[20] See Psalm xcv (xciv in Douay version), v. 10: “Forty years long was I offended with that generation, and I said: ‘These always err in heart.’”
[21] See Vol. XXIII, p. 271, note 118.
[22] St. Cassian was a native of Imola, Italy, who was martyred under one of the Roman emperors (Decius, Julian the Apostate, or Valerian). He was a schoolmaster of little children whom he taught to read and write, and his pupils denounced him as a Christian. He was delivered over to his former charges, and they wreaked their vengeance on him by breaking their tablets over his head and piercing him with their styluses. His feast is celebrated on August 13.—T. C. Middleton, O.S.A.
Character and Influence of the Friars
[The following is taken from volume ii of Sinibaldo de Mas’s Informe sobre el estado de las islas Filipinas en 1842 (Madrid, January, 1843).]
The ecclesiastical estate
Shortly after Legaspi had discovered the islands, came successively religious of St. Augustine, St. Dominic, and St. Francis, who spread through the interior and founded convents in Manila. They were the ones who accomplished most in the spiritual and temporal conquest, as is attested uniformly by writers, native and foreign, even the least devout. Some years later, bishoprics were erected; and from that moment began a struggle between the bishops and the monastic orders as to whether or no the friar curas should be subject to the diocesan visit. Innumerable are the treatises, opinions, superior decrees, and scandalous disputes, which took place on this account, as we have already seen in the chapter called “History.” The arguments of the religious were founded on the fear of falling into relaxation of their regular observance, as they believed that they could not be good ministers without being good religious. The religious of the Order of St. Dominic, discussing this point in the year 1710, resolved that, if the lords ordinary[1] attempted to subject them to the diocesan visit, they would first abandon all their missions; for the province regards it as certain and evident that the ruin of the ministering religious must follow the said visit; and of this opinion have been, for many years past, grave religious and zealous and superior prelates whom the province has had. In the year 1757, Governor Don Pedro Manuel Arandia claimed, with the greatest firmness, that the regulars should submit to the laws of the royal patronage in respect to the appointment of religious for the curacies, and that they should receive the canonical installation. He first directed himself to the provincial of the calced Augustinians, even going so far as to warn him that, if he did not obey his behests and commands in this matter, the governor would proceed to his exile and the occupation of his temporalities. To that the provincial replied that he could not under any circumstances accede to his demands, adding that “he knew by proof in his establishment the ruin of their regular institute, with notable harm to souls;” and that “he was at the same time assured that the piety of the king (whom may God preserve) would not take it ill at seeing the aforesaid province [of Augustinians] reduced to their profession and subject to the same laws of the royal patronage. Those laws, although so just, do not bind the regulars to continue in their missions, which they obtain precariously, in case that all the royal patronage is impracticable to them with their institute.” In the year 1767, and during the government of Don Simon de Anda, there came an order from Madrid, together with a bull from Pope Benedict XIV, requiring the curas to submit to the metropolitan. The religious of St. Augustine still resisted, which caused Anda to have all the curas in Pampanga arrested, and to send the provincial and definitors to España. In the year 1775 arrived a decisive order from the court, requiring all the regulars to submit to the visit and the royal patronage, and the restoration of the curacies of Pampanga to the Augustinians. They submitted, and from that time the regular curas have been subject to their provincial in matters de vita et moribus [i.e., of conduct and morals], of the bishop in all that pertains to spiritual administration, and to the captain-general as the viceregal patron. According to a royal decree of August 1, 1795, it is impossible to remove a regular cura against his will without formulating a cause against him and trying him according to law, unless he is appointed to fill some office in the order; and even in this case it is necessary that the consent of the ordinary and the royal vice-patron precede, in accordance with the terms of another royal decree of September 29, 1807. Perhaps this subjection of the curas to the bishops and vice-patrons will have resulted in great advantages; but there is no doubt that the relaxation of morals which the regular superiors foresaw has been verified. There are many, there are numberless faults which a director recognizes and knows positively, but which cannot be proved in a judgment, especially when one is conducting a cura of souls. Further, in a cause, it is necessary to take depositions from the parishioners, and to make public matters which it would be highly important to keep secret; for scandal does more harm than the evil which one is trying to remedy, especially in a colony where the good man and the prestige of the religious is so important. And, above all, it ought to be remembered that since the will of three must unite to punish one cura, it will be very easy for the cura to find a means of securing favor from some of them. Those evils would probably be remedied by rigorously obeying the commands of Benedict XIV in his constitution beginning Firmandis, given November 6, 1744, in which it is ruled that the regular curas may be removed from their curacies according to the will of one or the other superior, without its being necessary for either to declare to the other the causes of the removal.
As a result of these continuous and obstinate quarrels between the regular curas and the bishops and civil authorities, and as if to cut the Gordian knot, the government ordered, in 1753, that all the curacies be handed over to secular priests of the country. The execution of this decree presented so many difficulties, and raised so many remonstrances that it was decided in 1757 that, until it should be ordered otherwise, none of the curacies administered by regulars should be granted to a secular priest under any circumstances, until it was really vacant, and that then the viceroy and the diocesan should agree together whether or no it were advisable to make it secular; and the opinion of both should be carried into effect, and that in equal accord they should execute the decree of 1753. By this decision, the governor-general had the power to deprive the friars of their curacies at will, since the bishops have almost always desired or solicited that. Cárlos III, wearied at the obstinacy of the Augustinian religious in not submitting to the diocesan visit, ordered by decrees of August 5 and November 9, 1774, that all the missions should be secularized as they fell vacant. The governor, then Don Simon de Anda, in spite of being at open war with the friars—because they had intrigued in Madrid against him when the government was conferred on him—and of his being, perhaps, the governor-general most hated by them, inveighed so strongly against this order, asserting that it was not advisable to the service of God and the State, that the same Cárlos III resolved that the decree of 1774 should not have effect, and that the curacies and missions which the religious had filled before the decree, should be returned to them. Nevertheless the government of Madrid was so annoyed and wearied at the continual strife which the friars maintained with the bishops and authorities, that it desired to cut the dispute short, at any risk; and in this same decree it was recommended that a body of Filipino secular priests be formed, so that the curacies could be surrendered to these as they became vacant—thus carrying into effect the decree of 1757, when they should be ready for it. This same order was confirmed by another decree of December 11, 1776, and another of September 7, 1778—although in this last, in consideration of a representation of Don Pedro Sarrio, which will be seen later, it was provided that there should be no innovation in what was contained in the decree of ’76, without the express order of the Council and of the king. In 1822, in consequence of a decree of the Córtes, the curacies which fell vacant were presented at a meeting of opponents. In regard to the first, which was that of the village of Malate, the superior of the calced Augustinians, Fray Hilarion Diez, made a representation; but the archbishop, Don Fray Juan Zulaybar, was interested in complying with the decrees of the Madrid government. In 1826, order was given to return that curacy to the religious, and all [others] that they had, and what was declared to them by the decree of 1776; and that the secularization of any curacy should not be proceeded with except by express order of the king.
I am going to insert what Don Tomás de Comyn said about the religious of Filipinas in a book which has not had the appreciation that it merits, and which is already rare.