ment by meddling in secular affairs,[1] and were frequently engaged in disputes with the state and civil authorities.
But it was with the church that the regular orders were most hotly engaged, and the struggle between them and the secular clergy, of which mention has already been made, lasted with more or less bitterness on both sides down to the time of the independence. As the Catholic church in New Spain extended her operations, and was able to appoint parish priests in towns more and more remote, she felt herself competent to administer her holy rites in those places without further aid of the friars, and was unwilling longer to divide alike authority and spoils with allies whose usefulness had become limited. But though she wished to reassume absolutely her own prerogatives, and removed friars from doctrinas, she met with firm opposition from the orders, who were extremely jealous in maintaining the privileges which had been conferred upon them. The regulars, therefore, refused submission to the bishops whenever they considered their rights invaded, and disputes with parish priests expanded into a contest with ecclesiastical jurisdiction.[2]
But the church was powerful; many privileges were annulled, orders were issued enjoining the obe-
- ↑ Medina, Chron. de S. Diego Mex., 189; Recop. de Ind., i. 121, 130.
- ↑ A prominent cause of dispute was the jurisdiction exercised by the bishops over the doctrinas. In 10-13 the bishop of Yucatan excommunicated certain Franciscan doctrineros for disobeying his orders relative to the payments made to them by Indians. Cogolludo, Hist. Yuc., 662-73. In 1669 a quarrel between Archbishop Rivera and the orders gave rise to 'un disturbio que se temió fatalidad,' the former having appointed canonical ministers to 16 doctrinas, the presentations to which were claimed by the provincial of the Augustinians. Robles, Diario, ii. 83-4. I have in my collection the original of a report made by Fray Antonio Ayetta, the representative at Madrid of the provincia de Santo Evangelio. The document bears date of March 9, 1688, and sets forth the difficulties Ayetta had encountered, arising from the hostility of the bishop of Guadalajara. Informe, in Prov. de Sta Evang., MS., 273-91. The same father in a memorial to the king argues against the claim of said bishop that the causes for changes in ministros doctrineros should be laid before him, the king having decreed that this should be done only to the viceroy as vice-patrono. Ayetta, Represent, por los Franciscanos, 15.
