|
Published: November 24, 2007
“The cathedral belongs to the nation”
Government authorities say Catholic Church powerless to close Mexico City’s Metropolitan Cathedral despite recent attacks by leftists because it is state-owned property
When ecclesiastical authorities decided to close the doors of the Metropolitan Cathedral in Mexico City indefinitely following a Sunday, Nov. 18, attack on worshippers by leftists during the noon Mass, some politicians, instead of condemning the aggressors, severely criticized the Church for shuttering the cathedral.
The first reaction came from Marcelo Ebrard, chief of government for Mexico’s capital city, the Federal District. After learning the cathedral had been closed, Ebrard declared, “The cathedral belongs to the nation, not to the Catholic church, so they cannot unilaterally close it up.”
The Church has imposed a condition on the government before it is willing to reopen the cathedral: City authorities must sign a written pledge to protect the faithful and safeguard freedom of worship. There are clear signs that civil authorities are going to do just that, and that the cathedral will soon re-open. Nevertheless, the Nov. 18 and other recent attacks on the cathedral have revived a long-simmering debate about what rights churches have over their places of worship in Mexico.
The eminent attorney Raúl Carrancá y Rivas said in a radio interview that, according to Mexican law, by closing the cathedral, the Catholic Church has violated the rights of third parties by preventing them access to a national monument.
Both Carrancá and Ebrard insist that the only authority empowered to close down a place of worship is the Secretary of Government, who, according to the General Law of Public Property, is in charge of anything related to publicly owned real state assets. But the same law says the Church has not only the right but also the responsibility to “preserve the integrity of public property under its custody.”
According to Mexican law, the cathedral does not belong to the Catholic Church, even though it was built by the Church in the 16th century. The Metropolitan Cathedral, as with all other places of worship in Mexico, is “public property.” All Church property was confiscated -- churches, schools, hospitals, seminaries and convents -- by the anti-Catholic faction that took power in Mexico during the second half of 19th century.
The General Law of Public Property provides that the places of worship of any religion are “federal real state used for religious purposes.” The government concession is temporary and conditioned, and it can take them back at will. Article III of this law provides that the government is the only institution authorized to “decide which religious association has the right to use and guard a federal real state property.” So the government has the right to take a Catholic church and give it to a different denomination, as it has done during periods of anti-Catholic persecution. In 1880, the government transferred the emblematic 16th century temple of San Francisco in Mexico City to a Protestant denomination, and the same thing happened to many other Catholic churches during that period.
Although it is highly unlikely that anything like this would happen in Mexico today, the fact that the anti-clerical laws still remain in force and that churches do not have the right of ownership even over their own places of worship, illustrates the reality that full religious freedom is still a long way off – even in such a religious country.
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 7:39 AM By Margie
Does this mean that the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico City is also owned by the state? Do they own Our Lady's mantle that Juan Diego wore and is on display?
Que Lastima!
|
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 9:45 AM By Steven Kiczek
The reality is that these evil laws were written by men driven by a malicious social ideology. It will take some courageous statesmen to decide to abolish these laws and return the Church's property to its rightful owner. That would not be a violation of Mexico's constitution, but rather a cleansing of it. The same goes for England, etc. The greatest violator of Magna Charta was Henry VIII. This is an old strategem. I remember reading that the Jewish priests in our Lord's day had to ask the Roman authorities for the use of their vestments, which the Romans held. It is legal extortion, and it has been occurring for centuries. It is a method of control. This is the true story behind every national or imperial church. And only the successor of St. Peter can stand up to that form of control. Many times that has involved suffering and even martyrdom. Hopefully some day the Anglicans and the separated Eastern Churches will realize that the independent authority and power of the Popes is for their protection and well-being. We must be Christian first. Political and ethnic loyalty must always be subordinated to loyalty to Jesus Christ and His Church. Viva Cristo Rey!
|
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:34 PM By Veronica
If the Cathederal belongs to the nation then isn't the government of the nation responsible for protecting the people of that nation that are celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass from leftists thugs who are trying to stop freedom of religion and religious expression through the use of force and intimidation? Or should the Church open the doors as the government says so that those perpertrating violent acts and sacrilege in the light of day for all to see can continue to do so with impunity without any government or police intervention? Surely the government isn't serious about what they are saying to the Catholic Church because it makes no human logic or sense? The Catholic Church is the Body of Christ instituted by Jesus Christ and belongs to Christ yesterday, today and until his Second Coming. Viva Cristo Rey!
|
Posted Saturday, November 24, 2007 7:50 PM By John L. Sillasen
The govt is threatening the Cardinal. That's how it's done, circumspectly.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 4:07 AM By John Luth
The article, properly, should be entitled: THE CATHEDRAL BELONGS TO WHOM? It's no wonder Johnny can't read. No one is writing responsibly in the language any more. The rapidity of communication is only as good as it is accurate and precise. One expects more from a Catholic newspage because its editors ought to appreciate the value of the Word -at least better than this.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:41 AM By What?
I don't understand John Luth's comment. The headline is obviously taken from a direct quote in the story -- and does not ask a question about ownership -- it makes a declarative statement. So Mr. Luth is just dead wrong in his criticism, I think. Or am I missing something here?
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 10:10 AM By dina
It's just a repeat of the protestant reformation all over again.
Martin Luther, Calvin and Certainly the Baptists and Evangelicals who (trying to save their poor Catholic souls no doubt) hand my kids 'Jack Chick' cartoons depicting "Romanist" priests torturing and killing would approve of the Mexican governments actions!!!
John 6:66
The fact is that Planned Parenthood and other poplutation control organizations often buddy up to protestant missionaries to help undermine the faith of Catholics in that region. The protestants to 'save souls', the PPFA-International to destroy all catholic pro-life influence in the region. Strange bedfellows.
You can tell a tree by it's fruits.
But then, it's only a bunch of Mexican catholics...so who cares?
Honestly, the Church should at this point just de-consecrate
the Cathedral and hand it over to the government. If it belongs to the government as the Government says, give it to them. Why continue to use it and be bonded to the government like that, paying tithes to upkeep a building that Government says is theirs?
Leave it.
Let the government turn it into a museum.
As Catholic Christians we have to be ready to walk away from the things of this world. Render unto Caesar.....
It's only a building.
It's time to go back into people's homes to celebrate the Mass.
I don't say this lightly. I know the Mexican Church has suffered much already. When our Lord walked his calvary, did he demand his clothes back?
Did he hit back?
no...Did he resist? No....
We ARE the body of Christ...
"Viva Christo Rey"!!!!!!!!!!!
dina
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:34 PM By John L. Sillasen
Language is for communicating substance ... makes no difference if grammar is impeccably followed, as long as the substance is clear. When writer's begin using more formal grammar, it really is only a cue that they are pleading with the reader to take them seriously. Cutting to the chase, grammar is important in Latin ... that is the formal theological language of the Church. In fact, using too formal of constructions in writing sometimes has the effect of muddying the message. How many people say, correctly, "It is I"? Rather, one always hears, "It is me", which is grammatically incorrect. But we sometimes hear people say, also incorrect, "Give it to him and I" ... I even read and/or hear this form when the speaker is making an effort to formalize "their" use of language. Point is to get the message across ... if it means saying, "Hey dude, 'sup?"; then that's what it takes.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:42 PM By John L. Sillasen
The Cathedral can serve the Church as a focal point for govt persecution, meaning fewer govt persecutors out in the neighborhoods hassling the Catholics there. Also, the bishops might consider rejecting their tax breaks, so that they can spout the Gospel from the pulpit on any matter they choose. As it is now, they trade silence for money.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:19 PM By Kevin Kuwait
They were Masons who Persecuted tghe Church in Mexico.. it was Masons who Arrested Lucinda in Fatima!
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:38 PM By Steven Kiczek
While I applaud and agree with John Sillasen's allegiance to our Lord and His Church, his comment about grammar is absolute foolishness. It doesn't matter whether the language is Latin or English or Spanish or any other language. Clarity in expression and correct grammar should always be preferred. How else are we to know what someone really means? All too often it's difficult to know what many people mean because their grammar is so muddled. Sometimes the crappy grammar seems to be deliberate, just to prove that one is not a snob and is one of the "people". Instead of making a good impression and being persuasive, bad grammar and spelling make people look stupid and foolish. Think about it, John. Quality of language does make a difference. If the quality is excellent, or even just good, it promotes one's argument. If the language is trashy and incorrect, it detracts from the argument and people will not take it seriously. Trashy language reflects badly upon the speaker or writer. For instance, which makes a better impression, John Henry Newman or any one of many writers on the Internet who couldn't put a sentence together to save his life? Crappy, incorrect and trashy language is an embarrasment. Period. "When writer's [sic] begin using more formal grammar, it really is only a cue that they are pleading with the reader to take them seriously." Really? What does that say about those who do the opposite? Think about what you are saying, and stop making a fool of yourself.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:40 PM By Helga
The Cathedral belongs to the Mexican people, most of us Catholics. But. according to a Masonic law, belongs to the government. However, it wasn't the federal government who argued about the closing of the Cathedral. It was the leftist governor of Mexico City who didn't protect it from the leftist vandals. The Mexican Church has always suffered persecution by Masons and leftists. But at the end, the winner is the Church, just as Jesus promised. Dina, if you would visit our Cathedral, you would never ask us to give it to the leftists. It is full of wonderful treasures, mirculous images and the relics of the first Mexican marthyr, St. Felipe de Jesus. It was the first house of Our Lady of Guadalupe and we feel proud of it. This sacrilege has hurt us deeply, but we will survive, the Catholic Church will always survive even the worst persecution. God bless!
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:31 PM By John L. Sillasen
Steven, you've proven my point: Your only substance is an attitude of arrogance used to call me a fool. You wasted a lot of words doing it. You talk about makiing a good impression ... but I'm not about impression; rather I'm about getting at the truth. That's the diff between liberals and truth seekers. If you had been able to both keep your mind on my post and the post I criticized at the same time, you'd have noticed that I was not talking about "crappy" grammar, but about being too perfectionist to a fault of making the beauty of grammar more important than the message. In my freshman year at a university, I discovered quickly that the worst communicators were the English profs and grad students, and the best by far were the life science seniors, grad students and professors. Remember that John Henry Newman was writing for the elite class of Englishmen and their cousins in America. I do not dwell there, nor do I wish to, nor do I wish to convey anything to them. Art for art's sake is grammar for grammar's sake ... among the elite, I suppose, there is little apparent need to communicate the truth; so they get carried away with grammar. Latin, being the official language used by the Magisterium to formulate the doctrines of Catholic faith, requires precise grammar. English does not. If you are solely dependent upon written language for your understanding, then I suggest you broaden you horizons by greater depth of prayer ... first, check out what St Paul says on the topic in 1Cor.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 8:46 PM By John L. Sillasen
In brief, it is the content that "sanctifies" the form, and not the other way around. Eg, solid content with "crappy" form is valuable; however, empty content with perfect form has no value at all. Jesus says something about an altar and the thing sacrificed on the altar. Form is important, but it is content which determines form. An example would be something such as determining when a Mass is not valid ... at what point of mistakes made by the priest is validity compromised? One mistake, two, three ...? There is indeed a point of error at which the consecration does not happen. So, even a "crappy" celebration can have a valid content ... but, as in Anglican "masses", there is no consecration and hence the service has little point and no substance. Also, is it really believed by anyone that my objective is to gain admiration at my allegiance to the Lord and the Church? Odd that someone would think in such terms.
|
Posted Sunday, November 25, 2007 9:08 PM By John L. Sillasen
The Masons seem to be more obvious in Mexico than in the US. When I did my family tree a few years ago, I discovered that my late father's uncles back in Nebraska were Masons. They helped build and run the Lutheran end of a small church, which still stands today. It is the only remaining church building in the world which has a Catholic altar at one end and a protestant table at the other ... the pews are hinged to reverse depending upon which group is in the building. It no longer holds services. The other one burned down, and was located in Switzerland. Humorous story: About a dozen years ago I rented out a room to a young man of Cuban heritage, and Catholic sentiments. By my fireplace I had placed two shaleleighs, which later I realized were decorated with Masonic symbols ... they had belonged to my father. One cold day I noticed that they were not there ... the young Catholic oriented man had used them for firewood ... they'd probably fetch some dollars as antiques, but I thought it was a fitting and bold gesture and did not take him to task for it. In fact I kind of chuckled, at what I perceived to be an example of God's sense humor.
|
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 2:37 AM By dina
It's not something I said lightly.
Those precious items you listed are at risk of being sacked.
Look at the churches in Turkey and other places where church treasures once were!
Those places were sacked!
It would be better to remove those things to safer places (for now).
I would not go to your wonderful cathedral. why? Who gets the tourist revenues from visitors?
The Government.
...as much as I would LOVE to because I would not use my tourist dollars to support leftist bullies.
But if someone pointed me in the right direction I WOULD gladly go to a house church and hear mass with my suffering brothers and sisters and leave donations there.
I have no easy answers....but the Mexican government can't have it both ways, tourist dollars from rich American 'gringo' catholics, while tormenting and allowing harm to his own countrymen and women who simply want to worship in peace in a structure their own ancestors built and is THEIRS by right.
Dina
|
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 5:16 AM By Angelo
Has the Mexican Government forgotten its history.
The last time they started acting like this, in the early
20 th century. Thet got a bloody revolution. The people
called on the power of Christ the King, and on the intercession of our Lady of Guadalupe. And Heaven
granted the people Victory. They would be wise to
stop acting as if there were no God. Heaven just may
grant them another scourge!
|
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 11:12 AM By Brother Andrew
The Mexican people have been part of a 'masonic revolution' for the past 90 years. The poor and the Church have been subject to persecution for all of this time. This article is further proof that not only is the revolution alive and well in Mexico but its policies are also directed to the downfall of the American Republic through the forced immigration of its poor. We should view this Mexican government as an enemy much worse than Castro or Chavez and encourage a real Christian based revolution similar to the one led by Walesa in Poland almost 20 years ago..
|
Posted Monday, November 26, 2007 11:41 PM By Angelo
Brother Andrew: I'm glad you recognize that the Church
and the poor suffer a great deal. At the hands of the Mexican Government. One of our greatest sufferings,
was when the Mexican Government, without any right
whatsover, sold what did not belong to them, but belonged
to all Mexicans. Namely California, Arizona, New Mexico,
Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Utah and part of Oklahoma.
This act of treason cost them their salvation. I think the
time has come to take this issue to a world court. So! if
you want to get nasty about illegals, then who are the illegals? Let a world court decide. And then ADIOS!
|
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:19 PM By Steven Kiczek
John, I apologize for calling you a fool. That was uncalled for. I was not being arrogant, but I was expressing frustration. I still stand, though, behind my point about the quality of language. You said in your reply that "solid content with 'crappy' form is valuable; however, empty content with perfect form has no value at all." I agree, but solid content with good form is better. Grammar is very important in English, as in any language. Bad grammar has its place, e.g. in literature and jokes. I simply disagree that the use of good grammar is superficial or hollow, or that it is "a cue that they are pleading with the reader to take them seriously". Anyway, we have both made our points. So, "pax tecum". By the way, I am not a liberal. I am an orthodox Catholic. I simply care about how orthodoxy is presented.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 5:57 PM By John L. Sillasen
Angelo, your argument is hollow. You claim spiritual realm on one hand ("cost them their salvation"), while on the other you want to trust the outcome of a world (secular) court. Your argument's main fault is that you pit ethnic group against ethnic group, which is a worldly thing; rather the real battle is spiritual between the faithful and those who reject God.
|
Posted Tuesday, November 27, 2007 9:47 PM By John L. Sillasen
Steven, I grew up in the "land of flare-up", so it's no big deal to me. Plus, I've played the fool, and know what it feels like ... being called one is interesting and maybe even a bit of "purgatory" for all the outrageous labels I've thrown at others. Back to the actual argument, I was not very clear at all, and you interpreted it fairly to one extreme. The crux, as you imply, is "how orthodoxy is presented". Ultimately it is presented by the whole self: heart, mind, soul, and strength. The Word of God made flesh ... this implies a grammar both of the Word of God and of nature. There is quite a bit in this argument to deal with. I have more to study on it, than substance to post.
|
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 6:17 AM By Angelo
Sillasen: Sober civil law is God's will. While I am not of the world I nevertheless live in it. When we render to ceaser, we expect something back, when we render to God we hope to recieve in return. I abhor the Idea of pitting ethnic group against ethnic group. But that is excactly what the anti-immigrants are doing. So, we must reply! Anti-immigrants want worldly (secular) courts to tame Mexican immigrants.
they want immigrants not to eat, drink, have shelter, work, get education...ect. Thats how they treat Jesus today. But
our lord grants them a solemn promise, they will be cast into the pit with the devil and his angels. Sorry! No exceptions! This matter is of the spiritual as well as of the world. We must take all peaceful means to end this oppresion. Lest God has to do it for us!
|
Posted Wednesday, November 28, 2007 5:56 PM By John L. Sillasen
Angelo, even before I read your recent post, I had realized I did not express myself well ... I don't see that your argument is "hollow" ... not the right description. I think rather the conclusion required a lot more points. I not only agree with your present post, but see some new perspective, ie that the secular world is being handed the immigrants' "heads on a silver platter" ... Recently some Mexican high school students explained to me some of their anger over the US govt policies, and in a way I could understand. Definitely legitimate arguments. My position on immigration is that if the jobs are here, then the workers should be respectfully facilitated in filling them. Bottom line is one of the four sins that cry out to God for vengence, namely defrauding a worker of his wages. The language thing seems to be disengenuous from the standpoint of my education at UCLA. Eg, up to WWI, much of this nation's language was German; my third generation great aunt spoke German in St Louis ... I have her Confirmation signature book, almost all the signatures and messages are written in German ... c. 1900. I know that my father grew up in a Danish speaking community in Wyoming and Nebraska in the first quarter of the XXth century. My third generation American father was US university educated, and spoke English fluently, and may not have known the "old" language well, but his syntax was Danish, not proper English ... which I figured out long after I had graduated from college. Point here is the bogus political issue of language.
|
Posted Sunday, December 02, 2007 11:14 AM By Pablo
Living your lives in a fishbowl and declaring left, right, liberal, conservative and so on must make your worlds very comfortable to live in……
"What must I do to enter the kingdom of Heaven, Rabbi?”
"Give all that you have to the poor and follow me".
Do the math:
USA: George Washington was the Father, Abraham Lincoln the savior, and Ulysses S. Grant the protector.
Mex.: God is the Father, Jesus is His Son, and the Holy Ghost is the Paraclete. Nuestra Senor Santa Maria de Guadalupe holds Mexicans in the fold of her mantle.
The situation is not a matter of borders. It is not a matter of borders, it is a matter of Faith. The Masons consecrated America to Satan.
Hernan Cortez consecrated Mexico to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Viva Cristo Rey!
|
© California Catholic Daily 2007. All Rights Reserved.
|