Home / Letters to Editor / Announcements / Columnists / Archive / Subscribe / About Us / Contact Us

HispanicVista Columnists

On Separation of Church and State
By Richard N. Baldwin T. /HispanicVista.com
   June 1, 2007
  From Mexico
   

 

By Richard N. Baldwin T. /HispanicVista.com
On Separation of Church and State

 
     This column is devoted to political commentary and I have avoided any commentary on religious issues. But when the line between the two becomes blurred, religion becomes fair game from a political aspect.

     In case that you haven't noticed, the Federal District of México (México City) has signed into law the right of any woman to an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy. And in a supposedly solid Catholic country, this is noteworthy. But it is necessary to understand some history in regard to the Catholic Church in México.

     While the colonization of America north of México by the English was primarily a business venture, there was little concern about the original inhabitants. All the colonists were interested is to have them off of the land.

     On the other hand, the colonization of México, was a joint venture from Spain between the monarchy and the Church. The monarchy wanted treasure, and the Church wanted the souls of the indigenous.

     After the War of Independence, (1810/1821), political control of México became Mexican. However, the Church remained as the final authority on religious and moral issues and arguably the most powerful entity. As an example, to be legally married, only marriages under Church auspices were recognized.  During this period, after saying bye bye to Spain, the Church became the largest landowner in México.

     Then came the "Reform" in the mid 1800s, led by Benito Juárez. He not only ended the attempt of the French to take over México; he also "reformed" the control and power of the Church of México. One of the big things changed was the recognition of civil marriages performed outside of Church sanction.

     In 1908 was the Revolution. This was mainly political, ending the long reign of Porfirio Diaz who had reigned as president since 1884. The government had become hopelessly corrupt and it took a war to unseat him. A new constitution was put into place in 1917 ending the Revolution period. What is still not talked about much here was that during the period between the Reform and Revolution, the Church had gradually regained much of their influence on political México.  The Reform and the new constitution limited Church influence with what only could be described as draconian rules.
 
     This brought México into another war in what is known as the Cristero Rebellion between ardent Catholics and the sectarian government in the late 1920s. For example, it was against federal law, under the pain of death, for a priest to conduct a religious service. Nuns were gang raped, churches were destroyed, priests shot and "street justice" reigned. It was a very nasty time. Some of those strict limitations of the Church continued and it was not until the early 1990s that a priest or nun could legally be seen outside of a church in clerical garb.

     In the recent presidential election, there were charges that the Church was interfering with the election by officially telling members to vote for "Church friendly" candidates. Now, with the abortion issue, the Church is right into that argument. Not only did they organize demonstrations but also the lawmakers who voted for the law were threatened with excommunication. But maybe not. The Cardinal of México City, when asked by reporters if he favored this, he told them "yes". But when the Church published the transcript of the news conference, the "yes" was edited out. And another voice of the Church points out that the politicians' job is to represent their constituents. In the Federal District, reliable polls show that slightly over half of the males support the abortion law. And almost 70% of the females do. The politicians listened to their people.

     In reality, the Church is fighting gradual reduction of their influence in México and Latin America. Their position is not only taking a strong right-to-life stance; they also condemn use of contraceptives. The mere fact that México's population growth is the lowest in Latin America and on a par with the US would suggest that most Mexicans simply ignore this unrealistic later position of the Church. In short, the Church is taking a contradictory and illogical position. One would ask that if you wanted to reduce unwanted pregnancies, you would support the use of contraceptives, wouldn't one?

     I remember a scene I saw at a local pharmacy shortly after arriving in México. In front of me at the counter was an obvious newly married young couple. They were pointing at the condom display. They kept saying "Oh, let's try that one, give us a couple of those", and so on. They left, arm in arm clutching their sack of "goodies". And the other patrons had a chuckle.

     The percentage of México's population that regards themselves as Catholic is steadily shrinking. From the early 1990s to now, that percentage has shrunk from about 97% to between 85% and 90%. The Church is slowly loosing members to various Protestant movements and is even more apparent in Brazil. The Pope's recent visit to Brazil was controversial to say the least. As reported from Brazil, the Pope was "arrogant" in condemning both abortions and the use of contraceptives, while only supporting sexual abstinence for birth control. However, it is official government policy there to distribute condoms in schools to curb AIDS and unwanted pregnancies, (which seems to be working).

     Also of interest is the large defection from the Catholic Church of Mexican immigrants to the US.

     The Church fights back but one wonders what this will lead to.
_____________________________________
Richard N. Baldwin T., a HispanicVista.com (http://www.hispanicvista.com/) contributing columnist, lives in Tlalnepantla, Edo de México. E-mail at: R1041643422@aol.com