Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1926-12-16

considering its acts: nor. since Il
Claims great zeal for the advance
ment OF education. II the statements
II mas presented to support of its
pleading be submitted to the test of
history. These are the things we
purpose to do. so that not only will
our own people be fully informed Of
the interests at stake, but that the
mexican people may not be without
nenent OF advocate before the court
tneir rulers have actually but mis-
takenly appealed"
accounting the work and influence
OF the Catholic church in ) Mexico
over score Of years, the pastoral
ietter, speaking for the church, says:
snow me one good thing in Mex
leo did not give you. Show me one
genius for whom was not respon-
sible. Show me one step toward the
light that I did not help you take.
TAKE out OF your country all that
l put In 1t, and see what remains
The bishops state the letter is no
appeal for political Intervention of
action OF any sort, declaring that It
Is mo Interpolation Of our influence
either as bishops or as citizens to
reach those who possess political
power anywhere on earth, and least
or all In our own country, to the end
that they should intervene with
armed force In the internal affairs
OF Mexico for the protection of the
CHURCH. Our duty is done when, by
telling story, defending the truth
and emphasizing the principles, we
sound a warning to Christian CIV
ilization that its foundations are
again being attacked and under
mined"
The first part of the pastoral takes
up the respective ideals of civil and
religious liberty held by Americans
and Mexicans. 1t states:
THE difference between the con-
ception of civil and religious free.
dom upheld by the American consti-
tuition of Mexico will be best under
stood by contrasting the two in
struments. This will show that,
only by slurring over or concealing
the actual facts of the case can the
Mexican government hope to secure
the sympathy of thoughtful and I'M
biased Americans whose ideas Of civ
1c justice and right are radically diff
ferent from those expressed in Mex
lean law.
"In the commonly accepted Amer
lean doctrine, constitution vests
the government with such rights and
powers as are necessary for the
proper exercise of its just functions,
and at the same time forbids it to
encroach upon the rights of high
er order which comes, to man not
from the people nor from the state,
nor from any aggregation of states,
but from the creator of both men
and states, Almight God. This con-
ception Is wholly in keeping with
the teaching of the Catholic church."
This pastoral then goes on:
I'm contrast with this according to
the present constitution of Mexico no
religious society may 'oy the right
of corporate legal existence. Officially
there are no churches in Mexico, for
a church cannot possess anything.
lacks the right of petition for redress
of grievances. cannot sue in the civil
courts, and in general is entirely
without legal standing. Clergymen
are DISTINGUISHED by the fact Of Or
dination. A church cannot own the
buildings in which It's public wor-
ship is held. That building, however,
is owned by the government, though
paid for and supported by the people.
The government merely allows the
rightful owner to use it at the good
pleasure of state officials"
Other enactments are related by
the letter:
"a. church, therefore, cannot owl,
anything, cannot provide for Its cur
rent expenses, cannot provide for a
future clergy. A native clergy is
thus made impossible, fact which
ordinarily would throw the burden Of
the religious care of the people upon
strangers from other lands. To pre-
vent the possibility Of that happen
ing, however, the law ~ tides that
no clergyman but a native born
Mexican may off1ciate in any act Of