Talk:Cristero War

Major Revamping Necessary

This article seems to have very few citations. There are a number of respected sources by academic historians, especially Jean Meyer's monumental three-volume work "La Cristiada," which should form the basis of the article.

Regarding who was at fault, a point that is brought up: that is not an issue to be raised in Wikipedia. The issue is getting the relevant facts into the piece and getting it right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.214.118 (talk) 16:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Template needed

This needs to use the Template:Battlebox, like seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human rights or civil rights

I changed "human rights" to "civil rights" since that is a more accurate description of the rights involved: voting, freedom of expression, the right to wear clerical garb. 24.126.41.116 07:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) aka User:Italo Svevo

More background

Should there not be a bit more background on the 1917 Constitution? The articles there did not spring ex nihilo: they were rooted in a long-standing conflict between Independent Mexico and the RCC. The RCC first demanded that Independent Mexico take over the obligations of the Spanish Crown (vis a vis the Concordato signed between the Church and the Crown), but refused to grant them the corresponding priviledges (most notably, the naming of bishops and archbishops). When the 1856 Constitution did not include civil penalties and prosecution for failure to obey canon law (e.g., failure to pay a tithe and so on), the Church denounced it and issued an Excommunication Writ on anyone who swore to uphold it (as all civil officials were required to do). They then offered a ceremony for "removal of the oath" for anyone who wanted it. They would later reaffirm the excommunication writ though they only selectively enforced it during the Porfirio Diaz years. After Maximilian supported some of the Reform laws issued by Juarez and Lerdo de Tejada, the RCC demanded that he declare catholicism not only the official religion of Mexico, but "the one and only possible religion for all mexicans"; Maximilian refused, though he offered to make it the official religion of the Royal House (not enough for the RCC). The conflict hardly began in 1917; as for some of the civil rights, the right to vote was (and remains) denied on the grounds that the RCC clergy must swear an oath of fealty to a foreign head of state, an act that usually carries a revokation of citizenship not only in Mexico, but in most countries. Magidin Talk 10:14, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

Agreed, but at least in my case I don't have any references which I could use to expand this article. And my background on this issue is certainly not enough. Why don't you add the info yourself or at least provide some sources? -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 15:39, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well, one reference is Mexico a través de los siglos, which contains a wealth of transcribed original documents (such as the letters exchanged by the Nuncio and Maximilian on the issue of the official religion of Mexico). Alas, I don't have it with me, and still being somewhat new to Wikipedia I do not want to mess around too much with an article that has been deemed a featured article without some discussion, hence my posting this in talk rather than just going ahead writing from memory. Magidin Talk 12:10, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

There's a lot of material to cover on church/state relations, both before and after independence. Magidin, do you feel up to adding a "History" section to Catholic Church in Mexico?

Alas, not off the top of my head, which is what I would be doing if I were trying to do it now. Magidin Talk 13:11, 24 Aug 2005 (MDT)

Pitty, I have that series of books back at home. The problem is that I'm in Germany right now :( -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 21:18, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Adding to Midigin's excellent historical background, the main issue(according to some scholars) was the government's decision to provide free and non-religious public education, since education was, in a certain way, controlled and used as a means of indoctrination, by the RCC. The RCC may have accepted (though grudginly) the confiscation of their property, but once education was taken from their hands, according to these scholars, their power over the population would be limited. Also, it should be noted that Mexico was probably the first and one of the few countries in Latin America that did it. Even today, RCC in Argentina receives by law funds from the government, and many public schools are Catholic. Same situation in Spain, and in both countries the issue whether "religion" (that is, catholicism) should still be part of the curricula, is extremely controversial.--129.119.25.31 14:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note that as in any war or conflict in Mexico, complex underpinnings are at work. So to say that the Cristiada and the Cristero movement was completely caused by a dispute between the Mexican government and the Roman Catholic Church is miss the complete scope of the problem. Much has been said of President Plutarco Elías Calles and much of the evidence signals him as a pseudo fascist dictator. Much of his hate for Catholicism, could be rooted to a longing for a system similar to Francisco Franco's anticlerical Spain. The Vatican's later subjugation by Mussolini gives further evidence. With that said, much of the Cristero movement was more a liberal reaction (freedom of belief) than a conservative movement, although its roots appear to come from the 19th century Conservative party. Let's remember that after Porfirio Díaz (which merged both parties into one), Mexican ruling people have always tried to align opposition movements with the ill-fated Conservative wing. Even Cuauhtemoc Cárdenas was once pictured as a Conservative, opposed to the (neo)liberal Carlos Salinas de Gortari, which--of course--is a complete lie.--201.116.149.85 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A few minor changes and a proposed improvement.

Fixed some word choices for readability and NPOV.

Also, shouldn't this article make some reference to the Sinarquista movement? I'll leave it to someone with a better grasp of the topic.

NPOV

Some academicians advance the idea that the "Cristero War" was provoked by the Catholics. It is, of course, undeniable that the Constitution of 1917 took giant steps to guarantee a separation of the church and state (and perhaps, punished the Catholic church too harshly). However, some scholars argue that the church earned these punishments by attacking the writers of the constitution during time that supposedly was for worship.

A brief background of the Church's history in Mexico (including their involvement in the latifundios, speculation with land, amalgamation of wealth, support of a classist system, cooperation with Maximilian of Hapsburg and the war of Reform) should also help the readers put in perspective why the writers of the 1917 constitution felt to be so harsh on the church.

In my opinion, this article leads the reader to believe that the government repressed the church with no reason and that patriots fought for certain religious rights. Nothing is farther from the truth. First of all, the church was not unique in the repression they suffered. If anything, the government was permissive with the church compared to what it did to other groups. Second, the constitution was written the way it was for a reason, and that reason is not shown. Lastly, both sides in the blood shed where fanatics. The article, instead of emphasizing the irrationality behind the conflict, concludes with how certain warriors of the Catholic side were beatified and made saints!

This article is in favor of the catholic view, and should be revised for a neutral point of view.

Hari Seldon 08:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I made comments along these lines back in September 2005; see some of the sections above in this Talk page. But they need references. If you have access to Mexico a través de los siglo, they include a lot of the full text of the laws, excommunication writs, and so on, which would definitely belong in an "Historical Antecedents" section, as mentioned before. Magidin 18:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don't have access to that text. But I am sure that other sources can provide similar information. I'll look in the local public library. Hari Seldon 21:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding recent reverts between Hari Seldon and Mamalujo, it might be noted that it was the 1917 Constitution that granted Freedom of Religion in Mexico, while the Cristeros were against such a provision: they wanted an official Catholic government; much as in the 1857 Constitution, they objected to the Freedom of Conscience clauses in the Constitution, and to the Government not enforcing canon law (the latter being the source of the break between the Vatican and the Mexican government in the 19th century). While it is true that the Government went far beyond simply enforcing those provisions, both sides were active in denying freedom of conscience to others. Magidin 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. I didn't want to engage in an edit war, but would be grateful if more sources could be provided. I am working on getting them, but until then, I am reluctant to make controversial changes. Indeed, based on the information I have, it is my belief that the constitution of 1917 is liberal, and that Plutarco Elías Calles simply took it to an extreme interpretation.

Hari Seldon 01:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I must agree with those who argue that the causes of the Cristero War must include the reasons why the anti-clerical/Catholic provisions were put in the 1917 constitution, else the article is incomplete and is biased. There is a vast scholarship on this, and if addtl. sources are requested, I can add as many footnotes as you like. Tmangray 23:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think its fine that contributions include what scholars consider to be the reasons for the anti-clericalism and anti-Catholicism which led to the Cristero war. Of course, it should be understood that there is not a consensus that "abuses" by the Church was the cause. The elites responsible for the anti-clericalism in Mexico were quite different from the people they purported to represent. The strong influence of Freemasonry among Mexican leaders (well documented in scholarly literature - not conspiracy theorizing on my part) shows how divorced they were from the populace. Feel free to include what the anticlerical element claimed was their motivation, but balance will require that the article include what many other commentators believe to be their motives. You've got a tough row to hoe if you want to claim that virulent atheists the likes of Calles and Garrido were enacting the will of the people. Mamalujo 00:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Not about atheism. There has always been a strong sentiment among Mexican CATHOLICs outside of the powerful classes that has resented the abuses of the church and many (not all) of the clergy. It is a very similar phenomenom to what happened in much of Europe. The Inquisition, the special privileges granted the church, the vast landholdings when most Mexicans were land-poor, the sexual abuses which occurred, the support for foreign invaders, opposition to democratic reforms...these and many other reasons put the people at odds with the church even while most people considered themselves good Catholics. The fact is, the Cristeros were a small minority movement in Mexico, not enjoying widespread support at all. This is the main reason why they were so easily suppressed. Tmangray 01:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured?

Why is this article featured? It's not that good. It could be a lot larger, it doesn't present a single historian's view, it's not really NPOV and it simply reads bad. I suggest this article should lose its featured status, how does that work? Mixcoatl 02:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100% Hari Seldon 04:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a featured article back in October, 2004. It cannot lose its previously featured article because you cannot change history. Back then the articles weren't that good. --FateClub 20:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you can change history, and it lookss like this article isn't going to be featured much longer. ¿SFGiДnts! ☺ ☻ 13:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. --FateClub 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a good call, no doubt. Unless, of course, the quality of the article could be improved... Hari Seldon 18:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

To the level of a good article? Not in near future. Now... to a featured article? I doubt it. --FateClub 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic or anti-clerical?

Shouldn't the intro simply describe the government as anti-clerical? "Anti-Catholic" seems to be a rather POV position. AshbyJnr 15:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. I agree with you, and several incarnations of the article have used "anti-clerical". Some editors, however, seem to disagree and keep changing it to "anti-catholic". Magidin 17:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not merely anti-clerical, although many argue, with good reason, that anticlericalism is inherently anti-catholic. For example, people (José Sánchez del Río for example) were threatened with execution and/or torture to renounce their faith. That is not mere anti-clericalism. Also, the clearing of priests from Tabasco, limiting the entire state of Chihuahua to one priest - that's not mere anti-clericalism but and attempt to suppress if not abolish the faith. Mamalujo 21:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If "anticlericalism is inherentlhy anti-catholic", then anticatholicism is a implied by anticlericalism, and the latter is a wider thrust than the fomer. So describing anticlericalism as "merely" would be incorrect to begin with. It would be like saying that it was not merely "soaked", it was "wet". Anticlericalism casts a wider net than anti-catholicism does, as it also restricts other religions (though naturally it hits stronger those religions which have a strong clerical structure such as catholicism, than those who do not, like, say, taoism). Did the government take away rights from catholic priests that it did not deny clerics from other religions? I do not believe so. As such, "anti-clericalism" would be a better label. You may argue that the main objective of the law was catholicism (it being the predominant religion in Mexico; it being the only religious institution that actively opposed the Constitution of 57 because it did not provide civil penalties for not following canon law; it being the one that excommunicated anyone who swore to uphold the Constitution; it being the one who demanded from Maximilian that it declare catholicism "the one and only religion, and the only possible religion, of Mexico and all mexicans"; etc.), or that the anti-clericalism was a mere sham of "even-handed oppression" when the "true goal" was an attack on catholicism, but that's a different issue. The laws were anti-clerical, not anti-catholic. Magidin 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Magadin, claiming that anticlericalism is inherently anticatholic makes no sense. Apart from the fact that it's perfectly possible for anticlericalism to be directed at other religions (Atatürk would be a good example), anticlericalism only becomes anti-Catholic (or anti-whatever religion) when it reaches a certain level of severity. Separating church and state in a country that's predominantly Catholic (like Mexico in 1857) is anticlerical but definately not anti-Catholic. As for Calles' campaigns aimed specifically at Catholics, I recall to have read somewhere that Mennonites were also targeted. May be worth investigating. Mixcoatl (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a matter of historical fact that the "anti-clerical" laws of the 1917 Constitution were directed against the Catholic Church. The liberal governments actively favored protestant groups and attempted to use the 1917 "anti-clerical" articles to destroy Catholicism. The liberals, most of whom were anti-Catholic Freemasons, wished to subdue and even destroy the Church. So referring to their policies as "anti-Catholic" does not violate NPOV. "Anti-clerical" is a term used by the liberals to imply that somehow their measures were only directed at the clergy, when in fact they were directed at Catholic education and religious activity by laymen as well. 189.169.221.22 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-clerical? Yes. Anti-Catholic? Yes too. Even if the average Mexican catholic did not suffer proportionally as much as the clergy they still were persecuted. The Government stealing huge swaths of church property including closing all of the schools and stealing the buildings and the same with monastery's and hospitals and of courses the churches themselves. This theft hurt all Mexican catholics. Peppermintschnapps (talk) 00:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Maestros desorejados.

I am afraid you are only enlisting half of the martyrs of the Cristero War. You must also include those teachers who were tortured or murdered by the Cristeros accused of teaching a socialist education. They were known as maestros desorejados because the Cristeros used to cut-off their ears. Here is a small list of those teachers:

• María Rodríguez Murillo, rapped, mutilated and murderer in Huiscolco, Zacatecas. References: David L. Raby (1974) Educación y revolución social en México (1921 a 1940), SEP, México, p. 137. Salvador Frausto Crotte "Maestra María R. Murillo. Víctima de fanatismo y rencor religioso" El Universal, 17 de junio de 2001.

• Carlos Toledano, burn alive in Altotonga (Tlapacoyan), Veracruz. Reference: Miguel Baltazar Vázquez (2005) Altotonga: un pueblo con historia, Altotonga, pp. 231-32.

• Martires de Tezihuatlan, Puebla. References: Édgar González Ruiz (2004) Los otros cristeros y su presencia en Puebla‎ - Página 515. Consuelo Reguer (1997) Dios y mi derecho, Tomo 4, Jus, México, p. 532. El Maestro Rural, tomo VII, num 11, diciembre de 1935, p. 26.

• Vicente Escudero (16 years old), tortured and murdered in Santa Mónica de viudas, Zacatecas. References: Revista Resurgimiento, Vol 1, No. 5 Abril-Mayo de 1934.

• Saúl Maldonado y Guillermo Suro, murdered in Tlaltenango, Zacatecas. References: Donald L. Raby (1974) Educación y revolución social en México (1921 a 1940), SEP, México, p. 160. Alfonso Taracena (1992) La Verdadera Revolución Mexicana (1935-1936), Porrúa, México, 1992, p. 21.

• David Moreno, tortured and murdered in Hacienda de Santa Inés, Aguascalientes. Alfonso Taracena (1992) La Verdadera Revolución Mexicana (1935-1936), Porrúa, México, 1992, p. 75. Salvador Camacho Sandoval (1991) Controversia educativa entre la ideología y la fe. La educación socialista en la historia de Aguascalientes. 1876 a 1940, Conaculta, México, p. 160. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.217.127.251 (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added a short section about some teachers mutilated, tortured, or murdered by the cristeros. You are all invited to made the necessary corrections, but I hope none erases it.--189.217.100.15 (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia policy, because this is English Wikipedia, English sources are preferred. It is a verifiability issue. When English sources are unavailable, such sources are permissable, but translation must be provided when requested by an editor. I am going to remove the section for the time being for the above reason. If their are English sources for the section, that would be preferrable. This is particularly true because this is a contrversial section and I believe it carries a POV. Their are also questions of accuracy. For example "socialist education" was the government's term, not the Cristero's. There are also notability issues - 90,000 people died in this conflict. What makes these victims more notable than others, and if they are so notable, wouldn't their be English sources. Mamalujo (talk) 20:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Then would we find references in English. By the way, you have indeed asked a very good question, what is the difference between the assassination of an innocent bystander and that of a martyr? So why may the Saints of the Cristero War be considered martyrs? I think that the answer is that the Saints of the Cristero War were public and important people in their communities whose assassinations were intended as an example to other people or to silence their opinions. Moreover the Saints of the Cristero War did not carry weapons, did not kill other people in the revolt, they were executed because of their believing, and they preferred to die before abandoning their (work in their) communities.

Well, some of the Rural Teachers in the Cristero War were public and important people in their communities whose assassinations were intended as an example to other people or to silence their opinions. Moreover these Rural Teachers did not carry weapons in the Cristero Wars, did not kill other people in the revolt, they were executed because of their believing, and they preferred to die before abandoning their (work in their) communities. Let me point out the following fact, the Universidad Iberoamericana is a catholic institution in Mexico D.F. that has published books were the cristero's atrocities are criticized[1][2]. I am then sure we can find references in English, it is just question to look for them.

Finally I think you would also want to consider the lack of proper references in the section about the Cristero War saints. Is it true that there are stained glass windows that equate the state's persecution of Cristeros with the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany? I am really dying for seen a picture of that stained glass window, I suppose that the image of a concentration camp is out of the question, but I can only imagine the image of some Mexican (federal) soldiers sorting in a checking point those citizens who look like atheist, from those who look like catholic.

Best wishes, and see you soon, but not quite soon:--189.217.188.111 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality issue

This article is highly biased. Instead of explaining the facts and the history behind the cristero war, this article seems to had been written with a pro-Catholic sentiment and often expresses opinions rather than facts. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Talk? )} 21:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Reading through it I see the usual mish-mash of one POV followed by the opposite POV to "balance it out". My general impression is that what the article really needs is inline citations.radek (talk) 09:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

But along those lines I removed the stuff on freemasons and some alleged conspiracy per WP:FRINGE. It was sourced but two of the sources (this and this guy) straight up do not satisfy WP:RS, while the third [3] just says that Calles was a mason, not that he persecuted Catholics because he was a mason as the article text claimed.radek (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everything that deals with Freemasonry is a fringe conspiracy theory. The role of Freemasonry in Mexican history is well documented by notable historians, as is the role of Freemasonry in anticlericalism throughout the Latin world. You see from the article that even former President Fox makes the point. Mamalujo (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That's fine and I'm not opposed to inclusion of a mention of this - as long as it's cited to reliable sources, which it wasn't previously.radek (talk) 02:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Something that I think does need to be made clearer here is which Masons we are talking about. The problem is that Freemasonry is not monolithic... there were (and are) multiple competing Grand Lodges and Grand Orients in Mexico, and they often disagreed. Part of Freemasonry may have had a role in Mexican history... and part of it may have supported Anticlerical political initiatives... but other parts did not. The article, however, talks about "Freemasonry" as if it were one single body with a unified stance. That is simply incorrect, and displays an Anti-masonic bias. Blueboar (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to jump in, forgive the bold, I just want it easy to read. So it stands apart a bit from the rest of the discussion. I agree that bias and point-of-view nonsense has to be kept out...but let me tell you about Los Cristeros and their legacy.

If my grandmother had not been so incredibly brave and clever, I wouldn't be here. She and my mother were home alone when the Cristeros came to town. Those people pillaged, raped and burned the Church. "They were highwaymen, robbers, brigands and murderers," according to my mother who was about 19 when the attack happened.

This, since it is my family's recollection and they were there, cannot be introduced by me into the article, but I hope it gives you all a perspective of these people and what their caliber really was. They were no heroes. My grandmother was a God-fearing 3rd Order Carmelite and my whole family was deeply Catholic. No one at the time knew we were really Jews--Conversos. And my mother barely escaped with her life.76.195.85.164 (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)'

I too would like to add some perspective from my uncle that witnessed the Cristero War. My uncle, Luis Maldonado (my grandfather's older brother), told me his older brother was killed by the Cristero rebellion when they entered the village of Aguililla, in the state of Michoacan. He told me the following. The rebels came into town and some sympathizers would tell them which homes had men of fighting age, weapons, and food. The rebels would forcefully help themselves to whatever they needed. When the Cristeros started for my uncles home, he grabbed the family pistol and ran to escape capture. In those days, if the rebels found a pistol in a home, they would have destroyed everything in the home for fear that the home may belong to a potential enemy. As he headed for the hills, the men shot at hit but missed. As my uncle got over the hill, another group of Cristeros were waiting for him and they shot him dead. They took his pistol and left him there. My uncle Luis was around 8 years old when he saw his brother murdered. While he remained a devout Catholic until his death in 2007, he told me he always feared the church's bandits more than the Mexican government. Chubbylopez (talk) 06:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chubbylopez (talk • contribs) 06:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some clear examples of why the neutrality of this wiki-article is dubious. The facts have been twisted around so as to present the image that the Mexican Constitution of 1917 is anti-catholic, when in reality this constitution is liberal, and liberal does not mean anti-catholic. Here are the details:

• The real Article 4 says that all people, men and women, are all equal under the law. While the text in this wiki-article says that: ... and ordered the closing of all church-run primary schools (article 4). This second prohibition was sometimes interpreted to mean that the Church could not even give religious instruction to children within the churches on Sundays, effectively destroying the ability of Catholics to be educated in their own religion.

• The real Article 5 says that citizens of the United Mexican States are all free to work in the profession of their choosing, as long as it does not attack the rights of others. While the text in this wiki-article says that: The Constitution of 1917 also closed and forbade the existence of monastic orders (article 5).

• The real Article 24 says that all religious acts will be ordinarily practiced in temples, and those that are extraordinarily practiced outside temples must adhere to law. Notice that real text says that the religious acts that are extraordinarily practiced outside temples would be overseen by the government, while the text in this wiki-article says that: ... forbade any religious activity outside of church buildings (now owned by the government), and mandated that such religious activity would be overseen by the government (article 24).

• This wiki-article says that: Article 27 prohibited any future acquisition of such property by the churches, when in reality this prohibition is done in the real Article 130.

I really think that someone educated in law should review the text of this wiki-article talking about the Mexican Constitution of 1917, because the facts are being twisted around so as to give the impression that the actual Mexican Constitution is highly anti-catholic, and so the neutrality issue stands for itself.--189.217.193.164 (talk) 15:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutral anti-Catholic?

I must object to the post above. Probably no one's reading this, but even though Chubby who is oviously not around now isn't anti-Catholic--he's repeating what his relative told him--I don't think there is room on the article for unsubstantiated anti-religion rhetoric there. I do not know what "the church's bandits" is supposed to mean, but the Mexican people never had to fear the Catholic Church sending an army of bandits in this time period.

I know the family feelings of anti-Catholicism because my people are Sefardita Jews, even though it is plain we became Catholic. Even as Catholics, my family had anti-Catholic inclinations, but that did not lead to violence, and my family never spoke nonsense about "bandits" affiliated with the Church.75.21.115.123 (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)