The Katipunan; or, The Rise and Fall of the Filipino Commune

by Francis St. Clair

Another of the advanced ideas which saw the light of day during the interim governorship of D. José Centeno y Garcia, a 33rd degree freemason and a stout republican, was the toleration, for the first time in the history of the Archipelago, of houses of prostitution. Centeno was a governor who, having erred considerably during his governorship, attempted some years later to regain public confidence by the publication of an insulting pamphlet against the Religious Orders. This novelty of semi-official houses of ill-fame was, for Manila, a most genuine expression of modern democracy. Scandals until then unheard of or undreamed of in Manila, became the order of the day. White girls imported or inveigled, were hired out by their mistresses to pander to the sensual appetites of blacks, merely because the said black-skinned sensualists were wealthy enough to pay the price demanded. What edification! Fundicion street became a centre in which the scandals daily increased in number and importance. The native weaned after many long years of careful training at the hands of the Religious Orders, from the vices in which he was found submerged at the time of the Spanish Conquest, was brought face to face with the same scandalous surroundings, introduced by people of the same white race which had removed his forefathers therefrom. Gradually but surely this leaven of corruption has eaten its way into the customs of the people, and to-day we are witnesses of its terrible effects. A comparison of the public morals of to-day with those of 20 years or so ago, would reveal facts which would astound many of those who are at a loss to account for the reason of the existence of the “querida” evil among so many of the Filipinos of modern Manila. A quarter of a century ago Manila was a paradise to what it is to-day, crimes so common in these days that they are scarcely worth recording, were unheard of; and even drunkenness was almost entirely confined to foreign sailors. What Manila is to-day it owes to the advanced and anti religious ideas introduced by freemasonry and modern democracy.

Note 3. Separatism, vulgarly called filibusterism, has always, in the Philippines, been marked by essential characteristics. It was always, under the circumstances by which it was surrounded, necessarily anti-patriotic. One thing which helped to give it the robust life it enjoyed among the middle class of people, was the supposition of the existence of a Tagalog civilization anterior to the discovery of the archipelago by the famous Magallanes. This fantastic doctrine was preached and propagated principally by two of the more prominent Filipinos, Pedro Paterno and José Rizal. The former, much less cultured than Rizal, was the one to whom the most insensate ideas on this subject were owing, and this because although Rizal upheld the idea, he was led to do so by his perverse character rather than by his belief; whilst Paterno really believes in this pre-Spanish civilization, and that to such a degree that many of his own country-men call him a fool and ridicule him. Another essential mark was the enmity demonstrated against the Religious Orders. But few, if any at all of the propagators of the doctrines of separatism labored outside of the four walls of the masonic lodge room. In other words they were freemasons. Masonry was to them a medium through which they might carry on their conspiracies; it was an excuse for the creation of the spirit of association, till then unknown in the Philippines.

The aims of separatism may be classed as direct and indirect. The indirect aim was the independence of the country from the yoke of Spain. At the best this idea of independence was but second hand, a lesson learned by heart by a scholar whose power of thought was insufficient to enable him to grasp the true meaning of the words of the lesson. The average Filipino lacks the sentiment of nationality; hence in the minds of the majority of the people independence is but the enjoyment of the unbridled liberty to do as they please, in fact to revert to the times of their ancestors when everyone who could exert an authority was a king, a prince or a ruler of some description. To the Filipino it is of little importance whether his sovereign or his supreme ruler be the King of Spain or the President of the U. S. of America, as long as he is protected from his “friends” and from his own country-men and may enjoy his cock-fighting and have the necessary supply of rice and fish for his daily sustenance.

The direct aims of the separatists were those they sought in public, viz: representation in the Spanish Cortes, the expulsion of the Religious Orders, etc., etc. The result of representation in the Cortes would have been a veritable comedy; that of the expulsion of the Friars a decided tragedy for Spain, in as much as the Religious was ever the backbone of the administration of the colony. The consequences of the independence of the country would have been equally disastrous. There would have been the tremendous preponderance of the black over the white and eventually inter-tribal disputes and even armed struggles for the mastery. This would entail the complete stagnation of the moral and material progress of the people, who would gradually but surely drift back into the savage ways of their ancestors. And at last, who knows but that Japan or perhaps China would have to step in to save the inhabitants from becoming cannibals.

This doctrine of separatism was the doctrine disseminated by Filipino masonry, a daughter of Spanish freemasonry. Filipino freemasonry however, was to a great extent addicted to views not held or sustained by the Gr∴ Or∴ Español, and hence did not make common cause with Universal Freemasonry, although it used its ritual, its signs and its name, to shield from public view those of its labors which could not be allowed to see the light of day. Hence the diving into the subject of Universal Freemasonry is somewhat irrelevant to our present study, suffice it to say that the brotherhood, universal as it is, suffers no other division than that into families. Its aim is one; its methods one; its doctrine one[2]; it is the worldly imitation of the unparalleled Catholic unity of divine foundation.

The Spanish family was founded in 1811 by the Count de Grasse-Tilley. On the 21st of February 1804 the Supreme Council of Charleston issued a circular to the Count in which it said among other things which demonstrate the aim of the foundation: “Above the idea of country is the idea of humanity”; “frontiers are capricious demarcations imposed by the use of force.” And others of the same nature.

When the Count set forth to found the Spanish Supreme Council he was armed with a letters patent issued by the Supreme Council of Charleston containing this sentence: “the masonic solidity will never be effective whilst the brethren do not recognize one only power, as is one only the earth we inhabit, and one also the horizon we contemplate.... To unify, therefore, the masonic labors we all journey to the one end to which the work of this Supreme Council is directed, and hence what we have pointed out to Spain as one of the points in which is more necessary than elsewhere the one direction to which we refer.”

In 1882 Spanish freemasons were divided into different Orientes each of which claimed continuity with the institution of Grasse-Tilley; the matter was finally settled by the Supreme Council of Charleston.

Opinion is divided on the question of the responsibility of the Spanish freemason lodges or rather the ruling “Oriente” for the beliefs and practices of their filipino brethren. That they were indirectly responsible is more than certain; and oft-times they were so indirectly. D. Manuel Sastrón ex-Deputy to the Spanish Cortes, ex-Civil Governor of the Philippines, speaking on this subject says: “It is not possible for us on any account to fall in line with these suspicious reasonings: never have we had a disposition to form a part of such a sect, because we are old time Christians; but we repeat that we cannot believe nor do we imagine that any masonic centre composed of peninsular Spaniards could tolerate, and much less foment consciously, the propagation of doctrines which, whatever masonry brought about in the Philippines, could have given origin to the congregation of separatist elements.”

“Nevertheless side by side with this firm conviction we repeat what we tersely maintained, viz: that freemasonry has been the medium which marshalled the element which generalled the Filipino insurrection. Filibusterism knew how to exploit it to a fine point.”