812.404/8952/9
The Ambassador in Mexico (Morrow) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 30.]
My Dear Mr. Kellogg: As you are already aware Mr. Olds and I have kept up a personal correspondence during the past year with reference to the religious controversy in Mexico. My letters to him of December 9, 1927, February 21, March 16 and April 10, 1928, set forth in some detail the situation down to and including the first visit of Father John J. Burke and Mr. Montavon to Mexico City on April 3rd to 5th. Due to Mr. Olds’ departure from Washington it appears desirable for your information that I should review very briefly the earlier events and in some detail the developments in the situation since the date of my last letter mentioned above.
Before I came to Mexico last October I talked in Washington with Father John J. Burke, the General Secretary of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, who was sent to me by Judge Morgan JO’Brien and Cardinal Hayes. Subsequently, in January during my visit to Havana for the Pan-American Conference, Father Burke again called on me for the purpose of discussing the religious situation in Mexico. As a consequence of these talks Father Burke requested me to ascertain whether President Calles would receive him if he asked for an interview and came to Mexico for that purpose. After my return to Mexico I ascertained that President Calles would receive Father Burke and communicated the fact to the latter. At this juncture publicity was given in the United States press to the probability of such an interview. As a result of this publicity, the President felt that no good purpose could at that time be served [Page 327] by Father Burke coming to Mexico. Subsequently the difficulties caused by this incident were smoothed away and Father Burke, accompanied by Mr. Montavon, the legal adviser of the National Catholic Welfare Conference, came to Mexico and on April 4th in Veracruz, where the President was spending a week’s holiday, the former had a long interview with the President, lasting throughout the day. President Calles and Father Burke appeared to make an excellent mutual impression one on the other and were able to discuss the situation in a broad and liberal way and without rancor. They exchanged letters which, if they had been ratified by Father Burke’s superiors, would have led to a prompt resumption of public worship in the churches and might well have laid the basis for a later modification of the objectionable laws.
Father Burke on his return home had an unfortunate and untimely illness. Instead of the matter being reported promptly to Rome by cable, as had been anticipated, it was delayed apparently for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion on a possible method of settlement from a group of Mexican Bishops. A meeting of Mexican Bishops was held in San Antonio the latter part of April. I am not clear whether this meeting was specially called to consider the possibility of a settlement. At all events, Archbishop Ruiz, who upon the death of Archbishop Mora y del Rio became the senior prelate of the Mexican Church and as such presided at this meeting, was the only person present who knew of the exchange of letters between the President and Father Burke. There were ten bishops at this conference and they unanimously expressed a willingness to return to Mexico under the present administration, and to leave the decision unconditionally to the Holy See, but did, however, make some suggestions as to the terms that should be included in any adjustment.
Mr. Olds’ cables of May 9th and 10th, and his letters of May 5th and 9th, informed me of the results of the San Antonio conference. Father Burke also wrote me on May 9th covering the same ground and enclosing a letter signed by himself and addressed to President Calles, in which he expressed the hope that the President might give certain additional and more explicit assurances than those contained in his letter of April 4th. After receipt of Mr. Olds’ cables, but prior to the receipt of his and Father Burke’s letters, I talked with the former by telephone. He agreed with me that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get any further assurances from President Calles and that in any event it would be quite useless to take the matter up with him by letter. I suggested that it would be wise for Father Burke to make another visit to Mexico and to bring with him Archbishop Ruiz. Although the latter had become the [Page 328] senior Mexican prelate, this, of course, did not mean that he had any authority over the other Mexican bishops and archbishops, nor authority to deal finally with the question of a settlement.
Mr. Olds, after a conference with Father Burke, telephoned me that Father Burke and Archbishop Ruiz would be glad to come to Mexico. I at once tried to arrange with President Calles for permission to have them come. President Calles was absolutely opposed to Archbishop Ruiz coming. He stated that it would be impossible for him to come without getting into discussions with Mexican prelates and with prominent Catholic laymen in Mexico, and that publicity would consequently result, as there was a small but powerful element in Mexico who had steadfastly opposed any adjustment and would welcome the opportunity to impede the work that Father Burke was trying to do. When I reported this to Mr. Olds by telephone he conferred with Father Burke. Father Burke asked Mr. Olds to explain that he would be greatly embarrassed if he were unable to bring Archbishop Ruiz with him. I, therefore, made another effort with President Calles, and he reluctantly assented to Archbishop Ruiz accompanying Father Burke.
Father Burke, Archbishop Ruiz and Mr. Montavon, after being again met at the border by the President’s representative, Mr. A. F. Smithers, proceeded as far as Tacuba, a suburb of this city, on a private car which I had arranged to have awaiting them at Laredo. From Tacuba they were taken by motor to the house of Captain McBride, a member of the Embassy staff, where they remained from their arrival on the morning of May 17th until their departure on the evening of May 19th. During this time they held no conferences except with the President and with myself and in fact talked with no one else except those immediately concerned in these conferences. It was, of course, desired to avoid premature newspaper publicity and to defer to the wishes of the President as indicated in the previous paragraph.
On the day of their arrival I conferred at length with all three individually and collectively. This conference lasted from 8 o’clock until 4, when I called on President Calles and discussed the situation with him, after which at 5 o’clock he received Father Burke, Archbishop Ruiz and Mr. Montavon, and myself. As at the previous conference in Veracruz, Mr. James Smithers and Mr. A. F. Smithers were also present, the former acting as interpreter. Father Burke presented the suggestions of the Mexican Bishops as made at the San Antonio meeting. The President answered and explained briefly why he could not comply with these suggestions. Archbishop Ruiz then made a short statement to which the President replied. Archbishop Ruiz expressed himself as willing to address a new letter [Page 329] to President Calles in substantially the form of the letter written by Father Burke to President Calles on March 29, 1928, with the important addition that a special reference was made to a public speech made by Dr. Puig Casauranc, Minister of Education, on April 15, 1928, at Celaya, which speech had been pleasing to the Church. It was contemplated that this letter of Archbishop Ruiz should be answered in some such form as that in which the President had already answered Father Burke, and that when the proper authority had been received the two letters should be made public and the priests then should be directed by the proper authorities to return to their churches.
In anticipation of the reaching of such an agreement as was reached, Mr. Olds and I had arranged that he should remain available in Washington all of the night of May 17th, so that any message we sent him by cable should be delivered during the night to the office of the Papal Delegate in Washington, and cabled over to Rome immediately so that an answer might be received as soon as possible. Father Burke’s message to his associates was transmitted by me to Mr. Olds late in the evening of May 17th. As the message indicates, it was contemplated that an answer would be received from Rome in time to open the churches on Sunday, May 27th, which is the day celebrated as the Feast of the Pentecost.
Father Burke, Archbishop Ruiz and Mr. Montavon had planned to wait here until they received the answer from Rome. On the 19th, however, a telegram was received directing their immediate return to Washington for the purpose of proceeding to Rome. They accordingly left Mexico City that evening. For some reason, that neither Mr. Olds nor I have understood, it was apparently decided that Archbishop Ruiz alone should go to Rome, despite the fact that Father Burke had been the one who had carried on the negotiations from the outset. Archbishop Ruiz, unaccompanied either by Father Burke or Mr. Montavon, accordingly left New York for Rome on May 26th on the S. S. Leviathan.
When Archbishop Ruiz reached Paris the fact of his journey to Rome became known through a cable to the New York Times of June 1. A day or two later when Archbishop Ruiz reached Rome there was considerable publicity, a portion of which got into the Mexican press. From the messages which came from Archbishop Ruiz to Father Burke I was fully satisfied that Archbishop Ruiz had been misquoted. The fact remains, however, that his visit to Rome became known, and that this fact led to a great deal of pressure being brought upon the authorities in Rome by those associated with the Church in Mexico who bitterly opposed a settlement.
[Page 330]While I was ill the North I had several conferences with Father Burke, at some of which Mr. Olds was present. The matter by this time was quite out of Father Burke’s hands. Through Father Burke, Mr. Olds and I met the Papal Delegate, Archbishop Fumasoni Biondi, twice. Our first talk with the delegate was in the early part of June, and our second talk was almost the last of June. Apparently the only official action at Rome was the reference of the subject to the Congregation on Extraordinary Foreign Affairs. Such personal communications as had come from Rome to Father Burke indicated, however, that while no definite decision had been reached, the Vatican was very reluctant to authorize the delivery of the letter which Archbishop Ruiz had prepared and left for delivery when the proper authority was received. This reluctance of Rome to act seemed to be due partly to representations which came from Mexico opposing any settlement, and partly due to representations from Mexico that it would be better to await and make the settlement with General Obregon, and partly due to the unwillingness of the authorities at Rome to proceed without more specific assurances than those provided in the interchange of letters.
I got back to Mexico on the evening of July 3rd. I saw the President on the morning of the 7th of July for an hour and a half and discussed the whole question with him. James Smithers acted as interpreter. I told the President about my talks with Father Burke in the United States, and explained some of the difficulties. I further told him that I was certain that Archbishop Ruiz had not expressed the opinions attributed to him in the press. I told him further that Father Burke was still hopeful of a favorable outcome, but that there was no doubt that some pressure was being brought upon the Vatican authorities to make no adjustment until General Obregon came in, or to make no adjustment unless further and more definite assurances were given. President Calles reviewed the whole course of the negotiations with me with care and with accuracy. He expressed a very high opinion of Father Burke. He said that he had never expected any favorable outcome after he heard that Father Burke, himself, was not going to Rome. He stated that when the matter became public the Government had received inquiries from its foreign representatives in many countries. They also had received inquiries from priests in Mexico as to whether they could go back into the churches. They also had received criticism from prominent supporters of the Government objecting to what was called surrender to the Church. All of this had been very embarrassing to his Government. He had thought at first that it was his duty to make a statement, but he had concluded that the advice I had sent him through Mr. Clark was wise and that he would make no statement [Page 331] until the Vatican announced its decision, that when that decision was announced it would be necessary for him to make a statement, at which time he would probably state exactly what he had done, probably making public the correspondence already exchanged.
He further stated that while the number of people in Mexico opposing the adjustment was small, they were people who had been very influential in the old regime and that if they were to direct the activities of the Church when it came back he should much prefer that the Church should not come back.
On Monday, July 16th, Governor Aaron Saenz of Nuevo Leon, formerly Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Cabinet of President Calles, and long time intimate friend of, and recently campaign manager for, General Obregon, informed me that President-elect Obregon, who had arrived in Mexico City the preceding day, wanted to have a long talk with me. I made an appointment to meet General Obregon the next afternoon, Tuesday, at 5 o’clock. On Tuesday morning Governor Saenz came to the Embassy and talked with me at considerable length about governmental matters, including the religious question. He assured me that there was absolutely nothing in the story that General Obregon was interfering in any way with the proposed adjustment, that President Calles had consulted fully with General Obregon about it, and that General Obregon was hoping that the modus vivendi might be worked out as soon as possible to the end that a later readjustment of the laws might be made during the era of peace which he hoped would prevail during his administration. Governor Saenz left me to go to the luncheon at which General Obregon was shot.
The foregoing is a rough review and record of the actual course of events and the conversations and principal correspondence which I have had in regard to the religious situation here. This seems to have been necessary because I think that both Father Burke and myself are in danger of getting somewhat off the track and that others concerned directly or indirectly in any possible settlement are perhaps gravely in error in regard to the real facts of the situation. There is no doubt that certain Catholics here and elsewhere believe that President Calles is seeking some sort of peace. They do not know that Father Burke’s letter of March 29, 1928, asked for the interview of April 4th, which President Calles agreed to with some reluctance, and that the subsequent talk with Father Burke and Archbishop Ruiz was brought about on their initiative and was agreed to by the President with still greater reluctance. The President, ever since his answer of August 19, 1926, to the Mexican Episcopate, has been consistent in expressing his inability to initiate or promise any changes in the Constitution or laws, at least under existing conditions. I [Page 332] believe Father Burke is fully aware of these facts and understands the conditions from which they arise. It was his clear grasp of the situation which not only permitted him to discuss the question with the President in such a broad minded and liberal spirit as to obtain from him a more sympathetic response than had previously appeared possible, but also enabled him to convince some of his associates, both of the American and of the Mexican church, with whom he has had opportunity to discuss the matter. It is for these reasons that I have felt strongly the desirability of his being able to place the case personally before those with whom rests the final authority.
To show how widely different the feeling of Father Burke and some of the Mexican prelates is, I am enclosing a translation of a memorandum which came to me through Mr. Amor.47 The author of the memorandum was Bishop Mora. Mr. Amor called on me the other day to talk about his San Gabriel property. During the course of the talk he referred to the Church question and said that I ought to talk with Bishop Mora, that he understood the situation better than anybody else. I told him that I should consider it improper to discuss the Church matter with Bishop Mora, that the matter was one which the State and the Church should settle between themselves, and that there was nothing the United States Government could do in the matter; that I, as a person, was entirely sympathetic with both sides and regretted that they could not get together, but that if men like Bishop Mora would assist the efforts of Archbishop Ruiz instead of trying to impede them, it might be possible that the Church and the State could work out some modus vivendi. A day or two later Mr. Amor called and left with Mr. Alan Winslow48 a memorandum in Spanish, of which the enclosed is a translation.47
I am also enclosing you a translation of an anonymous document purporting to be the June Bulletin of the “National League for the Defense of Religious Liberty”.47 Similar bulletins are issued from time to time anonymously. It is probable that bulletins of this type, which actually take credit for the derailing of trains, are put out by the most irresponsible type of person. The Government, of course, is able to obtain copies of all these documents, and naturally associates this “League” with the “Federation for the Defense of Religious Liberty” which is referred to in terms of approbation in the Encyclical of November 18, 1926. While the “League” may, and in all probability has, no connection whatever with the Church, this confusion in names does, however, add to that distrust of church authorities inside and outside of Mexico which people in the Government undoubtedly have.
[Page 333]In considering the situation at the present moment I must revert to my letter of March 16, 1928, in which I wrote:
“In stating that I am satisfied that such a letter can be secured from the President, I am assuming that the conditions will not substantially change before the effort is formally made to get President Calles to give such assurance. Mr. Lagarde49 is in my opinion correct in stating that ‘all of the conditions at this moment are favorable, and that delay may spell loss of an opportunity which may not soon come again’. It must not be forgotten that actual military operations are now going on in the field and that they are believed by the Government to be incited, financed and led by the Church. Something may happen any day which would make it impossible for one party or the other to act”.
You will note that the foregoing is a quotation from my letter of March 16th. March 16th is now more than four months away. The letter that President Calles signed and delivered to Father Burke is dated April 4th. April 4th is now more than three months away. The visit of Archbishop Ruiz here was on May 17th. Before he went to Rome he left a letter signed in escrow for delivery to President Calles when the proper authority was received. It was almost two months ago that that letter was delivered in escrow. Meanwhile, however, something has happened. President-elect Obregon has been assassinated. At the present time it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for President Calles to go ahead with the adjustment as arranged between Father Burke and himself, even if the Church were now ready to go ahead. A member of the Catholic Church in Mexico with whom I talked yesterday—a person who has been earnestly desirous of an adjustment—told me that in his opinion no Government could make any adjustment of the controversy at the present time without falling from power; that he thought the killing of Obregon put off any adjustment for at least a year. He deplored this fact greatly and stated that he thought those Catholics were very unwise who had thought that it were better to postpone an adjustment until General Obregon came in. He stated that he had always felt that President Calles would be able to make an adjustment more favorable to the Church than any successor of his would in the near future be able to make. He further stated that the authorities in Rome had constantly been deceived as to the strength of the feeling against the Church in Mexico.
I do not concur in the foregoing statement so far as it means that an adjustment must be postponed for a year. I do concur, however, that it is absolutely futile to discuss the question at the moment.
Of course the assassination of General Obregon throws a very [Page 334] heavy burden upon President Calles. I am satisfied that he does not, himself, want to continue in the presidency longer. If he goes out, who is to take his place? It is too early to say what the outcome will be. I have seen him but once since the assassination, and then only for a few moments. I regret the form of some statements that have been issued here and in Rome. It is, of course, not easy for either side to see the point of view of the other, or even to believe in the sincerity of the other. The remarkable thing to me about Father Burke’s two visits was that he had succeeded in presenting a point of view of the Church which President Calles had not theretofore known, and he had also succeeded in getting a point of view of the Government which I am sure he could have made clear to the high authorities of the Church if he had had an opportunity to do so. But all this discussion is inopportune for the moment. Some of the work that Father Burke has done may have to be done over again. How soon we can begin to do it over again, we do not know.
One of the tragic things about the present situation is that Father Burke came down to Mexico to prove to President Calles that it was desirable that President Calles deal directly with Rome because Rome would be wiser and more conciliatory than the Mexican hierarchy. I think he did succeed in convincing President Calles of that fact. Unfortunately, however, we were not able to find out whether Rome really desired to make the kind of an adjustment with the Calles administration which Calles was willing and able to make. Before Father Burke proceeds further along the line of the existing adjustment, I think it is only fair that he should know what the position of Rome actually is upon this question. President Calles is likely to be much more interested during the next few weeks in the vital problem presented to Mexico by the death of Obregon. Important as an adjustment of the religious controversy is to the future of Mexico, it is a minor problem here during the next few weeks. The problem of the succession is the vital problem.
I hope this letter will not seem too pessimistic. Political changes come quickly in Mexico. It is possible that the time may come sooner than we expect when the religious question can be taken up again. If that time should come it is imperative that those who seek an adjustment on behalf of the Church should know just what the ultimate authorities of the Church are ready to do. I feel that I have already pressed President Calles to a point which is perhaps beyond that to which his own judgment would lead him. I cannot afford to press him any further unless there is some reason for thinking that we are working to a practical end that the authorities of the Church really desire.
Sincerely yours,