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

Part I Recap:
Part I of this article (October 1997) explained that Charismatics gained "legitimacy" within the Catholic Church primarily due to the efforts of the late Cardinal Leon Joseph Suenens of Belgium. It was demonstrated that since Suenens was one of the most liberal Cardinals of this century, it follows that he would be enthusiastic about Protestant-styled Pentecostalism gaining a foothold within the Church. Suenens was a chief architect of the Vatican II revolution and a zealous promoter of the modernist notion of collegiality. He also challenged and undermined Catholic teaching against birth control, using collegiality as his principle weapon. Part II (the conclusion) will examine Cardinal Suenens’ ecumenism, syncretism, intercommunion, his role in the destruction of women’s religious orders, and his promotion of the Church’s "new openness to the world."

Two Bishops Sound a Warning:
In 1974, in a scathing criticism of the charismatic movement, the staunchly Orthodox Archbishop Dwyer of the United States said, "We regard it bluntly as one of the most dangerous trends in the Church in our time, closely allied in spirit with other disruptive and divisive movements; threatening grave harm to unity and damage to countless souls."¹

Joseph Fitcher, in his 1974 book The Catholic Cult of the Paraclete, mentioned that some Catholic prelates were "worried about the Protestant influence on their people" due to Pentecostalism. Fitcher quoted Bishop Joseph McKinney’s concern about Catholics being "misled and not being firmly grounded in theology."²

Bishops McKinney and Dwyer’s fears were well-founded, since one of the ecumenical consequences of "Catholic Pentecostalism" is the "breaking down of denominational walls" into a sort of pan-Christianity — with the Charismatic experience (rather than revealed truth) as the unifying factor.

This breaking down of denominational walls was most evident at the 1977 Charismatic Conference in Kansas City, Missouri, at which 50,000 people from at least 10 different denominations attended, including: Baptists, Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, Messianic Jews, nondenominational "Christians," Pentecostals, and United Methodists.³ Characteristically, Cardinal Suenens demonstrated his jubilant support by attending and lecturing at this interfaith event.

"The Holy Ghost Breakdown":
Catholic Pentecostal leader Kevin Ranaghan fondly recalled this "ecumenical milestone." In the opening address of the "Catholic" Charismatics’ 30th Anniversary conference in Pittsburgh (June 1997), Ranaghan recounted what he considered to be one of the most dramatic moments in charismatic history:

*"I can still see, in fact, I can still sometimes hear the ‘Holy Ghost breakdown’ at the great ecumenical Kansas City conference attended by about 50,000 people almost 20 years ago. Bob Mumford was preaching in the middle of the stadium, and suddenly it just broke out — it just broke out, exultant, cheering praise that lasted for about seventeen minutes."⁴

It seems that this ecumenical Kansas City conference took place because the Charismatics believed that they were told by Heaven that God wanted this interdenominational event to be staged. In the November 1977 issue of New Covenant, the magazine’s editor, Bert Ghezzi, wrote approvingly:

*"This conference brought together for the first time Christians from the three traditions of the charismatic renewal — the classic Pentecostals, the neo-Pentecostals, and the Catholic Pentecostal. This historic gathering was a first response to a directive word that the Lord spoke at a conference on the Catholic charismatic renewal in 1974. At that time, the Lord expressed His desire to bring the three streams together ... a sign of hope for all Christians ... the Lord called us all to reach beyond our denominational walls to work and pray aggressively for a higher goal — the unification of all Christianity."⁵ [emphasis added]

It is no wonder that Archbishop Dwyer regarded the charismatic movement as "one of the most dangerous trends in the Church in our time." Here we have the blasphemous inference that true Christian union exists outside of the Roman Catholic Church, with Catholicism represented as just one of the many religious bodies whose narrow denominational lines stand in opposition to Christian unity.

The so-called "directive word spoken by our Lord" is nothing more than an individual charismatic claiming to voice a "prophetic announcement" by the direct influence of the Holy Spirit. This is called "prophesying" — a boring, tedious procedure that is part of the Pentecostal routine, whether "Catholic" or Protestant. The "recipient" of the "message" has no means of testing whether this "prophecy" is from God, from his own imagination, or from the devil. Nor does he (nor anyone else in the assembly) think that the "message" should be tested in any way. Usually, the "prophetic announcement" is a banal platitude that anyone with minimal knowledge of religion could make up as he went along. In other words, it is quite easy to fake.

Yet each utterance is believed to be a direct communication from Heaven. Notice in the above quote, New Covenant’s Bert Ghezzi did not write that it was his opinion that the Lord was speaking. No, he emphatically stated that it was "a directive word of the Lord." Such presumption is foreign to the spirit of Catholicism, it defies 2000 years of Catholic teaching on the discernment of spirits, and opens wide the way for demonic deception.

Further, the organizing of the Kansas City conference was in obedience to a supposedly divine "directive" that commanded Catholics to do what a consistent line of Popes have always forbidden — an interfaith extravaganza of heretical sects with each denomination placed on equal footing with the other.⁶ To treat all religions as equal is in direct opposition to the infallible dogma that there is only one true Church outside of which there is no salvation. Pope Leo XIII reiterated this imperative when he taught that "to treat all religions alike" is to "adopt a line of action that will lead to godlessness."⁷

A New "Unity":
The so-called "Holy Ghost Breakdown," mentioned by Kevin Ranaghan, occurred when Protestant Bob Mumford was "preaching" to the 50,000. At one point, the entire football stadium suddenly erupted into an extended cheering, "praise-frenzy" that lasted more than a quarter of an hour. This, the charismatics claim, was the Holy Spirit at work on the assembly.

Such confusion is astonishing and justifies Bishop McKinney’s fears about Catholics being misled if they are not "firmly grounded in doctrine." In truth, a Catholic can only interpret this "breakdown" as springing from either natural (earthly) or preternatural (demonic) causes. The Holy Ghost had nothing to do with this Pentecostal eruption because, in the objective order, non-Catholics cannot be "filled to overflowing with the Holy Ghost." Non-Catholics live in denial of many of the Divine truths revealed by God and, in the objective order, cannot be considered to be in the state of grace. This is why Venerable Pope Pius IX taught in his Syllabus that it is an error to even entertain good hope for the salvation of those who live and die outside the Catholic Church.⁸

Yet, the charismatics interpret this natural pep-rally enthusiasm as "the Holy Ghost moving through the crowd" — a crowd where the vast majority were non-Catholics. Charismatics also choose to forget that Satan could easily instigate such a jubilant "breakdown" in order to deceive "even the elect."

In this case, deception was the name of the game. The result of this interfaith conference was the growing conviction that the unifying factor of Christ’s true faithful is Pentecostalism, and that no single denomination can claim to be His One True Church.

The Protestant Pentecostal, Dr. Vinson Syman from Oklahoma City, rejoiced that "three streams of Pentecostalism have come together tonight because we are one in the spirit." At a press conference later on, Syman said that regarding Church unity, "the place to start is with common spirituality," and that "the number-one thread that holds us together is the baptism of the spirit."⁹

In the book Charismatic Christianity as a Global Culture, Charles Nien Kirchen wrote:

*"As the flowering of first-generation charismatic conciliarism, Kansas City was a watershed in the evolution of the movement, which marked the triumph, at least temporarily, of an inclusive ‘renewal from within’ strategy over an exclusive, restorationist ecclesiology."¹⁰

By "exclusivist, restorationist ecclesiology," the author asserts that no single denomination can claim to be the one true religion established by Our Lord.

At the Kansas City conference, Cardinal Suenens behaved in a fashion that would bolster this new brand of unity. In The Pied Piper of the Pentecostal Movement, the anti-Catholic Wilson Ewin wrote in disgust that at this conference, Suenens, Thomas Zimmerman (Assemblies of God), J.O. Patterson (Church of God in Christ), and Archbishop Bill Burner (Anglican) "stood together before the vast multitude in an unprecedented demonstration of unity."¹¹

Yet this interfaith carnival was nothing new to Cardinal Suenens, who had already established himself as an ecumenical globe-trotter. If St. Paul’s motto was "woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel," Cardinal Suenens’ motto could have been, "woe to me if I do not preach ecumenism."

Ecumenism and Dialogue:
As has been noted, Suenens was one of the principal architects of the Vatican II revolution and was a militant propagator of collegiality, ecumenism, and "dialogue with the world." In the 1963 book Twelve Council Fathers, which contains interviews with a dozen prominent Cardinals at Vatican II, Cardinal Suenens clearly outlines that ecumenism was the pivotal principle directing the Church’s new course:

*"By our attention to the fact of the collegiality of the bishops, we will show the Orthodox that we are thinking along a line that means much to them. Moreover, by stressing the role of the laity in the Church, we will assure the Protestants that we hold something very dear to them — the sharing of the people in the royal priesthood of Jesus Christ. Thus, the Second Vatican Council will be an act of charity to our separated brethren — Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant — just as it will be an act of charity to Catholics in its return to the purity of the Gospel message."¹²

Putting aside the fact that the modus operandi of many heretics in Church history has been the alleged desire to "return to the purity of the Gospel message," one can easily see that dialogue and ecumenism was the driving force for Suenens who, as one of the four Cardinal moderators, wielded a tremendous influence at the Council.

In the book Vatican II Revisited, Bishop Aloysius Wycislo writes approvingly that Cardinal Suenens’ thinking was deeply influenced by the liberal Dutch theologian Edward Schillebeeckx.¹³ It was Suenens who also provided the name Lumen Gentium (The Light of the Nations) for the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church.¹⁴ It was also given to Suenens to deliver a special opening address at the 2nd Session of Vatican II¹⁵ after his old friend and close ally, Cardinal Montini, had been elected as Pope Paul VI.

The Church’s "commitment to dialogue" is largely the result of Cardinal Suenens’ influence. Bishop Wycislo writes that this theme of a "new openness to the world" seems to have sprung from a pastoral letter written by Suenens in early 1962 that fell into the hands of John XXIII. Pope John was quite enamored with the pastoral letter and asked Suenens to develop it as a theme for the upcoming Council.¹⁶ This suggests that the Rhine had already begun to flow into the Tiber even before the Council began.¹⁷

The theme of Cardinal Suenens’ pastoral letter became fully developed in one of the most radical and controversial of all Council documents, Gaudium et Spes, "The Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World." This lengthy document breathes the "spirit of Vatican II" like none other.

Michael Davies, the current president of Una Voce International, remarked that Gaudium et Spes is so un-Catholic in its ethos that it is difficult to understand how any self-respecting bishop could have signed it.¹⁸

Davies succinctly summarized that the novel spirit of this document not only conflicts with past Church teaching but that it is also utopian and unrealistic:

"Gaudium et Spes is pervaded by the notion that all men are basically men of good will, seeking the truth and anxious to do good. Far from the notion of conflict between the City of God and the City of Man (as set forth, for example, in the writings of St. Augustine and reiterated in Pope Leo XIII’s condemnation of Freemasonry, Humani Generis — Ed.), this constitution envisages a future where the two cities work together for the common good of mankind."¹⁹

Though Gaudium et Spes deserves an essay all by itself, it suffices to mention that the liberals themselves admit that this "Suenens-inspired" document is in direct contradiction to a consistent line of Papal teaching. The progressives celebrate Gaudium et Spes as a "counter syllabus"²⁰ — referring to the Syllabus of Pius IX.

Cardinal Suenens himself, in an indiscreet cockle-doodle of triumph, proclaimed:

*"Vatican II is the French Revolution in the Church ... One cannot understand the French or Russian Revolutions unless one knows something of the old regimes which they brought to an end ... It is the same in Church affairs: a reaction can only be judged in relation to the state of things that preceded it."²¹

What preceded it, of course, was that magnificent hierarchical constitution culminating in the Pope, the Vicar of Christ on earth. Suenens continued:

*"The Second Vatican Council marked the end of an epoch; and if we stand back from it a little more, we see it marked the end of a series of epochs, the end of an age."²¹

One of the many signs of this "end of the age" was the false idea that the Catholic Church was no longer to be the teacher of mankind but simply one of the many wise contributors to the building of a better earth — a new universal brotherhood. Gaudium et Spes and the Council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio) were the primary documents that succeeded in eclipsing the Church’s God-given commission to "Go forth and teach" with "go forth and dialogue."

Inter-Communion and Communion in the Hand:
Whether Suenens was in Belgium or on one of his many trips abroad, he was always the ambassador of dialogue, ecumenism, and Pentecostalism. His autobiography, Memories and Hopes, contains a colorful collection of various ecumenical meetings with false religions all around the world. Yet Suenens did more than simply meet and pray with adherents to various man-made creeds. It seems that the Cardinal was not beyond giving some sort of "Communion" to Protestants. This most shocking display of interdenominational, Pentecostal sacrilege was related by a well-known British Protestant minister who joyfully attended the event:

*"In June of this year (1976), eighty Charismatic Leaders met at Malines in Belgium. A report says, ‘There was Holy Communion each day.’ On Wednesday afternoon, I had the privilege of being present at the Sacrament in the Cardinal’s private chapel in his residence. He preached from St. John Ch. 15, greeted and hugged us all, and each of us received from him bread and wine. On the Friday in the Cathedral, we gathered together for Holy Communion. A Protestant from Northern Ireland read the Epistle; a Jesuit priest read from St. John’s Gospel; Tom Smail, a Presbyterian, preached a mighty word. The Cardinal broke bread and again served us all with bread and wine. In that service, there was prophecy, tongues and interpretation, open and free prayer, singing in and with the Spirit, and we concluded by singing and dancing up and down the aisle — Professors, priests, pastors, and the Cardinal, hands united and hearts united in the spirit of the risen Lord Jesus Christ, pouring into us such joy and love. I never thought I would see or participate in such a miracle. The Cardinal was Cardinal Suenens."²²

It should come as no surprise, then, that it was Cardinal Suenens who was primarily responsible for establishing the sacrilege of communion in the hand within the Church. In the December 1995 issue of Christian Order, Dr. Alice von Hildebrand wrote:

*"Communion in the hand is another case in point. This practice was first introduced in Belgium by Cardinal Suenens in flagrant disobedience to the rubrics given by the Holy See. Not wishing to publicly reprove a brother bishop, Paul VI decided to lift the ban prohibiting Communion in the hand and left the decision to individual bishops. Overnight, the practice was universalized ..."²³

Yet Suenens was not only notorious for collegializing the hierarchy, desecrating the sacraments, and ecumenizing the Church; he also had a hand in tampering with religious life.