The Irish standard. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn. ;) 1886-1920, 1914-07-11
CORRESPONDENTS
ACCUSATIONS PROVEN FALSE.
CHARGES AGAINST CHURCH IN
MEXICO NOT CONFIRMED
BY FACTS.
Testimony of Distinguished Men as to
Catholicism's Good Influence.

Catholicism's Good influence.
In recent issue of the Outlook"
(vol. 107; No. 6, p. 3O5) a special
correspondent. campaigning with
General Villa in Mexico, makes the
following statement: "villa is doing
his best to remove from the country
an old incubus-the Church which
has been the friend of the capitalist
aristocracy and the oppressor of the
people since the days of the con
quistadores'." After quoting Villa to
the effect that priests are immoral
"hypocrites" and frauds, and that
it shall be the purpose of the Con-
stitutionalist leader" to open the eyes
of the people to the tricks of the
thieving priests" Mason adds: cap
parently his programme thus far is
successful. The only priest I found
in Torreon was in hiding in the house
of a wealthy Irishman."
These accusations of the Mexican
bandit against the priesthood, quoted
by the "Outlook" correspondent, and
triumphantly reinforced by his own
remarks. are absolutely false. The
Catholic church, rather than an OPP
pressor of the people and a friend Of
the moneyed interests, has, despite
the years of hardship and persecu-
ton from her enemies in the admin
istration and in the ranks of CAPT.
tai, has been the greatest force for
the amelioration of conditions among
the poorer classes in the Southern
Republic. Mason himself in SUBJ
sequent article (The Outlook. June
20. 1914, p. 1929 declares that
while the lot of a Mexican peon is
not happy one for a well fed Amer
lean to contemplate, there is far more
happiness to the square inch in squal-
id, half-starved Mexico than in the
slums of a large American city, or in
glamourless, hard driven American
factory town" And this, too, after
after century of unrest and three
years of recent revolution chat
would have stripped country of
average wealth to barren ground"
In direct contradiction to the
statement of Mason is the testimony
of Charles F. Lummis, the dis
tinguished editor of "Out West"
himself a new Englander. protest
ant and son of college professor.
In his interesting book. 1.-THE Awak-
ening of a Nation" he says: "That it
is fit to say just here that while, as
in mining always, there was tremen-
dously in Mexico the vast disparity
of classes, it is wholly unwarranted
to speak of the down-treading of the
Indian laborers. They are poor only
as a man is poor whose enough is
little. They were not despite the
arm chair historianp slaves. There
was no 'mita' in Mexico; no compul-
sorry labor in mines; no labor with
out wages. The Indian who did not
like the mine, or it's administrator
or its wages, was perfectly free to go
elsewhere, or to stay out all to-
gether" (p. 32). In another place he
declares that human slavery was
never divine institution in those
(the Spanish) colonies" while
this statement" he adds, may de-
rive a shrek from those who have
learned history by not studying it, it
is strictly true. Only the gross ig
norance of centuries of closet histo-
rians biased by political and religious
prejudice, untrammelled, and appar-
emily not to read any original source.
could have brought us to such a basic
misconception Of the 'Repartimieneo'
and the 'Encomienda' and to class
them with our own slave holding"
''The laws of Spain, as to the abor-
igines," he declares "the highest
minded and most complete, and most
noble Indian policy ever framed by
man" (p. 86.)
And this was not necessarily be-
cause of any particular inherent ra-
cial virtue of the Spaniards but be-
cause of the strong spiritual influ-
ence of the Church in their regard.
'The 'conquistador,' Lummis says,
twas human, but the hand of the
church was always upon his should
ers. Individually and casually he
might elude it, but broadly he could
not" (p. 1852
The great explorer, Alexander Won
Humboldt, writing in his Essai Po-
litique one hundred years ago. when
the Church's influence was greater
in Mexico than it is to-day, declares
that nowhere do the common people
enjoy the fruits of their labor more
than in Mexico. The Indian laborer
is poor, but he is free. His condi-
ton is much more preferable to that
of the peasantry of a large part of