(Source: Albert G. Robinson (1901), The Philippines: the war and the   people, pp. 314-333)

At the very root of all things political in the Philippines there lies that most delicate of all matters, a religious question. No competent knowledge of affairs in the islands is possible without a clear understanding of the position of the church in Filipino life. As the church has affected the history of the islands in the past, so is its influence still potent today. Beyond this, it lies before the American occupation as a barrier, bristling with serious complications, which is not surmountable by mere force of arms. The difficulties that confront the American government would still remain a long way from solution even were the last insurrecto to be shot down or imprisoned. With the Spanish soldiers of the days of the sixteenth century, actuated by the idea of "territorial expansion," went the representatives of the church, with their ideas of the extension of the kingdom of God and the augmentation of the power of the church. A review of the writers of those early days will show that, while these two elements operated together in the establishment of Spanish authority in the Philippines, they were in an almost constant state of dissension as to which of the two constituted the supreme authority. During the latter years of that century Spain was the scene of a somewhat animated and sometimes bitter controversy regarding the scope and functions of the church in the islands of the East.

Previous to and during the controversy, mendicant friars had gone to the islands in considerable numbers, though lacking the proper authorization of the rulers of the church. The controversy at home terminated in an arrangement by which the church should receive one tenth of the tributes of the island. A body of Augustinian friars was to be sent out at once, and they were to be followed by representatives of other orders. Serious friction occurred at frequent intervals between the authorities of the church and those of the state, and many acrimonious contests took place between the friars of different orders. Upon the plastic materials of ignorance, credulity and superstition, the priests and friars, many of them men of keen and highly trained minds, have impressed an idea of a religious power greater than that of the state.

Most unfortunately for the natives, and also most unfortunately for the church, the power of the priesthood has been greatly abused. That statement needs some qualification. I do not find that the protest of the people has been against the Church of Rome per se. It has been directed more distinctly against the extortions and abuses which are admitted to have been exercised by the various religious orders, the Augustinians, the Dominicans and the Franciscans. The Jesuits were expelled from the islands in 1768, but were permitted to return in 1852, upon the definite condition that their operations should be wholly confined to educational work. The Recolletos, being a branch of the [Augustinian] order, may be grouped with the mother organization.

I believe myself to be wholly in accord with the facts in stating that, while Spain has nominally exercised authority in the Philippines, the real power and many of the minor functions of government have been in the hands of the religious orders. The decision of the Council of Trent, which forbade the holding of benefices by friars, has been made void in the Philippines and nowhere else, if I am rightly informed. Papal bulls have made an exception in these islands, and misfortune and revolt have followed the system. In spite of a notably strong protesting element, those orders have a grip on the Philippines and a power over its people that cannot be loosened by guns and bayonets.

It is distasteful to comment unfavorably upon any branch of an institution which stands in the world of today as stands the Church of Rome. But the Philippine Islands present a long array of wholly uncontrovertible facts regarding the misrule, the misconduct, and the oppression and extortion of these religious orders against which in past years Filipino revolt has been directed. Many of the better class of the natives have no hesitation in saying that the Spanish government, though hard, was far from unbearable. It was the exactions of the monastic orders, whose sway was supreme, against which they rebelled. These orders own and control vast areas of rural property and have extensive and valuable holdings in the towns and cities. What they give in return for what they get does not seem to be known. In his book, the standard work on the subject, Mr. John Foreman covers a number of pages with detailed accounts of monastic oppression and corruption. He also frequently alludes to the great possessions and the gross abuse of the great power held by these monastic orders. It is interesting to note that Mr. Foreman is himself a Catholic. His statements are those of an honest man who is ready to acknowledge the faults he sees.

Today these orders are watching every move and every step taken by the officials of the United States. Democratic measures and systems are wholly subversive of the principles and methods of monastic orders. The orders represented here "view with alarm" the possibility of an American entrenchment within their stronghold, the possibility of democratic encroachment upon preserves which have been theirs for three centuries. With all the power of their organizations they are today working, for the greater part by secret and insidious methods, to support antagonism to American control.

Their religion, Roman Catholicism, means much to the Filipino people. Men as well as women are faithful in their attendance upon church worship, not only on Sunday, but upon the prescribed holy days as well. Stand for an hour by a church door in Manila at any time of day during the week. The majority of the men will be seen to lift their hats as they pass the portal. A Protestant American attending a service in one of the many churches in Manila would be impressed by it along the line of the breadth of his previous experience. If he had attended corresponding services in other countries, he would especially note only the minor differences of detail that arise from the differences of race and national life and custom. If he were suddenly transplanted from an environment which had always been limited to the Sabbath life of New England, it is more than probable that he would be decidedly shocked. Religion as a dominating and radiating force in individual life has little meaning in the Filipino life, viewed from the standpoint of New England Congregationalism. In this the Filipino is by no means unique. He shares with perhaps the majority of the human race the idea that the general acceptance of certain propositions and the observance of certain ceremonies will assure him of a more or less definite state of happiness in a future existence. But while his religion manifests no dominant motive in his daily life, and while his ceremonies are attended by surroundings which strike the American observer as decidedly incongruous, there can be no doubt that such religion as the Filipino has is a serious thing with him.

I attended service one morning in the Binondo church. The building is a large and rather imposing structure of stone, stained and weather-beaten, with here and there, upon walls and tower, a bunch of grass or growing shrubs which has sprung from wind-blown seeds lodged in accumulations of dust. A chime of bells hangs in its tower, and while these are doubtless rung upon some system, they peal, in various tones and combinations, at any and at frequent times, week-days as well as Sundays, from early morning until sometimes late at night.

As one approaches the church at the time of a service of any special importance, he finds the broad sidewalk densely thronged with passers, idlers, attendants and peddlers. The peddlers are particularly numerous on Sundays and high feast-days. The majority are women. Their wares, consisting of various fruits, flowers, cigars and cigarettes, cakes and different kinds of native compounds of sweetened pastes, are displayed in broad, shallow baskets of circular form. Around and beside these the venders squat in the common Filipino attitude. As a friend of mine puts it, "they double up like a closed jackknife." Among the delicacies thus displayed the American army hardtack finds a prominent place and ready sale.

With very few exceptions, the people are neatly dressed. Their fashions are other than ours, as is shown in the many illustrations that have appeared in American periodicals. Most of the garments are made of inexpensive materials. White cotton or drill prevails among the men, though many wear as an outer garment, in place of a coat, a shirt of the conventional pattern, made from either a light muslin or native cloth of very thin texture and open mesh. This native cloth is wholly transparent and one rather wonders what purpose it serves. It offers neither warmth, coolness, nor concealment, yet many of the garments are quite elaborate and somewhat expensive. The specially striking feature about the great majority of garments is their evidence of recent appearance from the laundry. The people are quiet, orderly, and sober almost to seriousness. The Filipino does not seem to be a ready laugher. He is somber and sedate rather than hilarious or even vivacious.

The interior of the church is conventional. The marble-tiled floor, the fonts of holy water, the candle-illuminated high altar, the choir-stalls, the statues and figures and the altar-boys attendant upon their duties behind the officiating priests, may be seen in any of the Catholic churches in America and elsewhere. The attitude of all the worshipers is reverential. The poor, the wretched, the lame and the blind kneel or stand commingled with their fellows of a better fortune. No special section is reserved for women, but some habitual separation is evident. Some portions of the floor show a predominating feminine occupation, while in others the men are the more numerous. The women generally kneel; the men usually stand. As I was a spectator rather than a worshiper, I noted the congregation rather than the service. I noticed one man in conventional European clothes. He was evidently a Spanish half-breed. His form and face would have made him a model for an artist to paint as Colonel Newcome. He knelt with upright form and bowed head, his hands resting upon the top of his walking-stick. During the whole of my stay in his vicinity he remained as motionless as a statue. The entire setting and the attitude of the man made him a study for a striking picture.

The music of the service was excellent. Upon another occasion I heard it to better advantage in the same church. The organ was of fine tone and was skilfully handled. The choirs contained excellent voices. The attendants were evidently wholly familiar with the services. This was indicated by the general recognition of those points in their process at which the crossing, the bowing of the head or the bending of the knee are called for. Some upon entering, most upon leaving, dipped the fingers in the font of holy water and crossed themselves with its drops. As I left the building, immediately as I crossed its threshold, a hand-bill was passed to me, among others. It advertised that at half-past three, on the afternoon of that Sunday, there would be a performance of Verdi's great opera of "Aïda" by Tagal artists, in the Tagal language, at the Teatro Libertad.

In all the demands for reform made by the Filipinos upon the Spanish government, at the bottom of all revolutions and uprisings, and in all of such demands as the Filipinos have made to the United States, there appears, with unfaltering persistence, as the one thing indispensable in Filipino life and peace, the demand for the expulsion of the friars.

In his letter of November 3, 1898, dated at Malolos and addressed to General Otis, Aguinaldo makes the following statements:

There is no question of theory; it is a question of fact. Apologists, be they who they may, may make what statements they will, deny as they will the charges preferred against the friars, urge what advantages they will for the present system. The fact remains, indisputably, the Filipino people have demanded and still demand the expulsion of the friars. Conceding the most that can possibly be conceded,—namely, that the demand is unjust and unwarranted,—the fact of the demand remains. Moreover, it may be confidently expected that it will remain so long as the present system continues. Even were the friars to amend their ways, live the purest, holiest, most charitable and useful of lives, it may be doubted if they would then be acceptable to a people who have become deeply embittered against them.

I do not care to go into details concerning the charges of gross immorality, wrong and oppresssion that are brought against the orders as organized bodies and against the members of the orders as individuals, from the archbishop downward. The charges are brought openly, and there can be no question that many of them are capable of the fullest substantiation. All that may well be regarded as a side issue, important if you will, but subordinate to the main and fundamental proposition. That proposition may be briefly stated thus: Does the American principle of religious toleration warrant the continued imposition of an unacceptable priesthood upon an unwilling people? Behind that stands a question of almost equal moment: What can be done about it? There is little question that such continuance will only result in further protest here, and that the protest will again, as it has in the past, lead to revolt. The official or military support of the institution will make the United States a party to a condition operative against itself, subversive of law and order and contrary to American principles.

The arrival of Archbishop Chapelle was presumably a step toward the adjustment of differences and difficulties for which any adjustment seems little short of impossible. The demand is for a new order of things, not for a readjustment of an old system. Thus far it may be questioned whether his presence has not worked an added harm. His very association with Americans is used as a basis for rumors, which spread widely, of affiliation between the American officials and the representatives of the church. The reception given in his honor, under American auspices, was largely attended by Americans, who were prompted by different motives. Some went out of respect, some out of courtesy, some from curiosity, some to enjoy a sociable time. The Filipino does not know, does not distinguish. He sees the official launch sent off to bring the ecclesiastic ashore; he sees the visiting archbishop on cordial terms with the (to the Filipinos) more or less objectionable Dominican, Archbishop Nozaleda, through whose influence and authority they believe they have been oppressed and at whose instigation they believe their friends and fellow-countrymen have been brutally shot on the Luneta; they see hundreds of Americans flocking to a social reception given to the visitor, beside whom stand Nozaleda and three other local church dignitaries. Had these people been imbued with confidence in the purposes and kindly intentions of the Americans, their views might have been cheerful and hopeful of better things. As it is, they are suspicious and look upon all these relations as evidence of a common action between the old order and the new rulers.

The incident is also seized upon by the political element as a basis of other and further rumors. The leading Spanish paper prints a long list of subjects, claiming them as the topics proposed for discussion by Archbishop Nozaleda. "Libertas," the organ of the Dominican archbishop, discredits the authenticity of this program. "Libertas" and "Comercio" are both Spanish papers and both Roman Catholic. "Libertas" supports the friars, "Comercio" stands for a secular clergy.

Whether or not the list be authentic, it does unquestionably include many of the topics that will be considered by the reverend gentlemen. From the purely American standpoint, one would be justified in asking what these gentlemen have to do with some of these matters anyway. The principles have been determined and accepted in the United States and it would seem to be a new phase of things if America must ask certain monastic orders what it shall or shall not do concerning matters upon which a determination has been reached. It would seem a waste of time to discuss, on American soil and under the American flag, the maintenance by the church of schools and hospitals. The answer is wholly simple and fully established. They may maintain all for which they will themselves pay, and control none for which they do not pay. "Shall there be American priests in the capitals?" Another broad question with a simple answer. If they are wanted there, yes; if they are not wanted, no. "Shall the catechism be taught in the primary schools?" "Shall taxes be imposed for the maintenance of the church?" "What shall be the scale of parochial fees?" etc.

These and all other questions are wholly fruitless until the basis be established. The real questions are, Shall the present order continue, contrary to the will of the people? Shall the friars be expelled and their places be filled by an acceptable secular clergy that will deal honestly, justly and in love and kindness with the people? This is the demand, and the vital question is that of compliance with it. In this question the American people are deeply interested, whether they be Catholic or Protestant. Will the American people back up the Dominican, the Franciscan and the Augustinian parish priest, as did the Spaniards, with bullet and bayonet? Already, it is said, the friars are proposing a return to their parishes and demanding their protection by American troops in the places to which they go. Already rumors come of the assertions of the Filipino people that if the friars come back they will kill them. Already petitions are coming to headquarters for a secular clergy. A priesthood is wanted, but the demand is for a secular clergy whose aims and purposes shall be the welfare, spiritual and social, of those to whom they minister. Under the present system the accumulation of money is an evident object, and morality and spiritual development are minor considerations.

The finest and most costly buildings on the islands are the churches and the church buildings. Those who pay for them live in nipa huts. El fraile fares sumptuously and drinks his good wine. He who pays for the wine lives on rice, bananas, and fish when he can get it. The orders hold more or less valid titles to vast tracts of land in the Philippine Islands. There seems firm ground for the current rumors of transfers of these titles to private holders who are aliens, English and others. What is the object? Sensational stories are told of the way in which large amounts of landed and other property have been acquired. There are tales of dying men terrorized into devising their possessions; of the denunciation of wealthy Filipinos as political conspirators and a "stand in" with the authorities for the property of the condemned. I do not vouch for the methods of acquisition, though such stories are openly told and generally believed. The "great possessions" are evidently facts.

Comparatively little complaint is heard regarding the Jesuits. Their work, except for missions among the Mohammedans, has been chiefly along educational lines. In that department it has been of great value. Their college, library, museum and observatory with meteorological observations and reports are of incalculable value to the islands and to any nation that may possess them. Much of that which they have received has gone back to the people increased a hundredfold. The bitter complaint, the protest and the revolt, are against those who absorb and retain and who pervert the functions of their holy office by obtaining in unholy ways.

I submit the following quotations from local papers of January, 1899. From "La Patria," January 16:

That a river of blood flows between the Filipino people and the monastic orders is already a matter of history. It is inconceivable that they should be enthroned once more on their former heights of power to control the affairs of the people like so many Jupiters, to retard as they have done hitherto the education of the people that they may be able to live on in their ignorance in aeternum, to commit, in short, the grossest meanness and insult to which there is no parallel in history. How can the people be reconciled to those who have amassed enormous fortunes by deceiving the good faith of our ancestors and by abusing their religion in bringing about the deaths of our ancestors and of our great men, Burgos, Gomez, Zamora and Rizal—be reconciled, in fact, to those who by their mischief brought about the revolution of 1896?

From "El Grito del Pueblo," January 16:

Those who intend to reëstablish the friars in the parishes here need have no doubt that, as Cicero invoked the sword of justice and fury of the gods upon all traitors, so will the provoked people invoke a justice of their own if a new tyranny of their hated enemies be imposed upon them; . . . but this surely will not happen, for the apostolic delegate must realize that this step would involve the converting into a rank imposition what they have looked forward to as their salvation from misfortune.

There can be no doubt that these extracts give voice to a common opinion. The same ideas reach me through private channels from Filipinos of education and high social position. Further evidence is found in the following petition submitted to the archbishop by a delegation from the Santa Cruz district of the city of Manila. Petitions of similar tenor have been presented from other points.

The undersigned proprietors, merchants, lawyers, physicians, pharmaceutists and other leading citizens of the Santa Cruz district of the city of Manila, present themselves before your Reverence with all due respect and veneration, and state: That they have heard it rumored that the regular clergy, that is to say, the members of the different religious corporations now residing in these islands, will be charged again with the salvation of souls and will assume all the other ecclesiastical dignities which they enjoyed throughout the archipelago under the long Spanish régime. Your Reverence cannot imagine what a disagreeable effect this report has had on the Philippine people, who unanimously protest against the pretension of such individuals, who, by their hateful behavior, caused, to a great extent, the revolution which shook the Spanish yoke in these islands.

Nor is the agitation confined to the island of Luzon. The following is a translation from the news columns of a Manila Spanish paper, "El Progreso":

CEBU, November 12, 1899.

One notable result followed the arrival of Archbishop Chapelle. "El Progreso," which is printed in Spanish and is bitterly antagonistic to the friars, published an alleged interview with the newly arrived ecclesiastic. It contained some remarkable statements and for several days my friend the editor, Señor Juan de Juan, went about in fear and trembling lest his paper be suppressed and his property confiscated. In some way the matter slipped through. He was not molested, but he had opened a floodgate and pent-up feelings found vent in a way wholly unknown in Manila experience.

In the alleged interview Father Chapelle was quoted as saying: "The four public lectures given by Father McKinnon caused President McKinley to realize the necessity for the monastic orders remaining in the Philippines. I come to Manila with ample authority for everything. The friars of the Philippines have alarmed themselves without any reason. I know their importance and am openly predisposed in their favor. If the friars occupy the parishes they will be considered as elements of order and therefore as American agents." There was more of somewhat similar tenor.

That was too much even for Filipinos. They let themselves out. That which had been whispered in corners was shouted from the housetops. Without suppression and without punishment, journals printed and men shouted: "Abajo los frailes! " ("Down with the friars!") "Fuera a los frailes!" ("Away with the friars!") "Muerte a los frailes!" ("Death to the friars!") "Fuera Nozaleda!" ("Away with Nozaleda!") Nozaleda is the archbishop. Foreman styles him "the Bloodthirsty." These were the cries of a large number of men, all of them Roman Catholics and all of them prominent, and most of them representative Filipinos, at a public reception tendered by Archbishop Chapelle to the "parish priests and Filipino Catholics."

The pro-friar element, evidently a very limited body, and the friars themselves, sought to discredit these proceedings by charging them to "non-Catholic sects and the diabolical spirit of Freemasonry." This will hardly hold water, as there are no representatives of "non-Catholic sects" here, excepting the Americans, and they took no part in it. Neither is there any Masonic order or organization. As said by the Manila "Times," it was "no effervescence, but a great movement, deep-rooted and far-reaching, in fact, the voice of the Philippine people." The demonstration, which was prearranged, may have been in bad taste, but there can be no doubt of its sincerity and its deep significance.

                                         back to top