Church and State in the Sovereign Republics of Spanish America
The new republics of nineteenth-century Spanish America had to come to grips with
the institution of the Roman Catholic Church, which, over the three hundred years of the
colony, had grown rich, powerful, and arrogant. In most cases, the church was better
organized and wealthier than the republics in which it existed. The following readings
consist of legal declarations about church and state that represent the different solutions
to the problems of the rights and powers of the Catholic Church in republican Spanish
America.
They range from the strongly nationalist approach of Colombia in 1824 (1), through
the moderate approaches of Venezuela in 1841 (2) and Chile in 1925 (3), and from the
highly clericalist approach of Ecuador in 1862 (4) to the fiercely anticlerical approach of
Mexico in the 1910s and ‘20s (5 and 6).
How does the congress of the sovereign republic of Colombia deal with the
traditional right of the patronato real (royal patronage) by which the Spanish Crown had
appointed all the archbishops and bishops of the colony? What was the position of the
church in the new republic under this legislation?
Why may the oath required of all Venezuelan bishops appointed by the pope after
1841 be considered a “moderate” solution to the state-church problem, that problem in
this case being which institution, church or state, was superior and answerable only to
God?
Similarly, article 10 of the Chilean constitution of 1925 may be considered a
“moderate” solution to problems growing out of the traditional prerogatives of the
Church in Spanish America. Why? What prerogatives of the church are recognized,
denied, or modified?
A few clauses from the concordat of 1862 between the Vatican and the sovereign
state of Ecuador demonstrate the ideal solution, from the Vatican’s point of view, to the
issue of church-state relations. Why? Why would this solution ultimately evoke strong
opposition?
The revolution that commenced in Mexico in 1910 was by no means focused or
characterized by coalitions with coherent programs for change, despite the Plan of San
Luis drawn up by Madero and the Plan of Ayala drawn up by Zapata. But there was one
constant cry, which cut through all the incoherence and fratricidal factions: denunciation
of the power, prerogatives, and possessions of the Catholic Church. The 1914 Carranza
and Villa accord and the Villa telegraph are clear examples of this hostility. How do the
principles listed in the 1925 circular of the “National Catholic” Church of Mexico illustrate
the depth of the revolutionaries’ disdain for the historic “Roman Catholic” Church in
Mexico? How do the provisions of articles 24 and 27 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution
(an aggressively updated version of La Reforma of the nineteenth century) respond to
the historic position that the Catholic Church held in New Spain? What kind of church
would emerge from the implementation of these constitutional provisions?
Under President Plutarco Elías Calles (1924-1928) the anticlerical provisions of
Mexico’s 1917 Constitution and the legislation to implement them were systematically
and ruthlessly enforced. President Emilio Portes Gil (1928-1930), without admitting to
any mistakes on the part of the state or to any excessiveness in the anticlerical laws,
made a verbal gentleman’s agreement with protesting Mexican prelates, of which this is
the only record. What is the thrust of this statement regarding the laws that deal with
religion? Could it be subject to different interpretations by the Catholics and the
anticlericals?
Religion in Latin America: A Documentary History . Orbis Books. Kindle Edition.
[Colombia, 1824] The Senate and Chamber of Representatives of the Republic of Colombia in Congress
assembled:
Decree:
Article 1. The Republic of Colombia ought to continue in the exercise of the right of
patronage, which the kings of Spain had over the metropolitan churches, cathedrals, and
parishes in this part of America.
Article 2. This right is a duty of the Republic of Colombia and of its government, and it
demands that the Apostolic See do not change or alter it; and the Executive Power under this
principle will celebrate with His Holiness a concordat which will assure for all time, and
irrevocably, this prerogative of the Republic and avoid conflicts and claims for the future.
Article 3. The right of patronage and protection are exercised, first, by the Congress;
second, by the Executive Power with the Senate; third, by the Executive Power alone; fourth, by
the intendants; and fifth, by the governors. The High Court of the Republic, and the Superior
Courts will hear cases that arise out of this matter. […]
Article 4. The Congress is empowered to:
1. Erect new dioceses or reorganize old ones, to designate their territorial limits,
and assign funds to be employed in the building and repairing of metropolitan
and episcopal churches.
2. Permit, or even summon, national or provincial councils or synods.
3. Permit or refuse the founding of new monasteries and hospitals, and to suppress
those existing if deemed advisable, and to assume control of their property.
4. Draw up tariffs of parochial fees.
5. Regulate the administration of the tithes.
6. Grant or refuse the exequatur to bulls and briefs.
7. Enact legislation deemed necessary for the vigorous maintenance of exterior
discipline of the Church, and for the conservation and exercise of the
ecclesiastical patronage.
8. Nominate those to be presented to His Holiness for the archiepiscopal and
episcopal sees.
9. Enact legislation for the establishment, rule, and support of the missions for the
Indians.
Article 6. The Executive is empowered to:
1. Present to the pope for his approval the actions of Congress on the erection of
new dioceses and the alteration of old ones.
2. Present to the pope the nominees of Congress for the archiepiscopal and
episcopal positions. […]
[Venezuela, 1841] oath: “I,_________, Archbishop or Bishop of_________, swear that never will I consider the
oath of obedience to the constitution, the laws, and the government of the republic, which I
swore to prior to my presentation to His Holiness, directly or indirectly annulled nor in any part
diminished by the oath of obedience to the Apostolic See which I must take at the time of my
consecration; nor by any later act under any motive. So help me God.” […]
[Ecuador, 1862] Concordat between Pius IX and the Republic of Ecuador.
September 26, 1862
In the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity, His Holiness the Supreme Pontiff Pius
IX and the President of the Republic of Ecuador name as their respective plenipotentiaries. His
Holiness, his eminence the Sig. Jacobo Antonelli, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, Deacon of
Santa Ágata de Suburra and Secretary of State and Foreign Relations.
And His Excellency the President of the Republic, the most excellent Señor Don Ignacio
Ordoñez, Archdeacon of the Cathedral Church of Cuenca in the same republic and Minister
Plenipotentiary near the Holy See.
Who, after having exchanged their respective plenary powers, agree on the following
articles:
Article 1. The Roman Catholic Apostolic religion will continue to be the only religion of the
Republic of Ecuador, and it [the State] will always protect all the rights and prerogatives, which
it ought to enjoy according to the laws of God and canonical dispositions. Consequently there
will never be permitted in Ecuador a dissident cult or any society condemned by the Church.
Article 2. In each one of the present dioceses, and in those which will be erected later,
there will be a diocesan seminary whose direction, régime, and administration belong freely
and exclusively to the diocesan ordinaries according to the dispositions of the Council of Trent
and of the canonical laws. Rectors, professors, and others employed in the instruction and
direction of said establishments will be freely nominated and removed by the ordinaries.
Article 3. The instruction of the youth in the Universities, colleges, faculties, and public and
private schools will in all things conform to the doctrine of the Catholic religion. The bishops will
have the exclusive right to designate texts for instruction in ecclesiastical sciences as well as in
moral and religious instruction. In addition the bishops and the ordinaries will exercise freely
the right to prohibit books contrary to religion and good customs, and to see that the
government adopts proper measures to prevent the importation or dissemination of said books
in the Republic.
…
Article 12. By virtue of the right of patronage which the Supreme Pontiff concedes to the
President of Ecuador, the latter can propose for archbishops and bishops clerics, qualified in the
sense of the sacred canons. […]
…
Article 22. The government of the Republic of Ecuador is obligated to employ all proper
measures for the propagation of the faith and for the conversion of people found in that
territory; and in addition, to lend all favor and aid to the establishment and progress of the holy
missions, which with laudable purpose, have been undertaken under the authority of the
Sacred Congregation of Propaganda. […]
[Chile, 1925] Article 10. The Constitution insures to all the inhabitants of the Republic: Practice of all
beliefs, liberty of conscience and the free exercise of all religions that may not be contrary to
morality, good usage and public order. Therefore, the respective religious bodies have the right
to erect and maintain houses of worship and accessory property under the conditions of
security and hygiene as fixed by the laws and regulations.
The churches, creeds, and religious institutions of any ritual shall have those rights in
respect to their property as the law now in force may stipulate or recognize; but they will be
subject, under the guarantees of this constitution, to common law in the exercise of ownership
of their future acquired property.
Churches and accessory property intended for the service of any religious sect are exempt
from taxation. […]
[Mexico, Carranza and Villa Accord, 1914] The present conflict being a struggle of the impecunious against the abuses of the
powerful, and understanding that the causes of the evils that bear down the country spring
from pretorianism, plutocracy, and clericalism, the Divisions of the North and of the Northeast,
solemnly pledge themselves to fight until complete banishment of the ex-Federal army, which
shall be superseded by the Constitutional Army, to set up democratic institutions in our
country, to bring welfare to labor, financial emancipation to the peasant by an equitable
apportionment of land, and other means tending to solve the agrarian question, to correct,
chastise, and hold to their responsibilities such members of the Roman Catholic clergy as may
have lent moral or physical support to the usurper, Victoriano Huerta. […]
[Mexico, Pancho Villa Telegraph to State Governor of León] I sincerely and enthusiastically felicitate you on the decree which you have just published
imposing restrictions on the clergy in the State which you govern with such dignity. I also am
inclined to follow your wise example because I, like you, think the greatest enemy to our
progress and liberty is the corrupting clergy, who for so long have dominated our country.
(Signed) Francisco Villa. […]
[Mexico, Original Art. 24, Constitution of 1917] Every one is free to embrace the religion of his choice and to practice all ceremonies,
devotions, or observances of his respective creed, either in places of public worship or at home,
provided they do not constitute an offense punishable by law. Every religious act of public
worship shall be performed strictly within the places of public worship, which shall be at all
times under governmental supervision. […]
[Mexico, Original Art. 27, Constitution of 1917] II. The religious institutions known as Churches, irrespective of creed, shall in no case have
legal capacity to acquire, hold, or administer real property or loans made on such real property;
all such real property or loans as may be at present held by the said religious institutions, either
on their own behalf or through third parties, shall vest in the Nation, and any one shall have the
right to denounce property so held. Presumptive proof shall be sufficient to declare the
denunciation well founded. Places of public worship are the property of the Nation as
represented by the Federal government, which shall determine which of them may continue to
be devoted to their present purposes. Episcopal residences, rectories, seminaries, orphan
asylums or collegiate establishments of religious institutions, convents or any other buildings,
built or designed for the administration, propaganda, or teaching of the tenets of any religious
creed shall forthwith vest, as of full right, directly in the Nation, to be used exclusively for the
public services of the Federation or of the States, within their respective jurisdiction. All places
of public worship which shall later be erected shall be the property of the Nation.
III. Public and private charitable institutions for the sick and needy, for scientific research,
or for the diffusion of knowledge, mutual aid societies or organizations formed for any lawful
purpose shall in no case acquire, hold or administer loans made on real property, unless the
mortgage terms do not exceed ten years. In no case shall institutions of this character be under
the patronage, direction, administration, charge or supervision of religious corporations or
institutions, nor of ministers of any religious creed or of their dependents, even though either
the former or the latter shall not be in active service. […]
[National Catholic Church of Mexico, Circular of 1925] Our Church does not constitute a sect but it is based on the real religion, which was
founded by our Divine Master and Redeemer.
II. The Holy Scripture of the Old and New Testaments are the headstone of our church, and
they can be freely interpreted by the members, as can also tradition and the liturgy.
III. The purity of the most Blessed Virgin Mary, Our Mother and Mistress, is an article of
faith with us and no one can belong to the real religion without this belief. The saints also ought
to be venerated.
IV. The power of ruling and governing the Catholic Apostolic Mexican Church resides in its
primate or patriarch, independent of Rome, the Pope, or authority of the Vatican, and it has no
relation to it. The Mexican Patriarch is the only one who will have power to order the ministers
and confer on them the power to administer the Holy Sacraments.
V. The Holy Sacraments ought to be administered without any charge in order to end the
practice of simony which exists in the Church of Rome, and only for the intention or application
of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass can alms be received, and then they must be freely given by
the one who makes the request; the members of the Church are not required to pay tithes or
primacies.
VI. The priest of the Mexican Church ought to be a useful member of society, obedient to
the laws and institutions of our Fatherland, and not a person who is supported by the labor of
someone else. VII. Ecclesiastical celibacy is abolished as immoral and unnatural; the priest
ought to make a home and by respecting it learn to respect that of others.
VIII. All the services and liturgical books ought to be in the Castilian language.
IX. The clergy of the Mexican Church do not pretend to exercise temporal or spiritual
dominion over those adhering to it.
X. Our God is a perfect Being without anger or vengeance, thus He does not condemn for
all eternity man made in his image and likeness. Punishment for sin is in direct proportion to
the act, and its duration is determined by the degree of culpability.” […]
[Mexico, Settlement of Religious Issue, Portes Gil, 1929] I take advantage of this opportunity to declare publicity and with all clarity that it is not the
spirit of the Constitution, nor of the laws, nor of the government of the Republic to destroy the
identity of the Catholic Church, nor of any other cult, nor to intervene in any manner in its
spiritual functions. According to the Oath which I took when I assumed the Provisional
Government of Mexico to obey and cause to be obeyed the Constitution of the Republic and its
laws, my purpose has been at all times to comply honestly with this oath and to see that the
laws are applied without sectarian tendency and without injury to anyone…. With reference to
certain articles of the law which have not been clearly understood, I take advantage of this
opportunity to declare:
I. The provision of the law which required the registration of ministers does not mean that
the government can register those who have not been named by a hierarchical superior of the
religious creed in question or in accordance with its regulations.
II. With regard to religious instruction, the constitution and laws in force definitely prohibit
it in primary or higher schools, whether public or private, but this does not prevent ministers of
any religion from imparting its doctrines within the church confines to adults and their children,
who may attend for that purpose.
III. The Constitution as well as the laws of the country guarantee to all residents of the
republic the right of petition, and therefore the members of any church may apply to the
appropriate authorities for amendment, repeal or passage of any law.
Religion in Latin America: A Documentary History . Orbis Books. Kindle Edition.