Talk:Cristero War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cristero War is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 4, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted May 25, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

	Catholicism Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the Project's importance scale.

This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents 1 Template needed 2 Human rights or civil rights 3 More background 4 A few minor changes and a proposed improvement. 5 NPOV 6 Featured? 7 Anti-Catholic or anti-clerical?

[edit] Template needed

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

[edit] Human rights or civil rights

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

[edit] More background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] A few minor changes and a proposed improvement.

Fixed some word choices for readability and NPOV.

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

[edit] NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Featured?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Anti-Catholic or anti-clerical?

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

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

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

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

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