The Friars in the Philippines

by Ambrose Coleman

It has been reserved to an American general to put the last finishing touch to the lurid picture drawn of the lives of the friars in the Philippines, by giving wide circulation in the columns of the New York Herald to a calumny which simply outstrips the imagination.[1] The general guards himself by professing to know nothing about the matter except from “common report,” freely circulated in the Philippines. Now the general, as a man of honor, might well have allowed these reports to come in by one ear, and go out by the other; or even if he had kept his mind in suspense, as is evidently the case, he might have refrained in the meantime from publishing the “common report” to the world, knowing how prone human nature is to fasten on the bad, and to believe in evil report, though unproven. “Every student of Blackstone,” says the general, “knows very well what was considered in the olden time to be the feudal right of the lord over the female vassal who married on his estate. It may be surprising to many to learn that the Filipinos allege vehemently that the monastic Orders claim and exact this feudal right on the marriage of the young Philippine girls.” Common report then, according to the general, charges the friars with exacting and claiming a right opposed to the fundamental laws of Christian morality; a right which, if it ever existed in fact, is at any rate lost in the dim distance of time, and is utterly unknown to the world at the present day. It is a pity that the ordinary laws of evidence which are used in dealing with laymen are thrust aside when dealing with priests, and that fanaticism in the latter case is allowed full play for its imagination. Last April (1898) the heads of the religious Orders in the Philippines, in their memorial to the Spanish Government, which by being published both in Spanish and in French, and circulated widely, was intended as a challenge to the civilized world, demanded that all gross charges of a like nature should be investigated by legal means, and that evil-doers should be punished according to law, if they existed in fact. The challenge as yet remains unanswered; yet what would have been more easy to prove in the meantime than such an open and flagrant violation of justice and morality? If proofs could have been had they would have been gladly brought forward by the leaders of the rebels, who have been clamoring for the expulsion of the religious Orders for the last three or four years, and who are by no means simple and unsophisticated savages, but men educated enough to be able to conduct newspapers of their own.

With common sense for their guide, let Protestants reflect for a moment that the Philippines form an integral part of the Catholic Church, that the religious Orders that are governed by generals in Rome, that systematic visitations are made, and that the conduct of every individual is subjected to strict ecclesiastical scrutiny from time to time. Accordingly, unless they hold that the authorities in Rome are willing to allow an appalling evil of the kind to go on without protest, how can they believe that it exists at all?

“In any case, I can assert without a shadow of doubt,” adds the general, “what the Herald’s readers have been previously told by its correspondents—that the people are very bitter towards the monks.” Whom does he mean by people? Had the general and the newspaper correspondents come in contact, during their brief stay in the Philippines, with the six millions of people till lately under the care of the religious Orders? It is true that those who have fomented the rebellion, and the thousands who have joined the insurgent ranks, are bitter towards the monks, or rather friars. But it is by this time a well-known fact that numbers have been drawn in through sheer terrorism, and that numbers of others have been tortured and killed owing to their refusal to join. Mr. Wilson’s late experience on his sugar plantation bears ample witness to this. It is easy enough for a few thousand desperate and armed men to cow fifty times their number of peaceful and unarmed tillers of the soil. The millions, dumb so far, will be found, on closer investigation, to represent far different feelings towards the friars than the noisy rebels who, coming in contact with the American troops and correspondents, profess to represent the feelings of the great body of the nation.

In direct contradiction to the “common report,” circulated by General Meritt, is a testimony to the virtue of the Spanish friars in the Philippines, published some years ago before the present troubles began, by the United States Government in a consular report. In this report Mr. Frank Karuth, F.R.G.S., who in his capacity as president of the Philippines’ Mineral Syndicate had wide experience with the natives, and came into intimate relations with the friars in remote provincial stations, writes of the latter as follows: “In these communes or parishes the priest, especially if he be a Spaniard, as is generally the case, exercises supreme power. He is the father and counsellor of his people, and helps them not only with spiritual advice, but also furthers their material interests. The Spanish priests, friars of strict orders, come to the islands for aye and good, and with scarcely any exception do their duties faithfully and devotedly.” Is not this testimony, given without any ulterior party motives, of more value than the evil reports poured into the ears of newspaper correspondents by the interested leaders of the Philippine rebels? (See [Appendix II].)

A few quotations from Protestant travellers who visited the Philippines before the insurrection had biassed men’s minds, and distorted plain facts, will go a long way in the refutation of these flippantly uttered and unspeakably gross calumnies. “It is said,” observes the wife of the American navigator, Captain Morrell, “that in Manila there are more convents (both of men and of women) than in any other city in the world of its size; and the general voice of natives and foreigners declares that they are under excellent regulations.” And then she describes their inmates. “They all seemed full of occupation. There is no idleness in the convents, as is generally supposed;” and this her own account of the various works accomplished in them sufficiently proves. Moreover, “their devotions begin at the dawn of the day, and are often repeated during the whole of it, or until late in the evening, in some form or other. I was born a Protestant, and trust that I shall die a Protestant; but hereafter I shall have more charity for all who profess to love religion, whatever may be their creed.” Sir John Bowring, in 1859, speaks of their influence, an influence generally acquired only by men of holy lives. He says: “They exercise an influence which would seem magical, were it not by their devotees deemed divine.” Dr. Ball, an American Protestant traveller, speaks highly of the character of the Spanish friars in the Philippines. Of one whom he met at Manila, he says: “He has a fund of knowledge on almost every subject, speaks six or seven languages, and has declined an offer of the presidency of the seminary here, preferring to remain always in the capacity of missionary.” Mr. MacMacking, another Protestant, who spent some years in the islands, says, in 1861: “Most of the priests I came in contact with appeared to be thoroughly convinced of, and faithful to, their religion in its purity.”

Church and convent at Lipa.

After reading these testimonies, we may well open our eyes in astonishment and wonder at the audacity of those who disseminate these flagrant lies about a body of men distinguished by learning and holiness. And yet no one, however holy and devoted his life may be, is safe from the tongue of the calumniator. Robert Louis Stevenson had to take up his pen in defence of the heroic martyr of the leper, Father Damien, vilified by a Protestant minister. Father Damien lived for years in that place of horrors, Molokai, among the lepers, and died a martyr of charity; and, while no Protestant minister was to be found heroic enough to follow his example, one of them, housed in his comfortable bungalow, and jealous of his fame, made unfounded charges against him. So is it ever with the world. And above all, nothing need surprise us in the words and acts of the Philippine insurgents and their abettors. As an instance of their power of concocting a story to bring the friars into disrepute, we give the following account of an attempted poisoning of Aguinaldo by a Spanish prisoner and eleven Franciscans, taken from the Republica Filipina, one of their journals—telegraphed at great expense to Europe by “Reuter’s Special,” and inserted in English papers. The story goes to show that his steward saw a Spanish prisoner, who was allowed a certain amount of freedom, tampering with a bowl of soup intended for Aguinaldo. The steward tasted a spoonful of the soup, and fell dead on the spot. On learning of the affair, the populace attempted to lynch all the Spanish prisoners, amongst whom were forty Spanish priests, detained as hostages; but through Aguinaldo’s intervention, they were protected from violence. The next day at the sitting of the new National Assembly, Aguinaldo’s representative told the story of his narrow escape, and the members unanimously adopted the chairman’s suggestion that they should go in a body to the president’s house and express their sympathy and congratulations. To crown this farce, a special thanksgiving service was held in the church at Malolos that evening. The really silly part of the story is that eleven Franciscan priests, confined as prisoners, were alleged to have been involved in the conspiracy against Aguinaldo’s life, and it was evidently on this supposition that all the priests were on the point of being massacred. A few days afterwards the story was contradicted. After all the fuss and all the expense of the telegrams, it turned out that the steward did not fall dead, and that no priests were concerned in the supposed plot. Still the lie did its work, both in the Philippines and nearer home; for many heard it, and read about it, who did not see the contradiction.

We are not at present in a position to follow Señor Valdes in his statements regarding the dissensions between the native and European friars, the rigorous exactions and tithes, “the friars calling themselves owners of the land cultivated by the natives, claiming rents and tithes which the real owners refused to pay,” but we believe them to be as baseless as his other accusations. Before he made them, the friars had already, in their memorial to the Spanish Government, taken notice of similar accusations, and asked for dates, names, and proofs. It is curious that no English travellers to these regions have taken notice of these supposed oppressions on the part of the friars. They are concocted with the design of expelling the friars from the islands, and confiscating their property, which they have lawfully acquired, and added to, by three centuries of industry. It is true they are rich in landed property, but their riches do not enable them to live individually in luxury. They are used by the Orders for the purposes of the Orders, in furthering education, maintaining hospitals, orphanages, and industrial schools, and in extending their missions not only in the Philippines, but also in China, Tonkin, Japan, and Formosa. Is it not better, in the interests of the people, that they should continue in their possessions than that they should be robbed of them, turned adrift, and their property divided among needy adventurers? It is a significant fact that one of the first acts of the National Assembly of the insurgents was to vote a pension of seventeen thousand dollars to Aguinaldo, enough to keep several religious communities in existence. These political heroes are anxious to enrich themselves at the expense of others, and to spend in luxury what has been gathered together through three centuries of frugal living.