During the 1920s in Mexico, a vigorous anti-Catholic movement swept Mexican politics and alienated a large portion of the Mexican population. As a result, there was a mix of backlash against the government that included violent revolution and civil disobedience. The clergy specifically engaged in more civilly disobedient acts rather than violent. The reasons for this, which I argue in my paper, come from their duty as Catholic Christians.
Jesus' directives in the New Testament to "turn the other cheek" and to carry someone's pack the extra mile reflect not actual pacifism but rather an aspect of shame. The cultural context surrounding these statements explains that those actions attempt to publicly expose the error of the oppressor. Likewise, in the case of the Cristero priests, they were following in that main directive to expose the injustice of their oppressors rather than fight it head on.
Furthermore, the encyclical written by Pope Pius XI, Iniquis Afflictisque calls for peace in the situation and condemned violence. This message from the Holy Father clearly implies that there should be opposition to the anti-clericalism of the Mexican government but not outright violence.
Thought not a very lengthy analysis, this paper will show how based on their own religious traditions, the priests of Mexico in the 1920s should not, and did not, act with violence.
I think one thing you may want to tease out is the very specific way that Jesus told people to shame their aggressors. Obviously, it was non-violent. But also, it used the aggressive force of the perpetrator against her or himself. What I mean is, Jesus did not say to shame the aggressor by, say, exposing private details about her or him which have nothing to do with his aggressive action, or expose her or him in an embarrassing situation. It was a specific action meant to amplify the fact that the perpetrator was being aggressive without doing anything actively towards that person. I suppose you will have to show through examples what sort of shaming the priests engaged in.
ReplyDeleteOr put another way, to remain civil and avoid violating rights, exposure of the aggressor's aggression must be ad argumentum, or ad decentium (against the action or behavior), rather than ad hominem. See Gandhi's principle that we oppose injustice, not persons.
ReplyDelete