The Aglipayan Schism. Education. Politics. Population.
With the American dominion came free cult. No public money is disbursed for the support of any religious creed. No restraint is placed upon the practice of any religion exercised with due regard to morality. Proselytism in public schools is declared illegal.[1] The prolonged discussion of the friarsʼ position and claims encouraged them to hope that out of the labyrinthine negotiations might emerge their restoration to the Philippine parishes. For a while, therefore, hundreds of them remained in Manila, others anxiously watched the course of events from their refuges in the neighbouring British and Portuguese colonies, and the unpopular Archbishop Bernardino Nozaleda only formally resigned the archbishopric of Manila years after he had left it. Having prudently retired from the Colony during the Rebellion, he returned to it on the American occupation, and resumed his archiepiscopal functions until the end of 1899. Preliminary negotiations in Church matters were facilitated by the fact of the Military Governor of the Islands at the time being a Roman Catholic, an American army chaplain acting as chief intermediary between the lay and ecclesiastical authorities. The common people were quite unable, at the outset, to comprehend that under American law a friar could be in their midst without a shred of civil power or jurisdiction. There were Filipinos of all classes, some in sympathy with the American cause, who were as loud in their denunciation of the proposed return of the friars as the most intransigent insurgents. They thought of them most in their lay capacity of de facto Government agents all over the Islands. It cannot be said that the parish priests originally sought to discharge civil functions; they did so, at first, only by order of their superiors, who were the de facto rulers in the capital, and afterwards by direct initiative of the lay authorities, because the Spanish Government was too poor to employ civil officials. What their functions were is explained in Chapter [xii]. The complaints of the people against the friars constituted the leading theme of Dr. Rizalʼs writings, notably his “Noli me tángere,” and the expulsion of the four obnoxious Religious Orders is claimed to have been one of the most important reforms verbally promised in connexion with the alleged Treaty of Biac-na-bató. The allegation of the prelates and other members of the regular clergy who gave evidence before the American Civil Commission in 1900, to the effect that the Katipunan Society members invaded the parishes only to murder the friars and rob the churches, should be weighed against the fact that two hundred thousand Filipinos were ready to leave glowing life for grim death to rid the country of monastic rule. The townspeople, apparently apathetic, were afraid to express their opinion of the friars until they were backed up by the physical force of the Katipunan legions. It was the conflict of material interests and the friarsʼ censorship which created the breach between the vicar and the people. The immorality of the friars was not general and by no means the chief ground, if any, for hostility against them; the frailties of the few simply weakened the prestige of all and broke the pedestal of their moral superiority. My own investigations convinced me that the friarsʼ incontinence was generally regarded with indifference by the people; concubinage being so common among the Filipinos themselves it did not shock them in the pastorʼs case. Moreover, women were proud of the paternity of their children begotten in their relationship to the friars.
When, on the American occupation, the friar question could be freely discussed, hot disputes at once ensued between the friar party and the Philippine clergy, supported by the people. In the meantime, an Apostolic Delegate, Monsignor P. L. Chapelle,[2] was appointed by the Pope, in agreement with the American Government, to endeavour to adjust the friar problem. The details to be considered were manifold, but the questions which most interested the public were the return of the friars to the parishes and the settlement of their property claims. Monsignor Chapelle so vigorously espoused the cause of the friars that he appeared to be more their advocate than an independent judge in the controversy. Many friars, anxious to quit the Islands, were dissuaded from doing so by this prelate.[3] He arrived in Manila on January 2, 1900, and, without having made any personal investigations in the provinces, by the 16th of April he deemed himself competent to declare that “the accusations adduced against them (the Religious Orders) are the merest pretexts of shrewd and anti-American Filipino politicians.”[4] As a matter of fact, nothing anti-American, or American, had any connexion with the subject. The struggle to expel the friars from these Islands was initiated years before the Americans contemplated intervention in Philippine affairs. Open rebellion was started against the friars twenty months before the Battle of Cavite. Nozaleda and Chapelle wished to appoint friars to the provincial benefices, whilst protests against this proposal were coming from nearly every Christian quarter of the Colony. The Filipinos desired to have the whole administration of the Church in their own hands and, if possible, to see every friar leave the Archipelago. The representative Philippine clergy were Dr. Mariano Sevilla, Father Rojas, Father Changco, and Father Singson. The great champions of the national cause were the first two, who stoutly opposed Nozaledaʼs schemes. Fierce discussions arose between the parties; Father Sevilla and party defied Nozaleda to make the appointments he desired, and then sent a cablegram to the Pope to the following effect:—“Archbishop and Apostolic Delegate want to appoint friars to the Philippine benefices. The Philippine people strongly oppose. Schism imminent.” Father Sevilla could not be wheedled into agreeing to Nozaledaʼs and Chapelleʼs plans, so he was sent to prison for two months in the Calle de Anda, Manila, and deportation to the Island of Guam was menacingly hinted at. When the reply came from Rome, disapproving of the action of the two prelates, Father Sevilla was released from prison. Nevertheless, Nozaledaʼs wrath was unappeased. He then proposed that the benefices should be shared between Filipinos and friars, whilst Father Sevilla insisted on the absolute deposition of the friars. At this time there were 472 members of the four confraternities in the Islands, mostly in Manila.[5] At a meeting of the Philippine clergy the expulsion of the friars was proposed and supported by a majority; but Father Sevilla vetoed the resolution, and his ruling was obeyed. Moreover, he agreed that the friars should hold some benefices in and near Manila and the ecclesiastical-educational employments in the colleges. “We,” said Father Sevilla, “are for the Church; let them continue their work of education; it is not our function.” Nozaleda then made advances towards Father Sevilla, and endeavoured to cajole him by the offer of an appointment, which he repeatedly refused. Rome, for the time being, had overruled the question of the benefices contrary to Nozaledaʼs wish. For the moment there was nothing further for the Philippine clergy to defend, but in their general interests Father Sevilla, their spokesman, elected to remain in an independent position until after the retirement of Monsignor Chapelle, when Father Sevilla became parish priest of Hagonoy (Bulacan).
The outcome of the controversy respecting the benefices was that the friars could be sent to those parishes where the people were willing to receive them, without danger of giving rise to public disorder. This was in accordance with President McKinleyʼs Instructions to the Taft Commission dated April 7, 1900,[6] which says: “No form of religion and no minister of religion shall be forced upon any community or upon any citizen of the Islands.”
Archbishop Nozaleda left for Spain, but did not relinquish his archbishopric until June, 1903.[7] In his absence his office was administered by Father Martin Garcia Alcocér, the Spanish bishop of Cebú, whilst the bishopric of Cebú was left in charge of a popular Chinese half-caste secular priest, Father Singson,[8] who subsequently became vicar of Cebú on the appointment of an American prelate, Father Hendrichs, to the bishopric.
In the matter of the Friarsʼ lands, it was apparently impossible to arrive at any settlement with the friars themselves. The purchase of their estates was recommended by the Insular Government, and the Congress at Washington favourably entertained that proposal. In many places the tenants refused to pay rent to the friars, who then put forward the extraordinary suggestion that the Government should send an armed force to coerce the tenants. The Government at once refused to do this, pointing out that the ordinary courts were open to them the same as to all citizens. Truly the friars found themselves in a dilemma. By the rules of their Order they could not sue in a court of law; but under the Spanish Government, which was always subservient to their will, they had been able to obtain redress by force. Under the American Government these immunities and privileges ceased.
In 1902 the Civil Governor of the Philippines, Mr. W. H. Taft, visited the United States, and on May 9 in that year he was commissioned by his Government to visit Rome on his way back to the Islands in order to negotiate the question of the friarsʼ lands with the Holy See. The instructions issued to him by the Secretary of War contain the following paragraphs, namely[9]:—
One of the controlling principles of our Government is the complete separation of Church and State, with the entire freedom of each from any control or interference by the other. This principle is imperative wherever American jurisdiction extends, and no modification or shading thereof can be a subject of discussion. . . . By reason of the separation, the Religious Orders can no longer perform, in behalf of the State, the duties in relation to public instruction and public charities formerly resting upon them. . . . They find themselves the object of such hostility on the part of their tenantry against them as landlords, and on the part of the people of the parishes against them as representatives of the former Government, that they are no longer capable of serving any useful purpose for the Church. No rents can be collected from the populous communities occupying their lands, unless it be by the intervention of the civil government with armed force. Speaking generally, for several years past the friars, formerly installed over the parishes, have been unable to remain at their posts, and are collected in Manila with the vain hope of returning. They will not be voluntarily accepted again by the people, and cannot be restored to their positions except by forcible intervention on the part of the civil government, which the principles of our Government forbid....It is for the interest of the Church, as well as for the State, that the landed proprietorship of the Religious Orders in the Philippine Islands should cease, and that if the Church wishes...to continue its ministration among the people of the Islands...it should seek other agents therefor. It is the wish of our Government, in case Congress shall grant authority, that the titles of the Religious Orders to the large tracts of agricultural lands which they now hold shall be extinguished, but that full and fair compensation shall be made therefor. It is not, however, deemed to be for the interests of the people of the Philippine Islands that...a fund should thereby be created to be used for the attempted restoration of the friars to the parishes from which they are now separated, with the consequent disturbance of law and order. Your errand will not be, in any sense or degree, diplomatic in its nature; but will be purely a business matter of negotiation by you, as Governor of the Philippines, for the purchase of property from the owners thereof, and the settlement of land titles.”
Governor Taft arrived in Rome in June, 1902, in the pontificate of His Holiness Leo XIII., whose Secretary of State was Cardinal M. Rampolla. In Governor Taftʼs address to His Holiness, the following interesting passage occurs: “On behalf of the Philippine Government, it is proposed to buy the lands of the Religious Orders with the hope that the funds thus furnished may lead to their withdrawal from the Islands, and, if necessary, a substitution therefor, as parish priests, of other priests whose presence would not be dangerous to public order.”
In the document dated June 22, in reply to Governor Taftʼs address to His Holiness, Cardinal Rampolla says: “As to the Spanish religious in particular belonging to the Orders mentioned in the instructions, not even they should be denied to return to those parishes where the people are disposed to receive them without disturbance of public order . . . The Holy See will not neglect to promote, at the same time, the better ecclesiastical education and training of the native clergy, in order to put them in the way, according to their fitness, of taking gradually the place of the Religious Orders in the discharge of the pastoral functions. The Holy See likewise recognizes that in order to reconcile more fully the feelings of the Filipinos to the religious possessing landed estates, the sale of the same is conducive thereto. The Holy See declares it is disposed to furnish the new Apostolic Delegate, who is to be sent to the Philippine Islands, with necessary and opportune instructions in order to treat amicably this affair in understanding with the American Government and the parties interested.”