On July 30, 1926 Plutarco Elias Calles, the President of Mexico, had a conversation with two Bishops of Mexico, Pascual Diaz and Leopoldo Ruiz. In the correspondence made by Calles he tells the Bishops: “El único camino que existe para que todas estas dificultades terminen es que el clero se someta a esa ley...” Calles is warning the clergy to submit to the Mexican Constitution or there would be dire consequences. This conversation would take place a day before the suspension of religion services. On July 31, 1926 the continuing enforcing of the Constitution by the President was the breaking point for the already turbulent relationship between the Mexican clergy and the Government. This conflict became known as the Cristero Rebellion and two
…show more content…
Meyers argument is that the Cristeros was an ensemble of Mexican peasants who where not organized and just banded together to protect the Church and their families from governments oppression. Bailey argues that the Cristeros were Catholic organizations such as the “Liga” and “Asociacion Catolica de la Juventud Mexicana” who were organized troops who actually had a uniform. No matter who was the one at the forefront of the conflict it is important to note that there was more going on than just a war over religion. Cristero Rebellion stemmed from 19th -century problems between the State and the Church, which escalated in the early 20th century and resulted in the war. These findings have important implications for the broader domain of why nothing was accomplished by the …show more content…
They were not going to permit President Calles to destroy their Church, so a group of Catholic parishioners banded together and formed “Knights of the Order of Guadalupe”. The Knights of the Order of Guadalupe would be one of the first groups to form that stood against Calles and who would later be known as Cristeros. More episodes like the example given above would occur around Mexico, which was why the opposition against President Calles increased. President Calles, and the presidents before him were not the only ones at fault for the continuing escalation of the problems between the State and the Church. The Church in fact is as responsible for the Cristero Rebellion as well the State was. To prove that I will have to go back to the early involvement of the Church, and how they fought against the early rise of anticlerical
Meyers argument is that the Cristeros was an ensemble of Mexican peasants who where not organized and just banded together to protect the Church and their families from governments oppression. Bailey argues that the Cristeros were Catholic organizations such as the “Liga” and “Asociacion Catolica de la Juventud Mexicana” who were organized troops who actually had a uniform. No matter who was the one at the forefront of the conflict it is important to note that there was more going on than just a war over religion. Cristero Rebellion stemmed from 19th -century problems between the State and the Church, which escalated in the early 20th century and resulted in the war. These findings have important implications for the broader domain of why nothing was accomplished by the …show more content…
They were not going to permit President Calles to destroy their Church, so a group of Catholic parishioners banded together and formed “Knights of the Order of Guadalupe”. The Knights of the Order of Guadalupe would be one of the first groups to form that stood against Calles and who would later be known as Cristeros. More episodes like the example given above would occur around Mexico, which was why the opposition against President Calles increased. President Calles, and the presidents before him were not the only ones at fault for the continuing escalation of the problems between the State and the Church. The Church in fact is as responsible for the Cristero Rebellion as well the State was. To prove that I will have to go back to the early involvement of the Church, and how they fought against the early rise of anticlerical