Studies in Philippine church history

Media

Part of Boletin Eclesiastico de Filipinas

Title: Studies in Philippine church history
Creator: Legaspi, Leonardo Z., O.P.
Language: English
Year: 1970
Subject: Church history
Rights
Fulltext: SPECIAL REVIEW STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 1 1 Edited by Gerald H. Anderson, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1969. Pp. ixiv, 421. Price: ^14.50-net. • Leonardo Z. Legaspi, O.P. Philippine history is always an interesting subject; but Philippine Church history, besides being interesting is always fascinatingly chal lenging and attractively delicate. One has only to review the increasing ly growing output of books, articles and reviews touching upon the his tory of the Church in the country. The present volume “Studies in Philippine Church History” had taken the challenge and painstakingly unraveled the delicate. The result is a truly informative, excellent historical volume both for merely in formative readings and for research in depth. The best recommendation of this book is the impressionable list of historians writing on their resptctive field of specialty, boldly tiuching on the controversial historical questions affecting the life of the various touchy questions about the church in the Philippines. The clarity and frankness demanded by the various questions about the Church in the Philippines can only be explained by the competence of each author. Paradoxically, this very strength of the book constitutes its one vital weakness. A team-approach to history is very susceptible to many pitfalls: over-lapping or repetition, by-passing of important topics where study and detailed discussions are necessary, etc. The present volume contains overly emphasized points. A typical case is the anti-friar move ment. While at the same time transcendental subject-matters are com pletely left out or mentioned only in passing. We do not know whether there is a plan to continue these studies; we certainly look forward how ever to another volume of Studies in Philippine Church History. One which will contain studies on the teaching activity of the Church, charitable ecclesiastical institutions, Synods and Councils, the spiritual, religious. STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 243 devotional and social life of the people in relation to the life of the Church, pious associations, the Church and the social welfare, positive and lasting contributions to the nation during the Muslim’s period of expansion, foreign missions, cultural developments, etc. It is not possible to comment on each of the points raised and studied in this volume. It is not even necessary. There are, however, two vital topics which deserved to be commented upon in a very special way, namely, the development of the native clergy and the disentanglement of the Church and State during the early part of the American regime in the Philippines. The Native Clergy Question One of the most challenging studies is that of Fr. Horacio de la Costa, S.J. —“Development of the Native Clergy.” Once again he returns to his favorite topic, the native clergy question. In page 77, Fr. de la Costa writes: “Three main causes combined to retard the formation of a native clergy in the Philippines. The first was the primitive condition of society, which had first to be raised to that level of cultural maturity required before it could provide suitable aspirants to the Catholic priesthood. . . The second cause was the frame work of the ecclesiastical establishment constructed by the patronato in the colony, a framework which provided no suitable room for a native clergy even when the mission was ready for it. . .And the third was the conciliar and (p.78) synodal legislation of Spanish America, extended without modification to the Philippines, legislation which, while it effect ively prevented the ordination of unworthy candidates, did so by exclu ding even the worthy from the priesthood.” It is the first of these causes which I should like to supplement here and confinn with additional documentations. Theoretically, the problem of whether to admit or to refuse admis sion of orientals to sacred orders and to the religious orders was resolved quite early here in favor of the orientals. This, in essence, is the burden of the answers given by a dominican, Fr. Domingo Gonzalez, and an augustinian, Fr. Alonso Carvajal to a pertinent case-question proposed to them. 244 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS The case reads thus: Preguntase si, asi como son dispensados y admitidos a los ordenes sacros y las sagradas religiones los nuevos Cristianos de nacion de japones, podran tambien ser admitidos los de la nacion chinos, mayormente habiendo sido bautizados en su nihez y criados por mano de religiosos en la fe, virtud y buenas costumbres, con la probacibn de los religiosos, en cuya compania sean criados y que los tales religiosos tengan larga experiencia de que tienen fortaleza en las cosas de nuestra santa fe, habidndolo experimentado en muchos ejemplares, y que las cosas de virtud, e specialmente en la castidad, han tenido mucha fortaleza y defendidos con la ayuda del Sehor en ocasiones apretadas en que hayan sido convidados, y que junto con esto tengan suficiencia de latinidad, etc.2 - Dominican archives (Sto. Domingo Convent, Q.C., P.I.) MSS, Section CHINOS, vol. 1, document 18. 3 Ibid. “ Ibid. The answer of Fr. Domingo Gonzalez reads: Por via de nacibn ninguno esta excluido de los ordenes sacros, ni de las sagradas religiones, si las costumbres son buenas, y asi los chinos que tuvieron las cualidades que en este caso se refieren, pueden sin dispensacibn -ser ordenados de brdenes sacros y admitidos a las sagradas religiones. Fecha en este colegio de Santo Tomas de Manila, a 28 de julio de 1643 afios. Fr. Domingo Gonzblez.3 * Fr. Alonso Carvajal, OSA, gives an identical answer: Como tenga las condiciones que las constituciones y estatutos que los religiones disponen, ninguno por ser de esta o aquella nacion, esta excluido ser religioso. Este es mi parecer. En este Convento de San Agustin, en veinte y cuatro de agosto de mil y seiscientos cuarenta y tres afios. Fr. Alonso de Carvajal.1 As a matter of fact, around the middle of XVIIth century, there were already Chinese mestizos admitted to the sacred order of priesthood, although the great majority did not measure up to the standard. This can be gathered from the following exposition prepared by Fr. Alberto Coliares to the Archbishop of Manila: STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 245 Y es que ha habido y hay mestizos de sangley que se les ha antojado ordenarse ue saceraoies a titulo que saben medianamente la lengua china, pero es menester saber que los mestizos tienen la misma sangre chinchea (de Amoy) que sus padres; y, aunque para ordinarios Cristianos indios pueden pasar, pero para el sacerdocio son del todo inhabiles, no tanto por falta de entendimiento sino porque quemadmodum patres eorum conversi sunt in arcum pravum.5 * 7 s Dominican Archiver, MSS, Section CHINOS, vol. 1, document 26. " Ibid. 7 “Tambien riene otro colegio de San Juan de Letran. . . y algunos indios nobles llevan alii a sus hijos para la buena educacion, y de estos han llegado a sustentar con lucimiento conclusiones de Teologia” (Fr. Polanco, OP. Memorial to Dona Mariana de Austria, 1768, efr. Dominican Archives, MSS. Section PROVINCIA, vol. 2, document 4a, p. 5, year 1668). He then cites the case of a chinese mestizo from Binondo who caused so much scandal due to his excesses in the matter of chastity. Fr. Collares ends his report saying: ... finalmente, si a estos tales se ordenara de sacerdotes, me parece se verificara Io que hizo Julio Cesar, segun refiere Ciceron, el cual dio dignidades a algunos que no las merecian, y dice San Jeronimo que non illos decoravit sed dignitatem deturpavit.0 The historical conclusion which crystallizes from these documents is that, although theoretically there could be no objection to the admission of the natives to sacred orders and to the religious orders, the natives were, in practice, and as a matter of policy refused admission. It was not due to intellectual incapacity or insufficiency (7), but due to spirit ual immaturity. That during the XVIIth century the European clergy which had the control of religious government of the country, refused to ordain the natives on the belief that the natives were still new in faith, too prone to the temptation of the flesh. There were two factors which were instrumental in confinning in holding on to this unfortunate policy. The first was that even during that time, some creoles were being prepared to the priestly ministry. And quite expectedly, although wrongly, the religious superiors thought that the creoles would provide the compromise solution. It was only too 246 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS late when they realized how unfounded the basis of their assumption was: the number of these creoles ordained to priesthood at the turn of the XVIIth century was not adequate; it was very much equivalent to al most zero. Archbishop Camacho emphatically underlined this fact in his report to the King of Spain, Philip V: Por este modelo parece que tambidn corren los otros dos colegios de San Jose, a cargo de jesultas, y de Santo Tomds a cargo de dominicos, por el poco fruto que visiblemente se consigue de su education, pues en nueve afios que con este he servido en esta Iglesia, solo cuatro sujetos colegiales se han podido sacar para sacerdotes del dicho colegio de Santo Tom^s, que los nombro nominalmente para verificacion del caso; que son el doctor Luis Campana, dos hermanos del sobrenombre de Ibarra, y de ellos el uno ya es difunto, y el bachiller Jose de Robles que tambien es difunto. Y del Colegio de San Jos6 han salido solos catorce sacerdotes, que todos viven. Y del Colegio de San Ju6n de Letran solo uno, que es el bachiller Sebastian del Rio.8 9 s Letter of archbishop Diego de Avila y Camacho to the King, dated in Manila, on October 11th 1705 (UST Archives, Section LIBROS, vol. 59, fol. 312) 9 Letter to the King, 14th of June 1705, MS, UST Archives, vol. 59. Section BECERROS, fols. 294-295. The second was the only too human fear from the part of the Spanish clergy that the natives, if and when admitted into the priestly ministry, would in due time take away the parishes from them. This is mentioned also by Fr. de la Costa, (p. 93), and attested bv two statements drawn from the writings of Archbishop Camacho. In a letter to the King, dated June 14, 1705, he complains: ... y tendra (la obra del Seminario) sin duda mucha contradiction en los regulares que con dicho Gobernador han profesado siempre estrechisima union por las mutuas convivencias con que se contribuyen para sus intereses y respetos presentes y futuros de que he tocado a V.M. en otros despachos... y que con cautela y doblez trataran de infundir y sugerir informes para derribar la intencidn pia de V.M., la fundacidn y conservacidn de dicho seminario, que con el tiempo ha de ser la piedra silla que echara por tierra toda esta tan elevada y soberbia maquina y estatua de Nabucchodonosor que de si mismo han formado y erigido en estas Islas para (ilegible) de todas ellas.0 STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 247 There is a slight correction which I should like to make in page 86 of the book under review. Fr. de la Costa, talking about a concrete attempt to construct a seminary for the natives writes: “The College of San Clemente was duly torn down and the construction of a completely new seminary was begun on another site, a seminary which would be of the right size, for eight and only eight seminarians, and which would bear when finished the more appropriate name of San Felipe. Was i' ever finished? Apparently not, for a royal letter of 1720 inquires of the governor whether it would not be a good idea if the site and found ations of the proposed seminary were to be used instead for the “creation of a building for the Royal Exchequer, the Royal Treasury, and an armory with lodgings for the infantry.” Thus the seminary for native priests did not advance beyond the paper stage until 1772, when Arch bishop Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina transformed the University of San Ignacio, after the expulsion of the Jesuits, into the diocesan seminary of San Carlos.” However, by going over vol. XXVIII of Blair and Robertson col lection, we come across the narrations of Fr. Juan Francisco de San Antonio, Fr. Juan Delgado and Mr. Le Gentil, who writing at different times and years of the XVIIIth century, clearly testify that the semi nary of San Felipe went on, but in a different building, although, due to lack of funds and of competent personnel it had to exist in a very precarious and difficult situation. The seminary of San Felipe functioned, it must be admitted, more like a convictorio similar to that of Letran College during those days, rather than a seminary in the proper and technical sense of the word. But the important fact is that it continued to function for fifty long years.10 10Cfr.Emma Helen Blair James Alexander, and Robertson, eds., The Philippine Islands, 1493-1898, XXVIII, pp. 117-22. 190-98.. Nationalism, Dissent, and Disentanglement Three studies stand out among the various articles on the prepara tion, development and consequences of the Philippine Revolution. The most controversial among which deserving special attention is that of 248 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Mr. Peter G. Gowing’s “The Disentanglement of Church and State early in the American Regime in the Philippines,” pp. 203-12. By and large, it is a very informative study, containing adequate data, most especially about the sale of the friars’ haciendas. It is a bold study of a subject which is both interesting and controversial. It requires a great deal of courage to write on this matter; a greater tact in the evaluation of its history. It is for these reasons that Mr. Gowing’s article should be judged as a real positive contribution to our Philippine Church history. Unfortunately however, I feel constrained to express my disagreement to the main thesis of Mr. Gowing and his evaluation of facts pertaining to the Philippine Revolution. The thesis of Mr. Gowing seems to lead fatally to this affirmation: the friars were the cause of that social upheaval. It is sad to say, and definitely surprising to find a serious historian of the Philippines still advocating this unfair theory. It is not my intention to deny that the friars were one of the causes of the Philippine Revolution. But there is a world of difference between being the cause and that of being one of the causes. Any failure to see this distinction can spell disaster in the process of drawing conclusions. To begin with, the friars were certainly one of the causes of the Philippine Revolution, but only in an indirect way. And this for a number of reasons. The enemies of Spain saw in the friars the strongest single factor of Spanish continuous hold over the people, and they zeroed on the friars to insure the downfall of the Spanish government. The scandalous examples of some friars were also indirectly responsible for the social upsurge. The vast and extensive possessions of the friars invited at first envy from many quarters and then, hatred from others. One can also mention the system of too close a connection between the Church and the State, giving ground thereby to impute the faults of one to the other. The Propaganda Movement is a very complicated historical event. When narrowed down to the anti-friar movement, we may describe it as a barrage of truths, half-truths and lies hurled against the Religious Orders in order to undermine and weaken their power and influence, and eventually to cause the downfall of the Spanish dominion. STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 249 In order to come out with a fairly just study on the Propaganda Movement of this country, the historian must bear in mind four essential principles. First, avoid generalizations. The faults of some should not be made to appear as the faults of everyone in that social group. That some friars behaved in an unworthy manner should not be denied; and I do not deny it here. But we should not thereby say that because some did not live up to the sanctity of their calling, we should point an ac cusing finger to all the friars. This would certainly be unacceptable and unfair. Second, avoid concentrating on the dark and negative sides of their actuations. There are good things — many excellent contributions in every field of human endeavor — which the friars had given to this nation. Justice and charity oblige us not to forget this. Third, in drawing our conclusions from historical facts, we should situate ourselves in the context of the time within which our personages were moving, the type and import of the then prevailing mentality. Thus unjust imputations and deductions would be avoided. Finally, the historian must read the writings of both sides. Any historical investigation is only as good as its sources, and only as objective as its authors. To deliberately concentrate on one side, and to select only those documents which confirm that side would be an unpardonable breach of the sacred duty of a historian: that of veracity. That would make the author and the study disgustingly impartial. The written documents are the clear and unrefutable witnesses of thoughts and con sequently dependable guides to the meaning of their actuations. It is along this line that I invite Mr. Gowing’s attention to a con fidential letter written bv Fr. Evaristo Arias. The letter is dated 1897. and was directed to a friend. Writing in a no-holds-barred style (duela a quien duela), he tells his friend about the causes of the Revolution. He savs: En los transcendentales sucesos que lamentamos, todos tenemos culpa, todos en le pusisteis vuestras manos11 But who were the first ones to have a hand in this matter? The Masonry — both Spanish and Filipinos through the Katipunan. Mason" Anhivo de Santo To,na<. follet<’<. vol. 95, fol. 8 v.) 250 BOLE1TIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS rv is the only single efficacious cause of the Movement; all the other causes played a very subsidiary role. No la ha promovido ni sido autor de ella ningun espahol, para satisfaccion nuestra; es obra exclusiva de los masones y libre pensadores filipinos, estando ajena a su preparacion y desarollo la gran masa de pais, pues, incluso los indios tagalos que a ella se han adherido y que ahora luchan como fieras, no tienen culpa en su preparacion, y no han hecho sino seguir las ordenes de sus jefes, los venerables de las logias y de los Katipunans'-. 7 elesforo Canseco an eyewitness of the Cavite uprising confinns thivery same conclusion: Ya he dicho que en la insurreccion fue trabajada en las logias masonicas, segun confesion de los mismos cabecillas. Estas logias esteban perpiitidas por el gobernador Don Fernando de Parga, siendo el mismo el venerable de la logia de Cavite... Tambien debian estar protegidos por el gobernador general Blanco, puesto que publicamente decian los insurreetds que dicho serior era tambidn hermano mason.1'• 12 Ibid. 11 CANSECO. TELESFORO. Hutoria de la insurreccion filipina en Cavite, 1896. MS in the Dominican Archives. Section HISTORIA CIVIL DE FILIPINAS. vol. 7, p. 94. 14 Ibid., p. 84. In this connection we must also mention the fact that a segment of the native clergy participated in the movement. The eyewitness tells us: Todos los clerigos de la provincia han trabajado, quien mas quien menos, por la insurreccion, si bien es verdad que algunos Io hicieton llevados del miedo que tenian a los jefes insurrectos... Lo dicho no se entiende mas que del clero indigena de esta provincia. Ya sabe V.R. que en las demas provincias tagales, en donde esta la in surreccion, ha habido clerigos que se han portado como verdaderos espanoles, y han trabajado cuanto han podido contra la insurreccion.'1 During one of the meetings of all the Philippine bishops in 1900. presided over by the Apostolic Delegate, Mons. Chapelle, we find Mons. Nozaleda speaking in the same vein as Canseco: The clergy helped with all the means at their disposal the society “Katipunan”, which is masonic. I know for a fact that there were * 11 STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 251 clergy members of this wicked society, and others who supported its goals. The periodical pamphlet “Filipino Libre” was patronized by clerics from the very beginning up to this time. The so-called pamphlet "Democracia” and other similarly ferocious periodicals en joyed the protection of the clergy. Finally, it was the clergy who founded and still support the openly masonic periodical called “La Patna”.'5 There is no presumption here to pass any judgment on the moral nature of this clerical participation in the Movement. My conten tion here is simply to point out that we can find no ground to put the whole blame on the friars alone. Inaccuracies and Generalizations Mr. Gowing tells us in his article, p. 204 of the book: “For many Filipinos the Spanish friars had become the symbols of tyranny and oppression.” This would be a valid statement of an objective fact, had he said instead of many, “for some Filipinos,” as we shall show later. In the same page, he continues: “During the fighting the major itv were able to escape to Manila, but better than 300 of their less for tunate brothers were taken prisoners, and some fifty of them were killed.” This is not entirely accurate. The fact was that only a hand ful were able to escape to Manila from Visayas and from the neighboring Tagalog provinces. Most probably around 400 became prisoners, of which 115 were dominicans, some Jesuits and Benedictines from Minda nao. The others escaped to Hong Kong from Dagupan, Iloilo and 15 "Clerici foverunt mediis omnibus societatcm "Katipunan. ’ quae massor.ica est. Certo scio non deesse clericos qui membra sunt illius improbae societatis, et alios illius proposita secundare. Immundum folium periodicum "Filipino Libre” ab ortu ad finem husque a clericis fuit sustentatum. Illlorutn vixit protectione aliud ejusdem furfuris folium "Democracia” nuncupatum. Et clerici denique sunt qui fundaverunt et sustinent periodicum aperte massonicum 'La Patria” nominatum.” Acta Collationum Quas Epucopi Philippmarum habuerunt in collate de Manila, preside Rdmo. D. Delegato P.L. Chapelle. sessione quinta, numeris tertio et quarto (Documentum reservatum in archivis Ordinis Praedicatorum in civitate Quezon.) 252 BOLETIN ECLESIASTICO DE FILIPINAS Cebu, while the rest, like the religious of Panay were hardly molested. After the period of captivity and before the exodus for Spain, Manila had almost 500 friars. :‘At Imus, Cavite, for example,” again Mr. Gowing in the same page, “thirteen were savagely put to death, one by being burned alive, another by being hacked to pieces and still another by being roasted on a bamboo pole.” There are some inaccuracies in this statement. There were nine, not thirteen, namely: Fr. Learie, parish priest of Imus, Fr. Herrero, administrator of the Imus Hacienda, brothers Angos, Zneco, Caballero, Gobi and Lopez, Herrero’s assistants, brothers Garbayo and Umbon of Salitran, who were then staying in Imus. Some were killed near the boundary line between Imus and Bacoor while on their way to Manila, others in barrio Sampaloc near Silang. Only one died in the hacienda, brother Caballero. They were shot or boloed to death, but no record of anyone “being burned alive” and much less of “being roasted on a bamboo pole.”1" The death list of friars gathered from different sources reads as follows: 28 Recollects, 13 Augustinians, 1 Dominican, and no Fran ciscan. All these inaccurate data given to us by Mr. Gowing were meant support his conclusion as stated in p. 205: “In general however, the devoutedly religious Filipino people were antifriar without being anti Church or anti-Catholics, though many of the ilustrados (native intelli gentsia) advocated separation of church and state.” This statement seems not according to objective fact. Contemporary documents contradict this, while upholding one consistent fact: the Filipino people, by and large, were not anti-friar. We have the testimony of the Adas de Junta: A most consoling fact, which greatly honors the Catholic Filipino people took place during the captivity of the Religious. Many of them, being in poor health, could not in any way bear the torments and privations of their imprisonment, if it were not for persons of both RUIZ, Licinio, Sinopiis historica de la Provincia de San Nicolas de Tolentino, vol. II, Manila, 1925, pp. 346 ff. STUDIES IN PHILIPPINE CHURCH HISTORY 253 sexes, but mainly women, who not frightened by any dangers, suc coured them with a generous hand.17 17 "Factum magnopere consolatorium, quod valde lionorat populum catholicum philippinum, locum hahuit durante captivitatv religiosorum. Multi ex iis valetudine infinni ferre nullo modo poruissent termenta atque privationes prisionis, defuissent personae utriusque sexus, praecipue vero mulieres, quae, nullis territae periculis, illis larga succurrerunt manu.” Acta de Juta- sessione quinta, numero secundo. ,s The Attitude oj Gov. Taft and his fellow Commissioners to the Catholic Religion, MS in the Dominican Archives Section PROVINCIA, vol. 8, docu ment 5, p. 2, 1900. 111 Ibid., p. 3. In page 211, Mr. Gowing asserts: “The people do not want the friars back, and peace and order were threatened bv the mere suggestion of their return.” Let us see why “peace and order were threatened:” Pedro de Tavera, is responsible for all abuses committed against the friars in the provinces, for hardly was it known that the Archbishop of Manila or the bishop of any diocese sent friars to a parish, Pedro de Tavera gave orders that trouble should be excited among the people, with the object in mind of attributing these hostile manifesta tions to the presence of the friars.1' An identical method was applied in the case of the Dominicans during their return to Tuguegarao in order to open new schools there. The Federal Party, very much opposed to the friars, greeted them with a considerably well organized opposition and even went to the extent of forcing the people to follow suit.1,1 It is truly unfortunate that an otherwise excellent study like that of Mr. Gowing could be spoiled by this marked anti-friar attitude. His was, I would want to believe, a sincere and considerable effort to make a substantial contribution towards the ever growing interest in the his tory of the Church in the Philippines. In this I share with my whole heart his purpose, and for this I took pain to offer mv comments and observations.