither sanctioned by the hierarchy nor concordant with the Church's official teachings.
During those early years, Mexicans struggled to find a balance between the interests of groups and individuals, between those of the Church and the state, and between tradition and change. After 1857, the nation's leaders decided to exclude the clergy from active political participation. Today, more than a century after that momentous occasion-at a time when most people are unaware that the clergy once played an active role in the country's political processes-Mexicans are once more recognizing the Church's legal existence and the right of its members to exercise civil rights long denied them. It is important to remember, therefore, not only that the clergy played a significant political role throughout much of Mexican history, but that it did not represent a uniform monolithic group. Instead, it reflected the divisions of the society in which it lived.