Byzantium or Holy Roman Empire: Will the True Rome Please Stand?

By Phillip Campbell

Perhaps no entity has left such an enduring mark on Western civilization as the Roman Empire. Rome’s history, language, religion, culture, law, and political institutions have profoundly shaped the development of the western world. Nor is Rome’s influence merely historical; women in 2023 were surprised when a popular TikTok trend revealed that, even now, the average man thinks about the Roman Empire at least once per day. Clearly, Rome maintains an impressive hold on the popular imagination.

Indeed, Rome’s legacy is so illustrious that many other entities throughout history have claimed to be the successor states to the Roman Empire, asserting political or cultural continuity with Rome in an attempt to harness Rome’s illustrious heritage for themselves. The Holy Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire are the two most notable examples, but Tsarist Russia also claimed to be Rome’s successor (the word Tsar means Caesar; the imperial name Romanov means “Roman” or “descendant of Roman”). In the Middle Ages, the Seljuks created the Sultanate of Rum (Rome) in eastern Anatolia, from the Parthian word for Rome. The Ottoman Turks, as well, laid claim to Rome’s legacy. After the Turks overran Constantinople in 1453, Sultan Mehmet II adopted the titles kayser-i rûm (“Caesar of Rome”) and basileus (“emperor”) and argued that the Turkish Sultans were the legitimate successors to the Roman Emperors. The Ottoman writers referred to the Ottoman Empire diyar-I Rûm (“lands of Rome”), memalik-i Rum (“Roman realms”), and just Rûm ("Rome"). And as late as 1912, the Greek-speaking populace of the Aegean island of Lemnos was referring to themselves as “Romans” (Ῥωμαῖοι) rather than Hellenes (Ἕλληνες).

With so many polities claiming to be the successor state of Rome, is there any way of determining who has the strongest claim? Among the various claimants, the Byzantine Empire and the Holy Roman Empire are generally considered the strongest. We shall consider the arguments for each in turn in hopes of determining which of these has the strongest claim to being the successor of the Roman Empire.

Byzantium: Rome’s Institutional Successor

The origin of the Byzantine Empire came from the division of Rome into eastern and western halves during the 3^rd and 4^th centuries. This division was first made by Diocletian in AD 286, but proved to be impermanent, as Constantine would reunite the eastern and western halves in 324. Constantine would move Rome’s capital east, to the city of Byzantium on the Bosporus, which he refounded as Constantinople. Constantinople would go on to become the most important city in the east and the center of the Roman world from the 4^th century on.

By the late 4^th century, economic and military pressures made it too difficult to keep the empire’s sprawling territories together. The Roman Empire was again divided after the death of Theodosius in 395, with the eastern and western halves going to each of his sons. This division proved to be permanent, and the two halves of Rome became increasingly estranged, politically and culturally. The Western Roman Empire would devolve into a heavily Germanized entity whose emperors were dominated by a barbarian military junta, whereas the Eastern Roman Empire became an increasingly bureaucratized and commercialized state coextensive with the Greek-speaking lands of the eastern Mediterranean.

The Western Roman Empire fell to the barbarian hordes of Odoacer in 476 when the last Roman Emperor—Romulus Augustulus—was deposed at Ravenna. Rather than take the imperial title for himself, Odoacer sent the imperial insignia back to Constantinople, informing the Eastern Roman Emperor, Zeno, that Italy no longer needed an emperor. Instead, Odoacer took the title “King of Italy.” Thus, Western Europe began its gradual metamorphosis into the various kingdoms of the Middle Ages.

The Eastern Roman Empire, however, continued on. In the absence of its Latin-speaking counterpart, the Eastern Roman Empire became heavily “Greekified” in language and culture. The final emperor with any competency on Latin was Justinian (r. 527-565), after which the government of the Eastern Roman Empire became exclusively Greek speaking. Today, historians tend to refer to this medieval, Greek-speaking entity as the Byzantine Empire, although the distinction between the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire is more academic than actual—in reality, there is no hard cut-off point where the Eastern Roman Empire “becomes” Byzantine. The evolution is organic and gradual. This empire continued on until 1453, when, greatly reduced by the Turks, it was finally conquered by Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II. Right up until the very end, Byzantium’s emperors regarded themselves as Roman Emperors. The Byzantines called themselves Romaioi (Ῥωμαῖοι), that is, “Romans.”

Considered structurally, Byzantium has the strongest case to be Rome’s successor state simply by virtue of the continuity of its institutions. The Byzantine army developed out of the Roman army. The Byzantine bureaucracy at Constantinople emerged out of the court established by Constantine at the time of the city’s foundation. Byzantium’s territories were defined by the boundaries delineated in Roman times. The relationship between the Byzantine monarchs and the Patriarchs of Constantinople followed a trajectory determined during the late Empire. Perhaps the most direct continuity was in the office of the basileus, the Byzantine emperors themselves, who stood in a direct line of nearly unbroken succession back to Augustus.

In an institutional sense, Byzantium is the Eastern Roman Empire, and hence the case for Byzantium is fairly cut and dry. But what if institutional continuity is not the only consideration?

The Holy Roman Empire: Rome’s Ideological Successor

In the assessment above, you may have noticed a reference to Byzantium’s “direct line of nearly unbroken succession back to Augustus.” That “nearly” refers to a five year lacuna in the otherwise unbroken Byzantine succession, from 797 to 802, a period of immense importance in Christian history.

The late 8^th century had been a tumultuous time in Byzantium. The century began with a Muslim assault on Constantinople and ended with the chaos of the Iconoclast heresy. The premature death of Emperor Leo IV in 780 brought the nine-year-old Constantine VI to the throne under the regency of his mother, Irene of Athens. Irene would end up seizing power from her son, however, having him blinded and deposed in 797 and ruling as an empress for the next five years, until her own deposition in 802.

Meanwhile, events in the west were unfolding that would change the destiny of Christendom. At this time the most powerful ruler in Europe was the Frankish monarch, Charles, son of Pepin, better known to history as Charlemagne, of the Carolingian dynasty. From the Pyrenees to the North Sea to the banks of the Danube, Charlemagne’s might went unchallenged. It was thus in 799, when Pope Leo III was driven from Rome by a coup, that he fled to Charlemagne’s court at Paderborn to ask the king’s assistance in reclaiming Rome. Charlemagne restored Leo to power the following year and spent Christmas with the pope in Rome. It was after Mass on Christmas Day of the year 800 that Pope Leo placed an imperial crown on Charlemagne’s head and proclaimed him Emperor of the Romans.

The coronation was of pivotal importance in the history of Christendom and Europe—probably the most monumental event to happen on Christmas since the birth of Christ. But what of Empress Irene? How could Pope Leo proclaim Charlemagne Roman emperor when there was already a Roman empress ruling from Constantinople?

This is the beginning of the medieval notion of the translatio imperii, the idea that the imperial authority (imperium), the highest secular power in Christendom, had been “transferred” from the Byzantines to Charlemagne by the Pope. This concept of translatio imperii is of supreme importance, as the validity of the imperial title in the west depended upon it. Pope Leo’s action was based on the premise that the Byzantine Empress Irene was a usurper. There had never been a custom in the Roman Empire—legal or otherwise—of a woman wielding imperial authority. Irene had succeeded her son Constantine VI to the Byzantine throne as empress, a succession neither the pope nor the Franks regarded as valid, since no woman could hold imperial authority. Leo III thus regarded the Byzantine throne as sede vacante and liable to be bestowed upon whomever he wished, by virtue of the pope’s plenitudo potestatis (fullness of power). We see here an emergent theory of papal power whereby the pope has the right to designate imperial succession in cases when the throne has fallen vacant—essentially, that the imperial office “reverts” to the papacy when the imperial line has faltered.

It is often assumed that the bestowal of the imperial title on Charlemagne was an attempt to resurrect the Western Roman Empire. This is false. You will notice that the coronation of Charlemagne is called the translatio (transfer) imperii, nor a resurrectio imperii. In crowning Charlemagne, the pope was not resurrecting the Western Roman Empire that had fallen in 476 but transferring the imperial title from Byzantium to Charlemagne. In other words, Charlemagne was the successor not of Romulus Augustulus, but of Constantine VI. The imperial authority, though divided in the latter Roman Empire, was ultimately one. There could only be one imperium recognized by Christians. This was an assumption inherited from late Roman times that was still held in Carolingian times. The Christian empire was a kind of holy reflection of the kingdom of heaven. An elaboration of this ideology can be found in the writings of the Irish monk Hibernicus, who was a scholar of Charlemagne’s retinue. Hibernicus wrote, “There is only one who is enthroned in the realm of the air [i.e., God]. It is proper that under Him, one only be the ruler on earth, in merit an example to all men.”[i] Just as oneness was a property of God, so must it be a property of His imperium.

The pope, as Vicar of Christ, claimed the authority to be able to “translate” this one authority back to the west when the line of succession died in the east. Charlemagne thus became the imperial authority in Christendom. The papacy would exercise this prerogative again when the Carolingian line faltered and the imperial crown was bestowed upon Otto the Saxon in 962 by Pope John XII, reestablishing the imperium in the hands of the Germans and constituting what would become known as the Holy Roman Empire.

The legitimacy of the Holy Roman Empire as a true successor state to ancient Rome depends upon one’s acceptance of the theory of translatio imperii, which holds the pope as the custodian of the imperial title. The concept of translatio imperii was widely assumed throughout the high Middle Ages and was explicitly taught by Pope Innocent III. In the context of the 13^th century papal conflict with the Hohenstaufen emperors, Innocent argued that the pope is superior to the Holy Roman Emperor. Innocent went back to the occasion of Charlemagne’s coronation by Pope Leo III, pointing out that, though the Holy Roman Emperors are elected by a body of German princes, the fact that the emperor is a German at all and not a Greek is because the papacy transferred the imperium from the Greeks to the Germans at the time of Charlemagne. Thus, all German emperors owe homage to the papacy, from whom not only their regal authority but all powers and dignities of the imperium were derived. In his famous decretal Venerabilem of 1202, Innocent stated:

[T]he right and authority to elect a king (later to be elevated to the Imperial throne) belongs to those princes to whom it is known to belong by right and ancient custom; especially as this right and authority came to them from the Apostolic See, which transferred the Empire from the Greeks to the Germans in the person of Charles the Great.[ii]

This notion of the papal transfer of the empire (translatio imperii) became a stock argument of the papal loyalists for the duration of the Middle Ages and was repeatedly invoked until the Reformation. Of course, the translatio imperii is not exactly a religious dogma, and we should not attribute any note of infallibility to Innocent’s teaching. Rather, translatio imperii was an attempt to create conceptual schema for understanding the western imperial title within the ideological framework of papal power accepted at the time.

One will notice that the arguments for the Holy Roman Empire are incredibly abstract. They center on a theoretical notion of a singular Christian imperium, which, as we have said, could be wielded by one claimant and no other. Furthermore, they require us to accept that the pope is the steward of this imperium, who, by virtue of his plenitudo potestatis, could bequeath it to whomever he chose. If Byzantium’s claim was based on institutional continuity, we may consider the Holy Roman Empire’s claim to rest on an ideological basis. Whereas the Byzantines considered the imperium as inalienably vested in the Byzantine emperor and the concrete structures of the imperial court at Constantinople, the popes viewed the imperium as an alienable quality that could be transferred. It could be said that, for the Latin west, the idea of empire was far more important than whether the ideal could be satisfactorily realized.

Become a Supporter

Chapter 2

The Rise of the Cristeros

By Mark Fellows

“The Torch of Faith flickers, the sign of redemption is hidden, and the cries of the impious suffocate the voices of good men and the clamor of religion. Save us Lord, for we are dying!” Mexican Bishop Ruiz y Flores, a published prayer prayed on the last day of religious services in Mexico, July, 1926.

The 1857 Laws of Reform sought to separate the Church in Mexico from the State. The 1917 Constitution sought to subordinate the Church to the State. Some congressmen used extravagant rhetoric to justify this progression.

“The clergy is the most dismal, most perverse enemy of the fatherland! shouted Francisco J. Mugica, who had once been expelled from the Zamora Seminary…for these new and angry Jacobins, the Church was a den of thieves, outlaws, con men…

“A man named Recio from Yucatan proposed that confession be constitutionally prohibited, while delegate Alonso Romero elaborated a multiple image of the woman at confession as an adulteress, the priests as satyrs, and the husbands - who would allow their wives to pour the secrets of home into the licentious ears of priests - as pimps.”[1]

Minority opposition to the new Constitution predicted the radicals would not be content

“with smashing the images of the Saints, pulling the rosaries to pieces, tearing down the crucifixes, getting rid of Novenas and suchlike frivolities, shutting the door against priests, and abolishing freedom of association so that nobody can go to Church to make contact with the clergy...

“It should destroy religious freedom altogether, and after that, in an orgy of sated intolerance, they (radicals) will be able to promulgate this one article: in the Mexican Republic there will only be guarantees for those who think as we do.”[2]

Strict enforcement of the Constitution would have made it nearly impossible for the Church to operate. It mandated secular education in all schools, prohibited religious vows, religious orders, and religious instruction. It would have forbade public worship and made it legally impossible for the Church to own property. The constitutional article that caused the most opposition was Article 130. A secular historian writes:

“It effectively reduced the clergy to second class status, and was one of the most openly restrictive laws against a single group of citizens enacted in modern times. Clergy were denied such basic liberties as the right to vote, to hold office, to criticize public officials, or to comment on public affairs in religious periodicals.

“The Church was denied a juridical personality, state legislatures were empowered to regulate the number of clergy allowed to practice in their states, and jury trial was denied in cases relating to violations of the articles.”[3]

Resistance

Opposition to the new Constitution was widespread and took many forms: passive resistance, active resistance (with bloodshed and death), and economic boycotts of Masonic and government businesses. The boycotts, which were very effective in central Mexico, were organized by various Catholic Action associations. The most prominent organization was the National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty (known as the Liga).

The Liga initially had the blessing of the Mexican episcopate, but as events escalated the Liga began advocating open warfare. The Liga’s encouragement of the Cristeros caused the majority of the Mexican episcopate (and Pope Pius XI) to withdraw their blessing, leaving the Liga a suspect organization in the eyes of many Mexican Catholics.

Another Catholic Action organization was Union Popular (UP). Its leader, Anacleto Gonzalez Flores, was as opposed to violence as the Liga was disposed to it. A lawyer and a layman, Flores organized peaceful boycotts in the state of Jalisco that crushed Masonic and government friendly businesses, including an anti-Catholic newspaper. Flores asked for a ban on eating meat, and butchers went out of business. Flores asked citizens to use candles at night, and the local electrical plant was forced to suspend operation. Even children joined the boycotts, mortifying themselves and ice cream vendors on hot days by demanding to see the vendor’s UP card before making a purchase.

Although effective on a local level, the boycotts did not change the government’s anti-clerical policies. Ironically, some of the more vocal opponents to Catholic boycotts were wealthy Catholics. This frustrated Flores, who believed that “If we really knew how to act as Catholics, we could make our enemies die of hunger.”[4] Committed to non-violent resistance, the man known as El Maestro believed martyrdom could change history:

“The offering of a martyr will never perish…The sacrifice of martyrs has written pages in history that will remain there forever. He (the martyr) has touched the living flesh of future generations and every day performs the miracle of reviving our spirits through the shedding of his blood…

“The martyr is and always has been the first citizen of a strange and unforeseen democracy who, in violent times, sacrifices his life so that his offering or his memory will never be extinguished.”[5]

Flores’ words prophesied his own life two years later. There would be many non-violent martyrs in Mexico besides Flores and Padre Pro. There were many others who could not in conscience allow evil to run free. Love of the Church and hatred of the Revolution united in a stream of passion that cried: “Better to die than deny Christ the King, without fearing martyrdom or death, in whatever form it might come! Sons, do not be cowards! Up and defend a just cause!”[6]

Women prayed inside the Guadalupe Sanctuary in Guadalajara while outside their husbands chanted “Viva Cristo Rey!” and “Viva la Virgen de Guadalupe!” Undaunted by scoffers, the men began demanding that passersby doff their hats and shout “Viva Cristo Rey!” Truckloads of troops arrived to break things up and the Catholics fired back. When a soldier entered the Sanctuary and began shooting at a statue of the Virgin of Guadalupe, a Catholic maiden stabbed him to death.[7]

Archbishop Leopoldo Ruiz y Flores, a bishop in the Central Mexican state of Michoacan, exhorted Catholics to non-violent resistance:

“(The Catholic Faith) must awaken in the soul such a love of Christ that, like the Apostles, we are disposed to build His Kingdom even at the cost of our own lives, and that, like the martyrs, we are prepared to lose everything before committing apostasy…

“Nothing will be able, as St. Paul says, to separate us from Christ. With His love reigning in us, in this world we shall reign with Him, because we shall know how to overcome all that would subjugate us.”[8]

Eloquent words indeed, but difficult to apply in episodes of heated human conflict, like when a group of two hundred Catholics protested their local government’s refusal to forward their petitions against the 1917 Constitution. A captain drew his gun and fired, then was attacked by the crowd and killed. His troops opened fire. Were the corpses laying on the streets non-violent protestors? Did it make a difference?

The Calles Law

The Revolution was a juggernaut that could be stalled by Catholic Action but not derailed. Organized resistance slowed the secular tide but could not reverse it. Areas of Mexico that offered token resistance were steamrolled by enforcement of the 1917 Constitution.

The most rigourous application was by Governor Garrido Canabal of Tabasco. All the churches were closed, then either destroyed or converted to government use. The bishops were deported. Only married priests were legally allowed to reside in Tabasco, which of course disqualified all priests.

Homes were stripped of all religious images. A law was passed requiring the eating of meat on Christian fast days. Celebration of Christmas was banned. Canabal’s enforcers were known as the Red Shirts. Upon saluting their leader he asked them, “Does God exist?”, and they replied, “He has never existed.” American businessman John W. Dulles observed:

“At an exhibition of livestock a fine bull on exhibit would be called ’God,’ a donkey named ’Christ,’ a cow named ’The Virgin of Guadalupe,’ an ox named ’The Pope,’ a hog named ’The Archbishop,’ etc…

“Among the children of the dictator was a son named Lenin and a daughter named Zoila Libertad (I am Liberty), a name which at one time provoked the saying that the only liberty existing in Tabasco was the daughter of Garrido - who was sometimes accompanied by a nephew named Luzbel (Lucifer).”[9]

When Plutarco Calles became President of the Mexican Republic he applied the 1917 Constitution to all of Mexico, despite opposition from virtually all the country’s citizenry. Bishop Mora y del Rio declared a Catholic campaign would work to repeal those parts of the Constitution the Church considered unjust, adding: “We cannot for any reason change this position without betraying our Faith and our Religion.”[10]

Working peacefully to change unjust laws was hardly an inflammatory idea, particularly since the 1917 Constitution explicitly stated it could be reformed. Yet Del Rio’s statement deeply offended President Calles, who was “so violent on the religious question that he lost his temper every time anyone mentioned the subject in his presence.” The Turk was

“a malignant and implacable enemy of the Roman Catholic Church…he has resolved to exterminate the Catholic Faith from Mexico…(he) possessed an energy which did not stop short of obstinacy and cruelty…

“He was prepared to attack not only persons but also principles and even the institution itself…(He) condemned as economically and politically disastrous the very existence of the Church.”[11]

Calles passed a series of self titled laws making it a criminal offense (five years in prison) for a priest to criticize the government or attempt to instruct Catholics (or non-Catholics) in the faith. The Calles Law also required all parish priests to register with the government or have their churches closed, a regulation helping the government regulate downward the number of priests in a given area.

The Calles laws gave the government almost complete control over the lives of priests. Copycat laws sprang up; one statute listed “harmful elements” of society that were subject to “security measures” as “the insane, degenerates, drug users, alcoholics, professional beggars, prostitutes, priests, and homosexuals.”[12]

Calles later admitted he was intentionally provoking the Church.[13] It worked. The First clash came in Mexico City, where priests ignored the law requiring them to get permission to say Mass in a church. Government agents closed down the church, triggering a three hour riot in the streets between police and two thousand protestors.

The government told the press the violence was the work of “mindless fanatics” manipulated by malevolent clergy. Calles talked publicly about the history of the Church in Mexico being “that past which I strongly wish to see liquidated.”[14]

An important part of that past was the Virgin of Guadalupe. A plot was hatched to confiscate the miraculous, bomb-proof tilma from the Basilica. Catholics got wind of the plot, and at the appointed hour ringed the inside and outside of the Basilica in thousands. Government officials and their troops arrived, took one look at the crowd, and made as dignified retreat as possible under the circumstances.[15]

When a parish church in the state of Nayarit was attacked the parishioners fought back, driving the intruders from the church and soundly beating the state police commissioner and other government agents who had entered the church with drawn guns, demanding the priest leave.[16]

Another attempt was made to take over a church in Nayarit, and this time three government agents lost their lives.[17] Angry Catholics descended upon the governor, who quickly signed a decree promising he would not attempt further enforcement of the 1917 Constitution.[18] The government tried to shut down a church in Jalisco but  parishioners beat back the attempt, killing another government agent in the battle.[19]

Yet the government was successful in closing dozens of other churches, as well as seminaries, schools, monasteries, convents, and orphan asylums. Laws were enforced severely limiting the number of priests in any given diocese or state. Archbishop Flores of Michoacan suspended public worship in protest, and angry Catholics again confronted the government, which backed down, and worked out a compromise both sides could live with. A similar scenario was seen in San Luis Potosi, where the government attempted to reduce the number of priests. After a pitched street battle the government backed down.[20]

In St. Rafael Church troops fired on Catholics who refused to leave the church, while women on the roof hurled stones at the soldiers.[21] In Guadalajara more street fighting occurred when the government tried to take over churches. When the smoke cleared there were many dead and wounded, and hundreds in jail; the government had succeeded in taking only one church.

Day long battles to the death over churches became the norm, although this fact was not allowed space in the newspapers. A quote by President Calles appeared, however, in which he called the struggle between the Church and the Revolution “the struggle between darkness and light.”[22]    It certainly was.

The Mexican episcopate continued to counsel non-violence, and to work legally to amend the Constitution. The militant Catholic laity took the fight to the Masonic government. If they were losing the war, they were at least winning some battles.

Calles failed to shut down the Church in Mexico. Ironically, it would be the Mexican episcopate, with the approval of Pope Pius XI, that would effectively end organized worship in Mexico.

Become a Supporter

By Mark Fellows

Proof that winners write the history books is found in history's treatment of the Cristiada, the peasant rising against the revolutionary government that was persecuting the Church in Mexico in the mid 1920's. English-language history books note the rising in a page or two, making liberal use of adjectives like 'violent,' 'extremist,' and 'fanatical.' The subject is closed by noting that the revolutionary government in Mexico struck a deal with the Vatican and the Church in Mexico wherein the government lost nothing, and many of the peasants - better known as the Cristeros - lost their lives after being ordered by the Church to stop fighting.

In the eyes of the world, the Cristeros were the ultimate losers. Not even their Church supported them at the end. They were not respectable. They were not considered good Catholics by many of their co-religionists. A handful of priests supported them, and fewer bishops. Scorned by the world, the Church, and history, the Cristeros are now but a quirky footnote in the saga of Benign Progress.

At one time, however, they spoke for themselves, in words simple and unbowed by human respect, in tones undaunted by the Revolution, or by historians that seek to swallow the light of the Sun:

"I know only too well that what is beginning now for us is a Calvary. We must be ready to take up and carry our crosses ... If one of you should ask me what sacrifice I am asking of you in order to seal the pact we are going to celebrate, I will tell you in two words: your blood. If you want to proceed, stop dreaming of places of honor, military triumphs, braid, luster, victories, and authority over others. Mexico needs a tradition of blood in order to cement its free life of tomorrow. For that work my life is available, and for that tradition I ask yours…[1]

The Cristeros picked up their weapons when the Church in Mexico closed down. They fought and died until the Church reopened. In the history of the Revolution versus the Church in Mexico, they were followed the same, narrow, bloody path.

They did not begin hostilities, they engaged the hostilities of a godless, violent government with their pitchforks, scythes, knives, horses, and guns. An accurate picture of the Cristeros must balance the nature of their response against the extremities that provoked their response ...

Explosions

The Basilica was filled with people when the main altar seemed to explode. Hidden in a floral arrangement at the foot of the  altar, a bomb detonated with force. Chunks of the marble altar were blown into the air. A great iron crucifix was twisted like a pretzel. Behind the mangled altar, the tilma displaying the miraculous image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was somehow untouched by the explosion.

The year was 1921, and the bomb was the most recent in a series of outrages against the Catholic Church in Mexico. A bomb blew up at the door of the Archbishop of Mexico, Monsignor Jose Moray del Rio, when the Archbishop was publicly critical of socialism. A week later the Cathedral in Morelia Michoacan was bombed. When angry Catholics met afterwards, revolutionaries attacked the meeting and killed fifty people.[2]

It was appropriate, in a way, that the explosions and murders occurred during the centenary of Mexico's independence. In 1821 she declared herself free of Spanish rule, and although Roman Catholicism was initially retained as the national religion, the new nation soon found herself under the influences of the Enlightenment, liberalism, and Freemasonry.

Scottish Rite masonry was introduced to Mexico courtesy of the mother country, Spain, who had received Masonry from Bonaparte's France.[3] The sons and daughters of wealthy Mexicans were educated in Europe, and returned as liberals. Of equal influence was Mexico's northern neighbor, the Protestant­ Masonic United States of America.

Ambassador Poinsett

The American government happily recognized Mexico's independence, but it was not until 1825 that President Monroe appointed as ambassador to Mexico one Joel Roberts Poinsett, a Congressman from South Carolina whose diplomacy set the tone for Mexican­ American relations.

"Poinsett was an outspoken proponent of U.S.­ style liberalism: decentralized, constitutional, republican government; anti-clericalism; and free trade ... Poinsett found like-minded cohorts in the York Rite Masonic Lodge, which he helped to organize in Mexico. The York Rite Masons (Yorkinos) were rivals of the Scottish Rite Masons (Escoceses), and the two lodges increasingly emerged as bitter, secretive political clubs."[4]

The Scottish Rite Masons were, relatively speaking, more conservative than the Yorks, seeking influence through the aristocracy and the military. The Yorks were more radical, advocating an uncompromising democracy and destruction of the Church. "The basic ideological cleavage (conservative­ liberal) was manifested in branches of Freemasonry to which many leaders, including Catholic priests, belonged ... Masonry provided meeting places and support for politicians and plotters during the earliest years of the Mexican republic."[5]

Poinsett's influence is worth noting at some length because it is consistent with later American policies towards Mexico, differing only in degree. Many of Poinsett's assumptions about the Mexican people, and the Church in Mexico, were shared by future American politicians. In his book, Notes From Mexico, Poinsett called the Mexican aristocracy "an ignorant and immoral race." As for the clergy,

"The regular clergy formed from the very dregs of the people, was then and is now disgustingly debauched and ignorant. They have lost the influence they formerly possessed over the common people, and so sensible are they of the universal contempt which they have brought upon themselves by their unworthy conduct, that they would not oppose a thorough reform of their orders if the Government had courage to attempt it."

As for the Indians, "they either gamble away their money, or employ it in pageants of the Catholic Church, in which pagan and Christian rites are strangely mingled. All these evils, if not cured entirely, would be greatly mitigated by education ..."[6] To this end the Grand Lodge of Mexico (York Rite), which Poinsett founded, collaborated with him on a resolution to "Improve the moral condition of the people by depriving the clergy of its monopoly on public education ..."[7]

Poinsett was in Mexico long enough to witness some of the consequences of his ideas, though it is doubtful he equated the weakening of the Church with the weakening of public morals, which resulted in "a pestilence of robbers":

"there were ubiquitous bandits, robbers and pickpockets waiting to remove possessions and threaten lives. Even in Mexico City, the American minister Joel Poinsett and other visitors noted that despite good lighting and patrols, robberies, murders, and assassinations were so frequent that everyone of substance went about heavily armed ... when one visitor reported to the magistrate that he had run through an attacker with his sword and wounded others, he was told that the best advice was to keep quiet about the incident."[8]

Moreover, even if one grants that certain priests were not up to the calling of their office, it is still true that the clergy as a group received far more respect from Mexicans (including bandits) than Poinsett, who was so roundly hated in Mexico that his very presence caused riots.[9] The authors of The Oxford History of Mexico assert that:

"Poinsett developed close ties to radical Mexican congressmen, exerting much influence over them through their membership in the Masonic lodge. His indiscreet participation in Mexican domestic politics even made his friend Vicente Guerrero, president of the Mexican Republic, ask for his recall in 1829."[10]

He is remembered for none of this. Today we know Joel Roberts Poinsett as the amateur botanist who introduced to the United States a Mexican plant often used as a Christmas decoration. Dubbed the Poinsettia by Americans, the Christmas Flower is an ironic legacy for America's first Ambassador to Mexico.

The New Rulers

Poinsett's Masonic comrade in arms, Valentin Gomez Farias, became acting President of Mexico in 1832.[11] He exiled bishops, forbade the Church to educate Mexicans, claimed the power to appoint bishops and other Church officials, and secularized the Franciscan missions of California, seizing their funds and property.[12] The people revolted. Farias' short rule "was a disastrous failure, in that it united all his enemies," even the moderates.[13] General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna took the reins, let the bishops back into Mexico, and took no action on Farias' other anti-clerical initiatives.

The following thirty years saw Santa Anna move in and out of exile as the power in Mexico shifted from conservative to radical Freemasons: "Freemasonry and the Government were, in fact, closely linked, so closely that it was necessary to be a Mason to be appointed to any important post," including the military.[14] United by their hatred of the Roman Church, Mexican Freemasons didn't seem to like each other very much either. Coup upon coup occurred, overtures of violence replete with bloodshed and glossed by fine rhetoric.

The Mexican government grew and grew, particularly the military, which served as the lever of power in Mexico, but was inept at protecting Mexico from the United States. In the 1840's the United States declared war on Mexico after the Mexican government expelled an American ambassador who offered to buy California. Faced with a common enemy, liberal and conservative Mexican Freemasons stopped killing each other and united, but it was too late. Armed Progress landed at Vera Cruz and marched to Mexico City, which it conquered and occupied. The American army's marching song was

"Green Grow the Rashes O", from which came the derisive Mexican term for North Americans, "gringo." The peace terms exacted a severe price on Mexico.

They lost half their territory for fifteen million dollars, barely enough to temporarily move the Masonic government out of bankruptcy. In return, the United States gained California, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, thus extending its borders from sea to shining sea.

The Laws of Reform

By the 1850's Mexicans had lived under five constitutions and fifty-one presidents.[15] Revolutions, insurrections, and coups were the order of the day. Mexicans reflected the incompetence and murderous temperament of their government, prompting a French ambassador to remark that ''bandit gangs were the only Mexican institution that functioned with perfect regularity."[16]

The Revolution, however, was just warming up. In 1855 the first Laws of Reform were formulated, and they continued in waves for the next decade. The reforms sought to nullify the Church's influence on Mexican culture, and subordinate the Church to the State.

More Church property was taken and sold in order to fill empty government coffers. Civil marriage was introduced, and liberal holidays honoring the revolutionary fathers replaced feast days of the Church. Public worship was banned, as was clerical dress. Religious orders were suppressed. Even church bells were subject to regulation. Catholicism was no longer recognized as the religion of Mexico. Instead, 'religious freedom' was introduced, which meant that the Catholic Church was harassed and Protestant evangelization was encouraged.[17] Many American Protestants were enthusiastic supporters of the Revolution.

"When the Mexican Revolution began, the Protestant churches threw themselves into it almost unanimously because they believed that the progress of the Revolution represented what these churches had been preaching through the years and that the triumph of the Revolution meant the triumph of the Gospel. There were some entire congregations who, led by their pastors, volunteered for service in the Revolutionary Army"[18]

The Church rose in protest over the new laws. The Mexican episcopate had the full support of Pope Pius IX, who responded to the Laws of Reform with this declaration:

"We raise our Pontifical voice in apostolic liberty ... to condemn, reprove and declare null and void everything the said decrees and everything else that the civil authority has done in scorn of the ecclesiastical authority and of this Holy See."[19]

Conservatives in the military and the government revolted. The man responsible for the Laws of Reform, Benito Juarez, fled Mexico City, leaving the conservatives to set up a new government. Juarez eventually landed in Veracruz, setting up his own rival government. So began the War of the Reform, also known as The Three Years War, a bloody civil conflict that decided the future of Mexico - and who would write the history of the country.

The conservative army marched on Veracruz and blockaded the harbor. Things were grim for Juarez until he and his liberal government in exile "were unexpectedly saved by the intervention of the United States, whose government, though itself on the brink of civil war,"[20] sent ships to disable the Mexican ships and end the blockade. The tide of war shifted, and on January 1, 1861, the liberals recaptured Mexico City, thus ending the War of the Reform.

"Their (liberals) triumph officially banished the Conservative version of history. From then on, schoolchildren learned the history of the fatherland, described by Justo Sierra as 'a patriotic religion that unites and unifies us' through 'holy love' and 'deep devotion' for the (Liberal) heroes."[21]

In spite of their new heroes, or perhaps because of them, postwar Mexico was desolate and impoverished. So was the Church, which had

"lost almost all her imposing buildings, which had served as seminaries, colleges, religious houses, or charitable institutions. Almost all the libraries were taken by the government or destroyed. The Church passed through a time of anguish, as did the entire nation, impoverished by wars and discredited before the civilized world. The public treasury was bankrupt, backwardness and poverty were general, and divisions and grudges among the liberal leaders were implacable."[22]

Divisions disappeared where the Church was concerned:

"Eminent Liberals literally picked up axes to destroy altars, church facades, pulpits, and confessionals. Scenes out of the French Revolution were reenacted. Images of saints were decapitated, shot full of holes, burned in public autos-da-fe; Church treasuries were robbed, archives were plundered, ecclesiastical libraries went up in flames.

"Bishops were stoned to death, and Church property was auctioned off. Nuns who had spent their whole lives cloistered were suddenly forced out of their convents. Ocampo ordered the expulsion of all Catholic bishops from the country ... 'The government banishes the bishops,' exclaimed the young Ignacio Manuel Altamirano. 'It ought to hang them!"[23]

The liberal government, despite garnering $45,000,000 from the sale of Church property, was bankrupt, owing $80,000,000 on loans from other countries.[24] This provided the pretext for the next invasion of Mexico by one of its creditors, France. Taking advantage of the United States' Civil War, and intrigued by stories of the vast mineral wealth of Mexico, French Emperor Napoleon III, with the help of well placed Mexican conservatives, installed Archduke Maximilian of Habsburg as Emperor of Mexico. Juarez, "a cunning and ruthless politician who knew how to wait,"[25] returned to exile and bided his time.

Maximilian was about as Catholic as Juarez. He broke off relations with the papal nuncio, and ratified several of Juarez' anti-clerical laws. "The people in cassocks (the priesthood) are evil and weak," Maximilian declared. "The great majority of the country is liberal and wants progress in the most complete sense of the word."[26] The new emperor alienated the conservatives and the Church, and failed to win over the liberals. The other problem Maximilian had was one of succession. He had contracted syphilis from prostitutes, and his wife Carlota refused to know him.[27] His days were numbered, and only the presence of French troops lengthened his reign.

The American Civil War ended sooner than the French had hoped for, and the United States could now show its support for Juarez tangibly.

"Tons of surplus military equipment were transferred to the Mexican republican forces on the border, and about three thousand discharged veterans of the Union army went to Mexico and joined Juarez's forces."[28]

Then, on the pretext of exterminating stubborn Confederates, "General Grant ordered Major General Philip H. Sheridan, a keen liberal like himself, to the border with 42,000 men ... For a time it seemed that the U.S. Army might invade Mexico on behalf of that country's Republicans."[29]

The American government applied diplomatic pressure on Napoleon III to withdraw his troops. Fed up with Mexico, the Emperor complied, leaving Maximilian to twist in the wind.[30]

Carlota returned to France to persuade Napoleon to reconsider, but she became psychotic and was hospitalized in Belgium. She spent the last sixty years of her life insane, never knowing that her husband was captured by Juarez's forces and executed by a firing squad. This needless murder by the Revolution was criticized around the world, even by the United States government. Juarez responded that the execution of Maximilian was

"just, necessary, urgent, and inevitable ... We inherit the indigenous nationality of the Aztecs, and in full enjoyment of it, we recognize no foreign sovereigns, no judges, and no arbiters."[31]

So the list of new liberal heroes expanded to include the murderous Aztecs, whose tradition of shedding innocent blood was assumed by the Revolution. It is interesting that Benito Juarez, a full­ blooded Zapotec Indian (mortal enemies of the Aztecs) who received his education from the Jesuits, omitted the predominant tradition of blood that defeated the Aztecs: the blood of innocent martyrs for Christ, shed in emulation of the Master in the Christianizing of Mexico. If Juarez had forgotten this overshadowing tradition of blood that defeated the Aztecs, most of Mexico still had not, and many of them determined to take up their cross and follow the Master, even unto death.

Become a Supporter