Talk:Miguel Pro

Biased

This article seems unusually biased for a Wikipedia article. A controversial topic is presented as though one side were right and the other wrong. Anti-clerical laws were deemed by some to be a necessary defensive measure, to prevent future occurrences often-repeated past abuses by the Church. Whether or not they were correct in this belief is a matter of opinion, but in this article their positions are not even mentioned. Church positions are stated as though facts, with supporting citations (when given) coming from Church sources. (sorry if this is not the right way to comment on it, but this is my first comment ever on Wikipedia) Lazarillo wiki (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, this reads like a hagiography written by the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.150.65 (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

So anti-clericalism (like the murder of Pro, maybe) was justified? Even after all the would-be assasins were apprehended (one died in the chase after the attempt), and it became certain that Pro was not one of them, Calles was notified of Pro's innocence, but he insisted that Pro be killed. The reality of the matter is that even the Mexican government today recognizes that the anticlerical provisions violated religious liberty. Most of the provisions were removed from the constitution in 1992. They plainly violated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. They are also recognized as offensive to the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and other commonly accepted international measures of religious liberty. The reality of the matter is that Mexico, even after the 1992 reform of the constitution, has remaining provisions in the constitution and law which are offensive to religious liberty see here. Mamalujo (talk) 03:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for exposing the pseudo-impartial nonsense of "NPOV" on Wiki. If an innocent man (esp. a Catholic priest) is murdered by a (secular) dictatorial regime, "we need other points of view." Typical wiki bigots. They need a class in cross-culturalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.164.139.105 (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well let's work on this. I just removed the word "false " from the first or second sentence. That is an opinion word until it is referenced. Which should not be hard to do. Right? So do it and let's move forward. Wait.I just read today that "forward" has just been declared a "socialist word." So how about just "move on?" Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

My family was divided between both sides of this conflict, so I have been fed with both versions of this controversy. Most of the times the original reason of the so called "Cristero" war is left out. According to my very personal sources, it all began with the education reform started by the government of General Calles that included sexual education at 5th and 6th grades. The catholic church was so upset of this that they started opposing vehemently to this change. To emphasize this, rumors started to circulate among Catholics that teachers (specially those in government schools) were raping girls at schools. Then, the "snow ball" effect was carried on to expand onto the other differences that were being "cooking" since president Juarez separation of Church and State that removed most of the power from the Catholic church and the clergy. The rest is History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.246.252 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Lutheranism

Is Miguel Pro really honored in Lutheranism and celebrated on the Lutheran Calendar of Saints? He is categorized in People celebrated in the Lutheran Liturgical Calendar and the infobox says he is venerated in Lutheranism, but I do not see any sources.. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this calendar for 2010, Lutherans (at least the ECLA) celebrate his feast Nov. 23. Mamalujo (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Miguel Pro. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928040614/http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=3045 to http://www.angelusonline.org/print.php?sid=3045

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"false charges" vs "charges"

In the lede it states that Fr. Pro was "executed under the presidency of Plutarco Elías Calles on false charges of bombing and attempted assassination "
I feel pretty strongly that the word "false" should be removed from here. He was executed because of charges. All the reasons for viewing the charges as "false" can be brought up later, but those were the charges that he was tried for. Carptrash (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

This web site, for example, states, "guilty or innocent" [1] i believe most impartial viewers would agree that the charges were false, but that is not for the lede to say. Carptrash (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Page 92 here suggests that at the time (1927) even some Catholics were not sure of Fr. Pro's innocence. [2] Carptrash (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

PS I notice that I first removed the work "false" in 2012. So this is nothing new. Carptrash (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a historical fact that the charges were false. Historian John Lynch, Professor of Latin American History at the University of London, says that they were "false charges" and notes there was no process and no trial. He specifically says Pro "was not implicated in the action" ("bomb attack"). The historical record is clear who was actually involved. It was Juan Antonio Tirado, Luis Segura Vilchis, Nahum Lamberto Ruiz, and Jose Gonzalez. Vilchis confessed and named his coconspirators. See Yesterday in Mexico: A Chronicle of the Revolution, 1919–1936: "Calles wanted the Pros to be shot...'to set an example.'" The police inspector "pointed out the advisability of giving the "appearance of legality", Calles simply told him to obey instructions regardless of forms." Mamalujo (talk) 07:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I am not doubting that the charges were trumped up, I just think that this is bad writing. Carptrash (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Beaitification was in Rome

Hello, I was perplexed by the contradictions here, so I investigated:

• List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II indicates that Saint John Paul the Great was not in Mexico in 1989, but had just been to Africa.
• The American Catholic source does not indicate a location where John Paul spoke his beaitifcation homily. That must have been added later.
• The primary source, Saint John Paul the Great's homily indicates it was delivered at Saint Peter's Square in Rome, which is a definitive answer, as far as I am concerned. I have updated the article accordingly. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic and anti-religious bigotry exists to this day as seen from the comments above. The murder of an innocent man has no defense. Attempts to edit this article, like this stupid comment: "...but in reality for defying the virtual outlawing of Catholicism..." demonstrate the ignorance involved. The comments here talk about bias instead they show ignorance and bigotry. Calles was a ruthless dictator who murdered many innocent people, those are the facts and they cannot be changed.

Anticlericalism

What needs to be added is that both liberal and left revolutionaries have a problem not exactly with religious belief but how religious institutions have been coopted by the state to serve political interests. Its important that a distinction is made between anticlericalism and anticatholicism. 154.47.109.236 (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)