Congratulations! You have successfully made it to day two of Lent Madness 2021. If Lent Madness is part of your Lenten discipline this year - and we sincerely hope it is - you're doing great so far! Our competition continues today with an intriguing matchup between Miguel Pro and Constantine. You might say there are PROS and CONS to be weighed as you decide for whom to cast your vote.
In yesterday's opening matchup, Camillus de Lellis trounced Matthias in a Biblical beatdown 71% to 29% to advance to the Saintly Sixteen. If you'd like to see an updated bracket, you can simply visit the Bracket Tab each day. Bracket Czar Adam Thomas updates it daily for your viewing pleasure. He also shares links to each previous battle, which comes in handy when you seek a refresher in the later rounds.
Speaking of brackets, in case you missed the incredible peg doll video featuring all 32 saints in this year's bracket created by the talented team at the Cathedral of St. James in South Bend, Indiana, you can watch it here. Seriously. Do yourself a favor and revel in two minutes of joy that we could all surely use.
Finally, don't forget to tune in tomorrow for the ONLY Saturday matchup of Lent Madness as Tarcisius takes on Egeria.
Miguel Pro
José Ramón Miguel Agustín Pro Juárez was born in 1891 in Guadalupe, Zacatecas. After entering the Jesuit novitiate and completing theological studies in Europe, Miguel Pro returned to Veracruz in 1926. His ministry quickly went underground on account of the violent anti-Catholic repression, and he signed his letters with his childhood nickname of “Cocol” to obscure his identity.
Telling the story of Miguel Pro requires entering into a fraught period of Mexico’s history called the Cristero rebellion, when the Roman Catholic Church’s official and unofficial institutions engaged in a ten year, violent rebellion against the anti-Catholic regime.
For many Mexican Roman Catholics, including Miguel Pro, the Cristero Rebellion was the heroic story of the faithful engaging in overt and covert resistance against an extremely violent and repressive anti-Catholic effort. One of the most famous images is of railroad tracks in Jalisco lined by the executed bodies of Cristero rebels. The Cristeros are frequently presented by the Roman Catholic Church as heroes who took up arms against such repression.
In contrast, when I studied Mexico-U.S. border relations in el Tecnológico de Monterrey in Querétaro, Mexico, this period was presented as part of a broader set of internationally led efforts to undermine the 1917 Constitution, a socialist-inspired document whose agrarian reforms had aligned Mexico’s elite Roman Catholic families with U.S. interests. Indeed, America’s fingerprints are all over this conflict, from funneling money to the rebels to negotiating a peace agreement that led to the church’s withdrawal of support for the Cristeros.
In 1927, an innocent Miguel Pro was executed without trial for the attempted assassination of former Mexican president Álvaro Obregón; photos of his execution became a rallying point in the final years of the rebellion. Miguel Pro was pointedly beatified by Pope John Paul II in 1988, a period when the Roman Catholic Church was once again deeply engaged in resisting socialist and communist governments and Latin American liberation theology.
At his execution, Miguel Pro raised his arms in imitation of Christ and shouted ¨Viva Cristo Rey!” — “Long live Christ the King!”, the defying cry of the Cristeros.
Collect for Miguel Pro
Almighty God, who gave to your servant Miguel boldness to confess the Name of our Savior Jesus Christ before the rulers of this world, and courage to die for this faith: Grant that we may always be ready to give a reason for the hope that is in us, and to suffer gladly for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ; who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
Constantine
Constantine the Great is a complex character in the history of Christianity. What is without debate is that he profoundly influenced the direction of Christianity. He is a saint in the Orthodox tradition.
Constantine was born in 272 ce in modern-day Serbia to one of Rome’s four emperors, Constantius. His mother, Helena, was not of noble birth and may have been simply Constantius’s concubine. She was a deeply pious Christian and, no doubt, shaped Constantine’s relationship to Christianity. Constantine excelled as a military leader and ultimately succeeded his father as the emperor of Britain, Gaul, and Spain. A series of power struggles and civil wars led to his consolidation of power as the sole emperor of the Roman Empire.
One of the most significant battles was with Maxentius, a rival to the throne, on the Milvian Bridge. Shortly before the battle, Constantine had a vision in which he (and purportedly also his army) saw a cross of light in the sky with the words, “In this conquer.” The following night, Christ appeared to him and told him to make his standards with the chi-rho Labarum ☧ (chi and rho are the first two letters of Christ in Greek). Constantine obliged and his army under that sign did indeed conquer.
Following this victory, one of Constantine’s first legislative acts was to issue the Edict of Milan, which brought about the universal toleration of Christianity and the return to Christians of all property that had been taken from them. Whatever his personal convictions, his preferential treatment of Christians was a hallmark of his reign. He helped guide the Christian church through major controversies, including the Arian debate for which he gathered the bishops from across the Roman Empire for the Council at Nicae—and funded the meeting entirely out of his coffers.
Constantine was also a major patron of the church—he gifted a villa that would become the foundation of St. John Lateran, he gifted the Vatican fields, and in Jerusalem he supported the construction of the important Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Church of the Holy Nativity. In 321, Constantine legislated that Sunday be a day of rest.
Constantine was baptized on his deathbed in May 337. Throughout the Middle Ages, he was revered as both a godly man and as a model ruler.
Collect for Constantine
Almighty God, you have surrounded us with a great cloud of witnesses: Grant that we, encouraged by the good example of your servant Constantine, may persevere in running the race that is set before us, until at last we may with him attain to your eternal joy; through Jesus Christ, the pioneer and perfecter of our faith, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.
[poll id="302"]
180 comments on “Miguel Pro vs. Constantine”
I voted for Miguel Pro because he died for Christ in this century. He stood and was counted. Although it was a hard choice I felt he gave up more for Christ than did Contantine.
Poor Miguel, to be in competition with the man who made it possible for us all to be taking part in a Christian activity openly and without fear of reprisal! My vote goes to Constantine because had he not enacted the Edict of Milan in 313 to make Christianity legal in the Roman Empire, you and I might still be lunch for lions. Constantine's edict made it possible for the Emperor Theodosius to make Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire some 43 years after Constantine's death. As for Ken Howard's laying all the ills of Christianity - anti-semitism, crusades, pogroms, etc. - at the feet of Constantine, that's a bit of a stretch. Yes,Constantine was militaristic - hard not to be as an emperor in the fourth century CE, and as for anti-semitism, much of that can be laid at the feet of the writer of the Gospel of John, who constantly refers to 'the Jews' in less than flattering terms. Martin Luther also got in a few licks in that area, too. Should we throw out the Gospel of St. John and Martin Luther along with Constantine? As for Miguel valiantly fighting against the anti-Roman Catholic authorities in the Mexico of the 1920s, perhaps the government of the day was reacting to the treatment of the indigenous people of that part of the world by the Conquistadors, those fine Christian gentlemen who introduced Central and South America to the love of God at the point of a sword, while their sponsors back home in sunny Spain were forcing Jews to convert or die?
Yes Rene! The church Fr Miguel was fighting for was terribly oppressive and supported the land owners and American fascism. He was undoubtedly a fine priest, but failed to challenge the abuses in the church. The government of the day fell abysmally short in its justice, but was righteous in its judgement.
Having come through the trash talking and negativity in our political discourses over the past several years, it is disheartening to encounter these attitudes in the comments on Lent Madness matchups. In our season of 'self-examination and repentance', I may have to forego reading any further comments to safeguard my Lenten pledge to refrain from 'uncharitable thoughts' towards my neighbors.
I write from the stolen lands of the Susquehanna people in what is now known as York County, Pennsylvania. When I trace this story, I first return to Pope Nicholas V in 1454 drafting the "Doctrine of Discovery" which led to both genocide in what is now the United States plus the trans-Atlantic slave trade. He used Jesus to justify "slaying people, enslaving people, and stealing land" in the name of Jesus. Take that back farther and we arrive at Constantine's vision where he heard a voice say, "By this sign, conquer" when he saw an image of a spear-tipped cross. So the conquering in the name of the cross, a contradiction to the way of Jesus, goes back to this Roman emperor. Obviously, I cannot vote for Constantine and lament his impact upon Christianity. I pray that his imperial version of the faith might be emptied from me. Amen
Complicated. I'm not convinced the Cristeros story is simply of liberationist piety vs. tyrannical, oppressive state (the account above complicates that narrative--the U.S. pursued "anti-socialist," pro-oil policies, and the Catholic hierarchy was aligned with those policies; the pious rank-and-file who suffered, including our priest, did not enjoy the benefits of that alliance). Neither do I think Constantine was a benign patron who unwittingly gave the church power it would later come to abuse. He turned to the (Empire-wide, disciplined) church when the Roman military was so divided in loyalty as to be unreliable for his ambitions; he ensured his personal control over bishops by convoking Nicaea (where he had himself recognized as "first among bishops"); he dictated the "homo-ousios" formula that would require another century of warring councils to articulate to anyone's satisfaction (which causes me to doubt that it sprang from his superior theological acumen). He created monuments to his own largesse (Hagia Sophia, Holy Sepulchre, bits of The Cross donated across Europe--enough, Calvin later quipped, "to build Noah's Ark") where before, the "treasures of the church" had been its people, especially the poor (as a deacon informed officers of the Decian persecution). My vote isn't as much pro-Pro as con-Constantine.
Constantine for me.
Can't vote for Pro. Look up Santa Teresa de Cabora?
Miguel his dying allengance was to Christ.
I enjoyed learning about Father Michael Pro. I had never known of him. I have always been leary of Constantine because somewhere back in my church life ? I heard that he censored some of the books by early Christians from being included in the Bible. I vote for Padre Michael.
My vote is for Constantine!
A tricky choice is yours and mine
‘twixt Father Pro and Constantine;
each had his brilliant moments, true,
but voting is not what I’ll do.
Wouldn't vote for Constantine for Dog Catcher.
Making the church into the "established" church was onw od the great mistakes of Christianity
I went for Miguel because he reminds me of some of the counter-culture rebels of the 1960's. Though I didn't take part in campus marches (except for Sympathy with Selma), I had a certain amount of sympathy for my contemporaries who were trying to bring equality to others.
We know both of these figures more for the company they kept than for the figures themselves in many ways.
What turned me in my vote is the Vatican using Blesséd Miguel Pro to combat Liberation Theology and needed land reforms in México. I'm not saying he isn't a Child of Christ, but he is being used by those against needed societal reforms.
Constantine has his problems, too. At least he ordered tolerance of religion and isn't being used as a tool to operas societal good.
Constantine only gained from his faith. Miguel maintained his faith at the risk of, and then in spite of, losing everything.
Miguel Pro! I am blessed to live just across the border from Juarez, with daily views of Mount Cristo Rey. I may have an advantage of more familiarity with Mexican history. So many great comments urging others to more research of Miguel Pro, thank you for that! Please keep in mind that accusations are not always reality. I see Miguel Pro as a clear winner, and am saddened when a name with greater recognition overshadows a true leader for Christ.
I was disposed to vote for Constantine on account of the Edict of Milan and the entirely unrelated and trivial fact that he was acclaimed emperor at York (Eboracum), an English city for which I have a special fondness. Also, Roman history is so cool. For all the estimable consequences of his imperial decision making, and despite the catastrophic outcomes of some policies, he certainly earned his epithet 'the Great.' Despite his significance for the history of the church, for good and for bad, he was a man of tremendous power and little known piety whose actions in support of the increasingly popular Christian faith may have carried little risk. (I invite correction from keener students of history, and there are many here judging from the informed commentary.) Padre Miguel, on the other hand, seems to have been a fairly obscure parish priest who sought to respond to the needs of Christians at great personal risk. The Cristero cause may have been an unfortunate mix of religious freedom and reactionary politics, but this doesn't necessarily implicate him. As Miguel seems to have been a man who risked his life, and lost it, in defence of his faith, he strikes me as more 'saintly' than Constantine, and therefore more deserving of the Golden Halo.
Miguel Pro! Did further reading online and his story and photographs are riveting! What a brave, committed Christian. I can’t go with Constantine, who seems to have been a Christian in name only. And his version of Christianity is so far removed from Jesus of Nazareth.
Abstaining from voting on this one. My mama always said that the Edict of Milan was the worst thing that ever happened to Christianity. Both "saints" seem to be very violent, and Pro sounds like he was aligned with the ruling class. Nope.
What a fascinating day. Thank you to whoever prepared this complicated bracket. It lead me to research the Mexican Revolution and the Cristeros. And to appreciate the complexity of being a leader and influencer in our challenging world.
My husband's family has a story about Miguel Pro: his grandmother, who grew up in Mexico City, told him about the day when her father opened the door to Miguel Pro who was coming to ask the family to hide him. He refused out of concern for the safety of his family. Miguel Pro was shot either that same day or the next morning.
Look up more on Miguel Pro. This bio was very insufficient.
How can you not vote for a man that recognizes the need for and therefore establishes a DAY OF REST!
If I didn’t have to vote by my bracket (we are doing a pool for the benefit of charity in our church), I wouldn’t have voted in this contest. I am quite sure neither one will go past the next round, so there’s that. I went with Constantine but I am glad not to vote for him again.
Just watched the peg people video — and suddenly considering a move to South Bend! What creative Christians they must be at the cathedral to have produced the video! Absolutely love it!
Lent will never be the same for me after that video. WOW ! Thanks to the Cathedral of St. James, South Bend, Indiana - home of Notre Dame and a few other colleges. Pete Buttigieg, our new Transportation Secretary, attended church there.
Ugh. Both today's choices embedded in violent politics. I'll vote but hope to overturn, if my choice wins, later.
First, there's an important error in the article: it was not an "attempted assassination" - Obregon was killed. It was a successful assassination.
I think that the story of Pro and the Cristeros was a little oversimplified, and there was some implied guilt by association, both of Pro at the time and of U.S. involvement in the Cristero war in the article. Certainly, the U.S. was following its own perceived interests (as so often in the history of Latin America), but that doesn't mean that there wasn't support for the Cristeros among the people, or that it was OK for the Mexican government to be murdering priests.
Anyway, I voted for Pro, who died for hie beliefs, instead of an Emperor who was probably using the church for his own political purposes.
Ahh, my mistake - I should have checked my story first! The successful attempt was later, partly as a response to what happened to the Pro brothers. I was responding off the top of my head in this age of Wikipedia ! My apologies.
I VOTED FOR CONSTANTINE, BECAUSE HE'S BEEN AROUND LONGER.
I ENJOYED READING ABOUT THEM BOTH.
I had not heard of Miguel Pro but I learned of the Cristero revolution (as it was called by those who educated me) when I did a rural studies program in central Mexico and lived with a family who suffered many personal losses for helping to hide their parish priest from government troops. They were hard-working country folk of deep faith. Whatever the politics that may have been playing out on an international stage, good, pious people suffered and I am proud to cast my vote for one of the,.
As a Spanish major, the history of the Catholic Church in Mexico has never been pretty, from the arrival of Cortes onward. But I voted for Miguel Pro simply because he found a way to minister to the faithful during a time of intense animosity against the church. Very different than the priests who accompanied Cortes.