Ecclesiastical Divorce in the 19th Century: Implications and the Status of Women Akhila Yechuri N ineteenth-century Mexico was an extremely Catholic society, and the common doctrine surrounding marital unions was that they were divine, and that those whom God united through marriage should not be parted. Divorces were rare, and only occurred in especially trying circumstances. I will be examining a divorce case filed on March 24th, 1839 in Mexico City. Dona Hilaria, the petitioner, was seeking a divorce from her husband, Felix Morales, insisting that “[t]his hellish [marriage] has become unbearable for me and I’m unable to carry on without risk to my safety.” 1 The only option available for women like Dona Hilaria, who were caught in abusive and loveless marriages, was to file for an ecclesiastical divorce, which was akin to legal separation. 2 In this paper, I will closely analyze Dona Hilaria’s petition to answer the following questions: what were the promises and drawbacks of ecclesiastical divorce, and what arguments did Dona Hilaria draw on to make her claims? Moreover, what does this petition tell us about the status of women in the early nineteenth century, just decades after Mexico’s Independence? Postcolonial Mexico was a time of great political instability. Mexico was still a young nation, and was facing inequities that it was not fully equipped to confront. The inequities were evident during the revolution and led to ideological tensions, as there were largely different agendas amongst the plebeian and elite rebels. Some indicate that the struggle for independence was less “a two-way struggle than a three-way conflict amongst the Mexican masses, the elite creole directorate... and the colonial regime.” 3 In the transition from colony to nation, the landed elite wanted to ensure their interests. Although politicians did proclaim large, sweeping reforms, much remained unchanged. Factional fighting amongst conservatives and liberals further impeded any social progress for women. Additionally, when creating a new legal code after independence, colonial laws were simply reviewed. This led to a large amount of written law that was “centuries old, [but] largely accepted in the 19th century.” 4 Many laws surrounding the legal rights of women depended on the woman’s purity, and characterized women according to their supposedly innate weakness Women were in many regards second-class citizens subject to the control of men. By virtue of their gender, women “relinquished sovereignty over most of [their] legal transactions, property, earnings, and even their domestic activities.” 5 They were not afforded autonomy or legal rights, and this ultimately left most women no choice but to comply with the wishes of the men in their lives. Dona Hilaria’s case occurred less than 20 years following independence. During this time, which saw tumultuous shifts in power, a newly conservative Santa Anna was in power. Social conservatives wanted to preserve Catholicism as the state religion and to maintain hierarchies from colonial times. Therefore, Dona Hilaria had to go through divorce while being scrutinized to archaic colonial laws. Marriage, like most Mexican societal institutions of the time, was patriarchal in nature. Men’s role was as providers. To accurately sum up power relations, one man stated, “it was the Pamela S. Murray, Women and Gender in Modern Latin America (New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2014), 50. Silvia M. Arrom, “Marital Relations and Divorce,” in The Women of Mexico City, 1790-1857(Stanford University Press, 1985), 208. Eric Van Young,Agrarian Rebellion and Defense of Community: Meaning and Collective Violence in Late Colonial and Independence-Era Mexico (Oxford University Press, 1993), 249. Arrom,”Legal Status”, 54. Ibid., 65.
Read full abstract