Catholic Restoration!

Ezekiel 4:17Son of man, I have made thee a watchman to the house of Israel: and thou shalt hear the word out of my mouth, and shalt tell it them from me. 18If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand. 19But if thou give warning to the wicked, and he be not converted from his wickedness, and from his evil way: he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. 20Moreover if the just man shall turn away from his justice, and shall commit iniquity: I will lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die, because thou hast not given him warning: he shall die in his sin, and his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: but I will require his blood at thy hand. 21But if thou warn the just man, that the just may not sin, and he doth not sin: living he shall live, because thou hast warned him, and thou hast delivered thy soul.

Pope Francis loves and promotes those who hate the Church and hates and expels those who love Her: the sin of Anti-Clericalism. That is why the world loves him so, the world has long since been possessed by the evil spirit of Anti-Clericalism: wishing to destroy the Church and everything She stands for.

Warning: There is a fine line between the just denouncing of Clericalism and Anti-Clericalism which is tantamount to rejecting Christ Himself: Matthew 10:40He that receiveth you, receiveth me: and he that receiveth me, receiveth him that sent me.


Cardinal Burke Full Interview: Church is Presently Like Ship Without a Helmsman!

Rorate Caeli

Interview

Raymond Leo Burke

"It seems to many that the Church's ship has lost its compass."

US Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke is considered one of the representatives of the Curial sector most resistant to change, as he demonstrates by deeming "critical" the current moment, in which for "many" the Church is sailing "as a ship without a rudder." Opposed to the theses of cardinal Walter Kasper on the admission of the remarried divorced to the sacraments - "marriage is indissoluble. If I marry someone, I cannot live with someone else" - he calls homosexuality "suffering" and he considers that there was an intent to conduct the Synod on the Family towards a position of laxity. He even denounced the "manipulation" that was tried with the information that was released from the synodal assembly, at the same time in which he laments the "confusion" and the "pastoral difficulties" caused by the debate on these hot-button issues. Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican Supreme Court, his transferal to the position of cardinal patron of the Order of Malta, an honorific job without any content, is considered certain.

What is the feeling that the Synod left you? Was there confrontation?

There was an open and strong discussion. In the past, the interventions of the Synodal Fathers were always publishd, but not now. All the information came from the summaries of Fr. Lombardi and the conferences he organized with the press. These summaries surprised me, they did not reflect well the content of the discussions, they gave the impression that all was moving in favor of the position exposed by cardinal Kasper.

The real shock came about with the Relatio post disceptationem [the summary of the interventions of the first week of the Synod]. It looked like a manifesto to change the discipline of the Church concerning irregular unions. They offered a greater opening to couples who cohabit without the sacrament of matrimony and to persons who suffer with the homosexual condition.

Did the other Synodal Fathers share your rejection?

Indeed. All of us in my Minor Circle were surprised. We spent a lot of time basing the final document in Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium. Errors had to be corrected: for example, the one that positive elements can be found in sinful acts, as cohabitation, adultery, or in sexual acts between persons suffering of the homosexual condition. This confusion was too grave. We made the effort so that the beauty that the matrimonial state as an indissoluble union, that is faithful and destined to procreation created by God, could reemerge. Faced with difficult situations, we distinguish between love for the sinner and hatred for sin. We, the moderators and rapporteurs of the Minor Circles, asked for our works to be published. Until then, the public did not know what we thought. Everything was controlled and manipulated, if I may say so.

GRAVE PASTORAL DIFFICULTIES

Was there an intent to conduct the Synod towards one direction?

Yes. From the moment in which Cardinal Kasper began to present his opinion [Rorate note: in the February consistory], a part of the press interpreted that the Church had the intention to change her discipline. This generated grave pastoral difficulties. Many bishops and priests contacted me saying that persons in irregular unions came to their parishes wanting to receive the sacraments. They said that the Pope wants it. We are not speaking of a minor issue, but a fundamental one. The pillar of the Church is matrimony. If we do not teach and live this truth well, we are lost. We stop being the Church. In the Synod, the teachings of the Church and a position that contradicts them cannot be placed at the same level.

Is the truth on matrimony not taught well anymore?

There is a great confusion on indissolubility. If the person lives in a relationship that is public adultery, how is it possible to approach confession with the resolution to sin no more? How is it possible to accede to communion without scandalizing the community? One of the gravest sins is being lived out publicly.

Don't you view as possible the penitential path proposed by Kasper so that some remarried divorcees aceede to the sacraments?

In this penitential path, the parties must live chastely. If they cannot separate, they must live as brother and sister. This is an ancient practice. They speak of the law of gradualness, but truth is not gradual. It is objective. Matrimony is indissoluble. If I marry someone, I cannot live together with someone else.

Another hot-button issue is that of homosexuals. You mentioned them before as "persons who suffer from a homosexual condition". Do you see it as a malady?

It is a suffering. God did not create us so that man be with man, and woman with woman. This is clear from our very nature. We are made for heteroxual union, for marriage. I refuse to speak of homosexual persons, because nobody identifies by this tendency. It is a person that has this tendency, which is a suffering.

What did it seem to you when the Pope said that who was he to judge a gay person?

He said that he cannot judge the person before God, whatever may be his culpability. But the acts themselves must be judged; I do not believe that the Pope thinks in a different way. They are sinful and counternatural. The Pope has never said that we can find positive elements in them. It is impossible to find positive elements in an evil act.

Francis spoke in his final message to the Synod of a "hostile rigidity" and he lamented that some close themselves "within what is written" without allowing themselves to be "surprised by God". How do you interpret his words?

It is difficult. They can be interpreted in the sense that doctrine and discipline are opposed to the action of the Holy Spirit. This is not the Catholic way of thinking. Doctrine and discipline are the conditions for a true encounter with Christ. I have heard many saying that the Pope does not want to insist on discipline nor on doctrine. It is not the adequate interpretation of his words.

Some faithful are concerned with the path that the Church has taken. What do you say to them?

Many have shown me this concern. In such a critical moment, in which there is a strong feeling that the Church is as a ship without a rudder, the reason does not matter; it is more important than ever to study our faith, to have sane spiritual guidance, and to give strong witness of the faith. Some tell me, for instance, that taking part in the pro-life movement is not important anymore. I tell them that it is more important than ever.

Do you see the Church as being in a moment in which there is no one in charge?

I have all the respect for the Petrine Ministry, and I do not want it to appear like I am a voice opposed to the Pope. I would like to be a teacher of the faith, with all my weaknesses, saying the truth that many feel today. They feel a bit of seasickness, because it seems to them that the ship of the Church has lost its compass.. The cause of this disorientation must be put aside. We have the constant tradition of the Church, the teachings, the liturgy, morals. The catechism does not change.

ENCOUNTER WITH CULTURE

How is this pontificate characterized?

The Pope, rightly, speaks of the need to go to the peripheries. The response of the people has been very warm. But we cannot go to the peripheries emptihanded. We go with the Word of Christ, with the sacraments, with the virtuous life of the Holy Spirit. I don't say that the Pope is doing it, but the risk is there of misinterpreting the encounter with the [prevailing] culture. Faith cannot accomodate itself to the culture, but rather must call it to conversion. We are a countercultural movement, not a popular one.

You said that Evangelii Gaudium is not part of the Magisterium. Why?

The Pope himself says in the beginning of the document that it is not magisterial, that it only offers indications of the direction in which he will take the Church.

Does the average Catholic make this distinction?

No. That is why a careful presentation to the faithful is lacking, explaining the nature and the weight of the document. There are affirmations in Evangelii Gaudium that express the Pope's [personal] thinking. We receive it with respect, but they do not teach an official doctrine.

Vida Nueva

November 1-7, 2014 edition (pages 38-39)

Text: Darío Menor, Rome

Relativism's Clericalism

That type of clericalism which usurps ecclesial authority to promote homosexual perversion for the corruption of souls is a very specific type of clericalism. It is a clericalism which hates the truth, hates the Church and spreads confusion. It is an anti-clerical clericalism. We could call it the clericalism of relativism, or, if you prefer, homo-clericalism.

You see, some clericalism does actually believe in right doctrine and upright conduct, and still abuses authority. That is clericalism in the strict sense.

To call unchastity clericalism is therefore inaccurate. A misnomer. Typical Pope Francis equivocation.

Protecting God's Priests

In their zeal to "protect God's children" many Church administrators are wrongly blocking the right of the visiting priest to say Mass.

The canonical norm for a priest while travelling is to obtain within the year a "celebret" from his Ordinary which he may present at any church in the world and is to be allowed to say Mass.  Since the Dallas Charter most dioceses in the United States have adopted the policy of rejecting that canonical norm and imposing practically impossible bureaucratic regulations (a case by case letter of good standing with the place, date and time of the mass(es) to be said), all but shutting the door to the basic priestly piety of saying mass in church while travelling away from his parish.

Canon law actually says that even if the priest does not have the "celebret" he is to be allowed to say Mass provided his good standing may be presumed.

Can. 903 A priest is to be permitted to celebrate the Eucharist, even if he is not known to the rector of the church, provided either that he presents commendatory letters, not more than a year old (viz. "celebret"), from his own Ordinary or Superior, or that it can be prudently judged that he is not debarred from celebrating.

In other words, innocence is presumed.  This law is to be interpreted broadly.  Let them say Mass; do not try to unnecessarily stop them, for the good of the Church and of the priests themselves.

Could it be that some in the hierarchy are using the priestly sexual abuse of children as an excuse to promote their own anti-clerical agenda (i.e. against the basic distinctive rights and identity of the priest).

What is often happening in parishes is that visiting priests are simply sheepishly hidden among the laity in the pews because the way to the altar is wrongly barred to them.  This has nothing to do with "protecting God's children" but with laicizing the clergy!  While the lay people are doing the clerical roles (i.e. being clericalized in those same parishes).

The canonical logic requiring the rectors of churches to allow every legitimate priest to say Mass is related to two other canons: the one urging priests to say Mass daily, even if it must be done alone (it is "earnestly recommended" can. 904); and the other requiring that Mass be said in a sacred place and on a dedicated or blessed altar, except in a particular case of necessity (can. 932). That priests (in good standing) might fulfill this solemn and sacred priestly duty of saying daily Mass (for their own salvation and that of the world) they have the right to do it properly in church, wherever they are, without unnecessary legalistic (pharisaic and non-canonical) obstacles.  He's not asking to baby sit.  He's just asking to say Mass, i.e. to pray in his distinctive capacity of priest!

This need to say Mass daily in church is not clericalism, it is basic priestly piety.  The altars of our churches are not private property but they belong to the entire Catholic body and should be open to all, including, especially, our beloved priests.  To oppose this fundamental priestly duty in any way is to oppose Christ in His sacred ministers, a subtle but very real form of anti-clericalism within the ranks of the Church hierarchy and administration which needs to be corrected.

We need to get this straight before we can even consider the same right to say the Extraordinary Form as set out in the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum below.

Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.

Art. 4. Celebrations of Mass as mentioned above in art. 2 may - observing all the norms of law - also be attended by faithful who, of their own free will, ask to be admitted.

Art. 5.  § 3 For faithful and priests who request it, the pastor should also allow celebrations in this extraordinary form for special circumstances such as marriages, funerals or occasional celebrations, e.g. pilgrimages.

N.B. All of these directives are to be interpreted liberally, give the people and the priests what they legitimately want, even if it is traditional!

Pope Francis Anti-Clerical Letter to US Bishops, Ignoring Homosexual Problem and Chastity

The most striking thing about the January 1st Letter of Pope Francis to the Bishops of the United States is the misplaced "clericalism" theme which continues to expose the Holy Father's anti-clericalism. Though in the introduction he mentions a "culture of abuse" he goes on for eight pages on the evil of division and bureaucracy in the hierarchy while not once mentioning chastity, virginity, celibacy, truth, church discipline. He does not even allude to homosexuality, or to the homosexualism which is ignoring and perpetuating it, buttressed by the grave and scandalous error that homosexual activity is not the problem.

What needs to happen in the Church is simply the following and the enforcing of Canon 521! The problem in the Church in 2019 is the promotion and toleration of bad leaders: doctrinally unsound and of notoriously immoral lives, and the ignoring and denial of that problem, and the Holy Father too obstinately continues to exhibit and encourage that!

Expose and Depose the Homophiles Who are Running the Church, at Every Level! THE VIGANO PLAN

Anti-Clerical Liturgy

Choirs of laymen (and women) throughout the world proudly (if rarely) sing the Latin motets of our Catholic heritage, but the bishops and priests are practically unaware, don't care or won't dare! This is the height of liturgical contradiction. Let us call it by it's name: anti-clericalism!

This liturgical dearth is in direct contradiction with the millennial tradition of the Church, including the express dictates of the Second Vatican Council.

According to Vatican II (SC 99, 100, 101), clerics should, as a norm, chant the divine office in common, in Latin.

99. Since the divine office is the voice of the Church, that is of the whole mystical body publicly praising God, those clerics who are not obliged to office in choir, especially priests who live together or who assemble for any purpose, are urged to pray at least some part of the divine office in common.

All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible: this refers not only to the internal devotion of their minds but also to their external manner of celebration.

It is, moreover, fitting that the office, both in choir and in common, be sung when possible.

100. Pastors of souls should see to it that the chief hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and the more solemn feasts. And the laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.

101. 1. In accordance with the centuries-old tradition of the Latin rite, the Latin language is to be retained by clerics in the divine office. But in individual cases the ordinary has the power of granting the use of a vernacular translation to those clerics for whom the use of Latin constitutes a grave obstacle to their praying the office properly. The vernacular version, however, must be one that is drawn up according to the provision of Art. 36.

A dead letter! Our seminaries and cathedrals have never even heard of the relevant liturgical books.

Cf. Archbishop Schneider on solving the liturgical crisis.

"The YouTube Heresies"

Father Barron indicates and answers four common fundamental misunderstandings of the critics of faith.

1. What believers mean by God.
2. How the Bible is to be read.
3. The relationship between religion and science.
4. The relationship between religion and violence.

Science is based on two metaphysical (pre-scientific) premises, beliefs
1. That the world is not God.
2. That the world is intelligible.
These two premises are theological assumptions that come from the belief in creation and thus a creator God. "Creation is the theological assumption behind the emergence of the sciences."
If you do not assume intelligibility you will not go to meet the world with your inquisitive intelligence.

Father Barron suffers from a common Neocon blind-spot, viz. the failure to acknowledge that the Latin liturgy is normative according to the Second Vatican Council. SC 36, 54, 101
His contradiction in that regard is evident in his dismissal of the question about it in the post-talk Q & A. As he said with classical Catholic literature being the Catholic equivalent to the very high-caliber academic material of all other areas of education, so we must say that the Catholic equivalent to the excellence in the performing arts and in school sports programs is, in the Western world, the Traditional Latin Liturgy, no question!

N.B. 99. All who pray the divine office, whether in choir or in common, should fulfill the task entrusted to them as perfectly as possible. This refers not only to the internal devotion of mind but also to the external manner of celebration.
   It is, moreover, fitting that whenever possible the office be sung, both in choir and in common.
   100. Pastors of souls should see to it that the principal hours, especially Vespers, are celebrated in common in church on Sundays and on the more solemn feasts. The laity, too, are encouraged to recite the divine office, either with the priests, or among themselves, or even individually.
Then 101 says Latin is the proper tongue for it!
Plinthos: Where in the world is this done! Vatican II's deadest letter! No one will even dare to attempt it, in the fear of being labelled and rejected as an backward anti-modern.

Fact is, dumbed down Liturgy is a clear manifestation of anti-clericalism.

Anti-Clericalism: The One Acceptable Prejudice/Intolerance

"The Patriotic Weight Loss Machine"

"...Voltaire [remarked] that Newton, Locke and Clarke would have been persecuted in France, imprisoned at Rome, burned at Lisbon. This zeal for toleration did not, however, prevent him from expressing lively satisfaction when in 1761 he heard it reported that three priests had been burned at Lisbon by the anti-clerical government."

A History of Philosophy Volume VI: Modern Philosophy, From the French Enlightenment to Kant, Frederick Copleston, SJ, New York: Doubleday, 1994. 18-19.

"Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves." Luke 10:3

Pope Francis says that the shepherd should smell like the sheep. I have always thought that it is actually the other way around, that the sheep should come to smell like the shepherd (all, ultimately, acquiring the sweet aroma of Christ).

Today's Gospel adds something to the discussion, which seems to be largely omitted from Pope Francis' preaching: the warning against the wolves!

Luke 10:3 "Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. That by your innocent and holy lives, through the power of My grace working in you, you may change the wolf into the lamb, i.e., convert evil men from the error of their way. Fear not, therefore, for under My protection no harm can befall you. For as S. Ambrose says, 'the good Shepherd takes care that the wolves do His flock no harm.'"

The Great Commentary of Cornelius à Lapide: Saint Luke's Gospel, London: Hodges, 1892, 247.

Pope Francis' rhetoric, hyper-critical of the clergy (thereby encouraging the world's anti-clericalism), practically ignores the fact that the Lord sent his disciples out as sheep among wolves, and that, therefore, one of the primary tasks of the shepherd is to guard the flock against the wolves.

The guarding aspect of the faith Pope Francis largely neglects, while myriad upon myriads of the sheep are lured into evil; and the shepherds (including His Holiness Himself) keep quiet! It is a total lack of mercy to thus tolerate and encourage the wolves!

N.B. A wolf is anyone who is bent upon living in mortal sin: obstinate in grave sin. They (the wolves) must be corrected or expelled, for the good of the lambs. It is an essential aspect of the Gospel on the role of the ministers of the Gospel. The erring must be corrected! And the innocent must be protected! If the priests (and bishops and popes) don't do it, who will!

P.S. In this regard recall the mission statement of Pope Benedict at his inaugural Mass as Pope: "Pray for me, that I may not flee for fear of the wolves." Cf. Problem Resolution is a Primary Pastoral Duty of Bishops.

This Sunday's Gospel: The Apostolic Election

Mark 1:14-20 (the same Gospel of two Mondays ago) is a record of the beginning of the Lord's choice of the twelve Apostles whom he ordains to be "fishers of men," a title and dignity he gives only to his Apostles. That title is significant regarding the essential difference between clergy and laity.

Only certain men are ordained by Christ as "fishers of men!" 

N.B. Anti-Clericalism.

Crucifixion of the Just Man in Plato

Here is the saying, and if it should be presented in terms which are too harsh, do not think that they are my words, but the words of those who esteem injustice instead of justice. They would say thus: that the just man, because of his demeanor, will be scourged, racked, thrown in chains, his eyes will be burnt out, and, ultimately, after having suffered all these evils, he will be impaled on a cross. Then finally he will understand that man should pursue not justice but the appearance thereof.  Republic, II 361 E - 362 A

The supreme injustice is to seem just without being so.  Republic II 361 A

We could say that the latter quote is the theme of Pope Francis' papacy, in his hyper-critical attitude toward clergy and pious Catholics (viz. anti-clericalism).

My Cassock and I

Here is a short apology for the long-standing custom of the cassock, based on its history in my life.

My first thoughts about being a priest go back to my first days in grade-school seeing the parish priest, Msgr. Jones, wearing his cassock at that parish in Wilmington, NC. I remember him in his black house cassock as my first inspiration towards a priestly vocation, and the cassocks we altar boys wore to serve Mass. I wanted to be a priest from the first time I saw the priest wearing the cassock. The school nuns (Sisters of Mercy, Belmont Province) still wore habits throughout the 1970's. The pastor of that same home parish during my high-school and college years also wore his cassock for Sunday Mass. Surely I had seen the cassock before those school-day years, along with the religious habits of sisters, at religious shrines and churches which I frequented with my family from the time I was conceived in the womb in upstate NY. My first living memory, in fact, is of a nun, in full habit, taking me joyfully and tenderly by the hand to the lollipop jar. I was probably three.

In my catholic university/seminary years in the North Eastern US there were some senior priests who regularly wore the cassock, and, by that time I was frequenting the Traditional Latin Mass of a priest from another parish of my NC hometown, for which, of course, he wore the cassock. In the diocese of my seminary there were priests who always wore cassocks for ministry, and gave monthly days of recollection for seminarians and clergy. And there was an annual seminar for seminarians/priests in the Boston area which I attended from the late eighties throughout the nineties and there we, the seminarians, also freely wore cassocks. Throughout my eleven years of seminary we wore cassocks to serve Mass and we loved to wear it such that even after Mass we would often leave it on for breakfast at the University dining hall with all the students. Everyone seemed to love the cassock (except perhaps a few of the seminary faculty who were suspicious of it because of some personal hangups).

In 1999, the year after I was ordained a priest, the Conference of Bishops of the United States specified that the cassock was considered legitimate clerical attire. Of course my contemporaries and I knew that from the universal norm of the Church and the immemorial custom of the clergy, which I had witnessed throughout my life, and which was also influential in my vocation to the priesthood. I have worn the cassock habitually for over two decades of parish priesthood, continuing the tradition of many men whom I admire and strive to follow. The cassock is a normative and simple yet elegant and supernatural and eminently practical priestly attire. And the saturno (the distinctively clerical street hat) goes very well with it! The only people that seem to have a problem with the cassock is a certain number, ever decreasing, of clerics. The faithful and the unbiased love it, not to mention the majority of the younger clergy.

Lest we forget the obvious, the most visible priest in the world during my lifetime is always in his cassock, even, at times, heroically so: the Successor of Saint Peter, the Bishop of Rome, the Holy Father, the Pope. Along with all things traditional and Roman, we love the cassock. It is a sign of "romanitas," and we follow the good example of the Holy Father in this. Pope John Paul II even wore the cassock to Mexico when it was still illegal for any priest to do so. Pope Benedict humbly, yet boldly, even wore the red papal saturno on occasion, for the glory of Holy Mother Church and the furthering of the Catholic faith in the world, boosting the number of priestly vocations world-wide! We are ambassadors of Christ, dispensers of the mysteries of God, that supernatural office, with the cassock, is obvious for everyone to see.

Question. Why do some clergymen despise the typical and traditional attire of the priest while never seeming to mind the religious attire and headdress of Muslims or Jews, etc.? Shall we call it self-hating Catholicism, or simply anti-clericalism? It is the tyranny of a false pluralism, a symptom of religious and doctrinal relativism, that everything is good except, of course, Christian/Western/European civilization. That all started with the Black Legend, the mocking, despising, smearing and destroying of all things Roman, Catholic and/or Spanish, which continues to our own day.

Saint Francis Borgia, SJ, pray for us!
N.B. "[Saint Francis Borgia] was typical of the patrician saints, self-effacing, determined, enterprising, winning people of all ranks by his kindness and courtesy." Donald Attwater, A Dictionary of Saints, Penguin, 1965, 139.

Thirteen Reasons I Wear the Cassock Rather Than the Clerical Suit

Spousal Dignity: Reason for Masculine Priesthood

Burkini Ban is Ban on Freedom

Go topless or naked to French beaches, but no veil!
All in the name of freedom.

The burkini ban reminds me of the Mexican Constitution of 1917 in which "churches" were disbanded, all Church property seized and religious orders were outlawed because the enlightened deemed it contrary to liberty to make a vow of obedience. Religious vows and any form of religious habit were forbidden. (The use of any distinctive religious garb was prohibited in the 1874 constitution).

Cf. Yesterday's New York Times article "France's Burkini Bigotry," while recognizing the problem, does not acknowledge the source: anti-clericalism (from the Enlightenment) which was first used in France against the Catholic religion and is now backfiring on her! France, as a body, needs to reject secularism and start going to Church, praying and reading the Bible! Christian Europe needs to take the offensive on faith! Promote our own heritage and convert the Mohammedans rather than outlawing religion.

Art. 5 El Estado no puede permitir que se lleve a efecto ningún contrato, pacto o convenio que tenga por objeto el menoscabo, la pérdida o el irrevocable sacrificio de la libertad del hombre, ya sea por causa de trabajo, de educación o de voto religioso. La ley, en consecuencia, no permite el establecimiento de órdenes monásticas, cualquiera que sea la denominación u objeto con que pretendan erigirse.

Art. 27, II.- Las asociaciones religiosas denominadas iglesias, cualquiera que sea su credo, no podrán en ningún caso tener capacidad para adquirir, poseer o administrar bienes raíces, ni capitales impuestos sobre ellos; los que tuvieren actualmente, por sí o por interpósita persona entrarán al dominio de la Nación, concediéndose acción popular para denunciar los bienes que se hallaren en tal caso. La prueba de presunciones será bastante para declarar fundada la denuncia. Los templos destinados al culto público son de la propiedad de la Nación, representada por el Gobierno Federal, quien determinará los que deben continuar destinados a su objeto. Los obispados, casas curales, seminarios, asilos o colegios de asociaciones religiosas, conventos o cualquier otro edificio que hubiere sido construido o destinado a la administración, propaganda o enseñanza de un culto religioso, pasarán desde luego, de pleno derecho, al dominio directo de la Nación, para destinarse exclusivamente a los servicios públicos de la Federación o de los Estados en sus respectivas jurisdicciones. Los templos que en lo sucesivo se erigieren para el culto público, serán propiedad de la Nación.

Art. 130.- Corresponde a los Poderes Federales ejercer en materia de culto religioso y disciplina externa, la intervención que designen las leyes. Las demás autoridades obrarán como auxiliares de la Federación. El Congreso no puede dictar leyes estableciendo o prohibiendo religión cualquiera. El matrimonio es un contrato civil. Este y los demás actos del estado civil de las personas, son de la exclusiva competencia de los funcionarios y autoridades del orden civil, en los términos prevenidos por las leyes, y tendrán la fuerza y validez que las mismas les atribuyan. La simple promesa de decir verdad y de cumplir las obligaciones que se contraen, sujeta al que la hace, en caso de que faltare a ella, a las penas que con tal motivo establece la ley. La ley no reconoce personalidad alguna a las agrupaciones religiosas denominadas iglesias. Los ministros de los cultos serán considerados como personas que ejercen una profesión y estarán directamente sujetos a las leyes que sobre la materia se dicten. Las Legislaturas de los Estados únicamente tendrán facultad de determinar, según las necesidades locales, el número máximo de ministros de los cultos. Para ejercer en México el ministerio de cualquier culto, se necesita ser mexicano por nacimiento. Los ministros de los cultos nunca podrán, en reunión pública o privada constituida en junta, ni en actos del culto o de propaganda religiosa, hacer crítica de las leyes fundamentales del país, de las autoridades en particular, o en general del gobierno; no tendrán voto activo ni pasivo, ni derecho para asociarse con fines políticos. Para dedicar al culto nuevos locales abiertos al público se necesita permiso de la Secretaría de Gobernación, oyendo previamente al Gobierno del Estado. Debe haber en todo templo un encargado de él, responsable ante la autoridad del cumplimiento de las leyes sobre disciplina religiosa, en dicho templo, y de los objetos pertenecientes al culto. El encargado de cada templo, en unión de diez vecinos más, avisará desde luego a la autoridad municipal, quien es la persona que esté a cargo del referido templo. Todo cambio se avisará por el ministro que cese, acompañado del entrante y diez vecinos más. La autoridad municipal, bajo pena de destitución y multa hasta de mil pesos por cada caso, cuidará del cumplimiento de esta disposición; bajo la misma pena llevará un libro de registro de los templos, y otro de los encargados. De todo permiso para abrir al público un nuevo templo, o del relativo a cambio de un encargado, la autoridad municipal dará noticia a la Secretaría de Gobernación, por conducto del Gobernador del Estado. En el interior de los templos podrán recaudarse donativos en objetos muebles. Por ningún motivo se revalidará, otorgará dispensa o se determinará cualquier otro trámite que tenga por fin dar validez en los cursos oficiales, a estudios hechos en los establecimientos destinados a la enseñanza profesional de los ministros de los cultos. La autoridad que infrinja esta disposición será penalmente responsable, y la dispensa o trámite referidos, será nulo y traerá consigo la nulidad del título profesional para cuya obtención haya sido parte la infracción de este precepto. Las publicaciones periódicas de carácter confesional, ya sea por su programa, por su título o simplemente por sus tendencias ordinarias, no podrán comentar asuntos políticos nacionales ni informar sobre actos de las autoridades del país, o de particulares, que se relacionen directamente con el funcionamiento de las instituciones públicas. Queda estrictamente prohibida la formación de toda clase de agrupaciones políticas cuyo título tenga alguna palabra o indicación cualquiera que la relacione con alguna confesión religiosa. No podrán celebrarse en los templos reuniones de carácter político. No podrá heredar por sí ni por interpósita persona ni recibir por ningún título un ministro de cualquiera culto, un “inmueble”, ocupado por cualquiera asociación de propaganda religiosa o de fines religiosos o de beneficencia. Los ministros de los cultos tienen incapacidad legal para ser herederos, por testamento, de los ministros del mismo culto o de un particular con quien no tengan parentesco dentro del cuarto grado. Los bienes muebles o inmuebles del clero o de asociaciones religiosas, se regirán, para su adquisición, por particulares, conforme al artículo 27 de esta Constitución. Los procesos por infracción a las anteriores bases, nunca serán vistos en jurado.

American bathing suits of the 1800's