Well I didn't really notice where he wanted the state to only recognize Catholicism but even assuming he did, Mexico isn't America, they are a strong majority Catholic nation with powerful roots and traditions based around it. If you moved to Mexico and didn't expect that, then I would expect you be in for a surprise.
There is a difference between a country with a majority of Catholics (and BTW, how come if there was a majority of Catholics, such an aggressively secular constitution was passed by the elected Congress?), and a country recognizing Christ as its King. Look at the US: Christians are a majority yet (technically) it's not a theocracy.
Anyway the government was more restrictive then you are saying as well.
"Article 5 outlawed monastic religious orders. Article 24 forbade public worship outside of church buildings, while Article 27 restricted religious organizations' rights to own property. Finally, Article 130 took away basic civil rights of members of the clergy: priests and religious leaders were prevented from wearing their habits, were denied the right to vote, and were not permitted to comment on public affairs in the press."
I was not saying much, I was trying to decipher what I read.
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Constitution_of_1917#Article_5
All people are free to work in the profession of their choosing, as long as it does not attack the right of others.
How does that outlaws monastic religious orders?
Arcticle 24 I agree, that's what I said I understood as the main trigger for Jose's actions.
Article 130:
"States that church(es) and state are to remain separate. It provides for the obligatory state registration of all "
churches and religious groupings" and places a series of restrictions on priests and ministers of all religions (ineligible to hold public office, to canvas on behalf of political parties or candidates, to inherit from persons other than close blood relatives, etc.)."
There is a difference between not being able to hold office and not being able to vote. I don't see where they can not wear their habits either - but that might be because it's not the original text.
Those who resisted this were executed by the thousands. This was a violently secular government.
It was indeed. The Catholics were not exactly fully passive either:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristero_War
Both priest-commanders, Father Vega and Father Pedroza, were born soldiers. Father Vega was not a typical priest, and was reputed to drink heavily and routinely ignore his vow of chastity. Father Pedroza, by contrast, was rigidly moral and faithful to his priestly vows. However, the fact that the two took up arms at all is problematic from the point of view of Catholic
sacramental theology.
The thrust of the story, to me, was what I posted: this man's apparent virtue, compassion, courage, and patience. Do you approve or disapprove of these?
Peaceful men always get my vote
But I believe context and background are definitely crucial when trying to separate propaganda (on both sides, mind you) from facts on such accounts.
What I'm trying to do here, in order to clarify any misunderstanding, is not to cast doubt on this guy. It's to really understand what was going on at the time, what he was trying to achieve, where he was coming from, etc.
So while I do not agree with his goals or his wish to become a martyr, at least he didn't use violence to respond to violence.
But fifty some people still believe!
And MLK is entirely pertinent to the topic. If you don't want to answer the question that's understandable, it does put you in kind of a tight spot. 
