The reverend archbishop of Manila himself has given and still gives to the religious orders of Filipinas a very striking and conclusive example in this regard: for before he left España he knew very well in what way the regulars acted as curas in those islands, but he neither renounced the archbishopric in España, nor gave up going to the islands. He knew also that the being united as a spouse to the church of Manila is not an accessory matter, but is wholly essential to the state of being its archbishop; and that other prelates have gone thither without attempting what he claims. Nevertheless, he has asked in the royal Audiencia permission to return to España; and now he writes resigning the archbishopric, and asking that he may be allowed to come here to live and die in retreat in a cell. If it is because the religious who are parish priests are not subject to his jurisdiction that he offers this resignation—by which he abandons all that belongs to his position, and the state of life that he chose—how much greater reason the religious will have to imitate him, since even when they give up the curacies they remain wholly in the estate of religious which they professed. If he makes this renunciation in order to avoid controversies, and aspires to live and die in a cell, much more natural is this desire of the religious to live and die peacefully therein, without obliging themselves to endure those controversies; for they do not accept under compulsion a new estate to which God does not call them. Likewise, [they decline] if, in order to adopt such a model of life, their rule must be the pleasure of the archbishop, and not the inspiration of God.
As little is this first argument overcome by [the assertion] that the civil law provides that the regular who is a parish priest is immediately subject, in what pertains to that office, to the visitation and correction of the ordinary. For, laying aside the fact that such a law can be abrogated by the supreme pontiff—as actually was done by Pius V after the holy Council of Trent, and afterward confirmed by Urban VIII; and this very procedure is supported by various declarations of the most eminent cardinals—when there is a lack of secular priests (as is the case in Filipinas, where for eight hundred parishes, the approximate number of those in existence, there are hardly sixty seculars in number, and still fewer who have abilities for giving instruction and learning languages): laying all this aside, the religious assert that the civil law which commands such subjection must be understood in the case that the religious who are administering curacies, without being subordinate to the ordinary, desire to continue thus, being parish priests; but it does not order that they be compelled by violence and force to enter that relation. And if a secular cleric, to whom with canonical and rigorous institution is given a perpetual curacy, can, notwithstanding this, renounce such curacy, nor on that account be disqualified by the law as long as he lives in immediate subjection to one superior only, who is his bishop: how or for what reason can the reverend archbishop of Manila claim that the religious cannot peaceably make the same renunciation, in order to avoid the risk of having so many superiors? As the religious hold the Indian villages not as proprietaries, but removable ad nutum, other persons could, for no better reason than their own wishes, deprive the religious of those ministries, even though the latter live therein with the sanctity of their holy founders; and is it possible that, when only the will of another person is sufficient to prevent them from being curas, the divine inspiration and their own self-reproach will not be sufficient for them?
The second reason that the religious in Filipinas have for refusing to be parish priests by title, subject to the ordinary, is that no exact idea of this virtue of justice has been formed in considering the method in which efforts have been made to constrain the religious by it. For either they are or they are not capable of being really parish priests, like the secular clerics. If they are, they do not accept the parish under any obligation of justice; and even when this is conferred on them with canonical institution, they nevertheless do not remain ordinaries, as are the secular clerics; for in the latter, in order to secure a proprietary benefice, the only points considered are the ability to serve as cura, the obligation of law [justicia] to which they submit, and the canonical collation with which they are inducted into the parish. Including all this in the said supposition, the religious cannot well understand why, after all that, they do not remain proprietary parish priests. As little do they understand how the said ability, obligation of law, and canonical institution can make a secular priest a perpetual cura—so that if his conduct does not render him unworthy the curacy cannot be taken from him, either by ordinary or vice-patron alone, or by both together; while a religious who enters the curacy with the same formalities is not competent for the same perpetuity, but only for such tenure, even in his own territory, that even if he conduct himself as a saint the ordinary and vice-patron can, if agreed, deprive him of his benefice and give it to another; that is, even after that obligation and solemnity he is a parish priest removable ad nutum.
The religious also consider that although the virtue of justice is one for all, and alike for all, and the efficacy of canonical institution is also one for persons who are qualified for the same office, to the secular cleric with the onerous duty of parish priest is given all that can favor him; but to the religious, while the entire burden is laid upon him, all his energy is checked on account of not giving him all which can relieve that burden. This is all placed upon the religious, for his responsibility for the feeding of his sheep confines him to a district in such a way that his own provincial cannot, by his own agency alone, change his district without first resorting to the ordinary and the vice-patron, to secure their consent. In this way there is a notable decrease of obedience, and the regular observance of the rule which he professed is greatly disturbed; and many, continual, and insupportable annoyances are heaped upon the provincials. The religious loses in great part the privilege of his exemption; he remains subject, in so far as he is a cura, to investigations, complaints, visitations, and penalties from the ordinary; and with all these burdens he has not the comfort of being secure in his parish, even if his conduct do not render him unworthy of it, because he does not hold it in perpetuity, as the secular does. He is not master of the emoluments which the curacy yields, nor are they in justice due to him as to the secular, unless he pretends that he is dispensed from the essential vow of poverty. Then, if the religious is capable of being a parish priest, and that by title of law, as is the secular, who has given to justice and to canonical collation such efficacy as with them to furnish to the secular what is honorable[30] and favorable, yet has so divided it as to impart to the regular what is detestable, while yet denying him what may console him?
[Even] if it be granted that the regular is not competent, on account of his estate, for being a proprietary parish priest, why is it so strictly required of him to enter the curacy with the same formalities and ceremony as those with which the clerics enter? Such incompetency will be the best justification for the repugnance which the religious feel for being curas in the manner which the archbishop insists on.
The third reason is, that if the convents and colleges which the religious maintain in Manila be broken up, it can be said with truth that there are no other houses of religious community [in the colony]; for although there are seven other houses besides—in Cavite, Cebu, Oton, and Yloilo—divided among the religious orders of St. Dominic, St. Augustine, the Society of Jesus, and the Recollects, yet these convents and colleges are so small that in each of them there are only two or three residents. All the rest of the said provinces is composed of Indian villages, [each] served by one minister only; and these are such as can be gathered from their respective bishoprics, the cathedrals of which neither have nor are capable of having dignities, canonries, and other prebends. This being admitted, if the ministers in Indian villages remain subject to the ordinary, as the provinces are composed almost wholly of such ministers alone, and for their removal would then be necessary the agreement of the ordinary and the vice-patron, some provinces would come to be dependent, in the name of religious government and in the exercise of secular government, on the wills of those two persons, to whom the religious did not in their profession promise obedience or subjection.
Then if either of the two, whether the bishop or the governor, were displeased with any religious order, or with any minister—and especially if it were the governor, whose power in those islands cannot be explained, except by their remoteness—in such case they could on very specious pretexts either maintain or remove the minister against the will of his provincial; and even they could, if necessary, threaten the latter with either censures or banishment, to make that religious order conform to their authority. How fruitful a source this may be of perdition and total ruin for the religious orders, all can recognize; but only those who have had experience in those islands can fully comprehend it.
The fourth reason: for we have already taken for granted their subjection and canonical institution. If a religious who is a minister commit a transgression, and his offense apparently belongs on the one side to morals and life, and on the other to the office of cura, the poor minister remains in the condition of those goods which we call mostrencos, on account of their belonging to the first person who takes possession of them—and even in a much worse condition, on account of the controversies which must naturally ensue. For if the provincial begins legal proceedings in the matter, and afterward information of it is given to the reverend archbishop, the latter issues a decree—and, if it be necessary, a censure—commanding the said provincial to revoke all of his proceedings, surrender the case to him, and abandon it; that is to say, the right of judicature belongs to him alone. The provincial appeals to the judge-delegate of his Holiness, who, in order to obtain full information about the case, commands the reverend archbishop, with the threat of censure, to desist from the cause, and surrender the documents. If the latter do not obey, the affair may reach the point where two ecclesiastical prelates mutually excommunicate each other, and [the colony] is menaced with an interdict and the cessation of divine worship. This is not discussing an imaginary thing, but is relating that which has just occurred in Manila in a like case—where, in order to prevent the regulars from withdrawing from their curacies, [the archbishop] imposed on the provincials the penalties of excommunication and a fine of 2,000 pesos; and conversely, the reverend archbishop and the delegate of his Holiness likewise excommunicated each other. The commonwealth was disquieted by these occurrences, not knowing where these things would end if the interdict which the delegate threatened were carried out, since he was followed by the religious orders; for nearly all the laymen lean on the orders—making their confessions to the religious, receiving instruction from their teaching and example, and with their counsels calming the scruples of their consciences. In consequence, it would necessarily follow that in case of an interdict and cessation of divine services the entire archdiocese would be left in most lamentable condition; and without doubt this would have occurred, if it had not been for the kindly nature of the delegate and the urgent importunities to desist from this purpose that were addressed to him by the religious. For, since at the cost of innumerable martyrdoms and other hardships they had established the faith in those islands, they sought to avert the danger that it would be impaired, even though this should be at the cost of contempt for themselves.
It must be added to all the above that if these contentions and troubles which are suffered in those islands could be promptly ended without going outside of them, toleration in enduring them would be less difficult. But this is not so; but these troubles leave behind them their consequences, and chains that are very long and heavy, which are only fit to drag along those who choose to become slaves to the curacies in Filipinas. For in such cases letters are written by the governor, the archbishop, the Audiencia, and the religious orders to Madrid, and by some of these to Roma also; and terrible controversies take shape, with public scandal in both courts. The parties are in every way exhausted, and the judges are harassed until the [royal] decree in the case is provided: first, because such decree is provided for regions so remote, and after it is issued arrives there [so late], that those evils are throwing out many roots, and these produce anew other discords and evils worse than the first. And since it is a fact that, although according to the divine oracles, it is not fitting either for the bishop to be contentious, or for the minister of souls to preach the gospel in any other way than that of peace, the religious orders, in place of experiencing in Filipinas, as it were, peace with the fruit of tranquillity, do not find this at the present time; but they are burning in a glowing forge, which only throws out sparks of discord and dissension. The religious orders, Sire, had already made peace among themselves, and are at this day maintaining and always will maintain it; for they trust in God that it will be so, and the bitter experience of past years has pointed this out as a great blessing. Thus, when the reverend archbishop arrived here all was quiet and peaceful, but within little more than two months after his arrival there was nothing but unrest and disorder—and this because the religious had told him, with all courtesy and humility, that they would sooner give up the ministries of instruction than hold them in the manner that he desired. Herein, which side proceeded most comformably to reason? the religious who peaceably leave the curacies, in order to avoid disputes; or the reverend archbishop who causes these contentions, and who sends to Madrid and Roma in order to obtain that the regulars shall be by force and violence parish priests subject to his own jurisdiction? In view, then, of disadvantages so serious, what religious is there, devoted to his profession, who will consent to be a parish priest in Filipinas? Who will leave his province in Europa, the retirement and peace of his community, to go, with the perils of two ocean voyages, in search of controversies so wearisome and noisy over a calling which he did not profess? Herein the religious of Filipinas admit that they have taken warning by what has occurred in America, that they ought to learn a lesson from it and be cautious about having another head.
The fifth reason: If a regular who is a parish priest transgresses, and on account of secret faults becomes unworthy of continuing in his ministry, yet if he remains in it his salvation may incur a very special peril. The provincial has secret knowledge of the case. Here justice demands two things: one, the punishment of the fault; the other, that the delinquent shall not be rendered infamous. Charity, (and even justice itself) demands also that the provincial shall, because of his office, remove his subordinate from that risk. If this regular who acts as parish priest were administering his functions without canonical institution or subjection to the ordinary, as is done in the Filipinas Islands, the provincial could with the greatest ease settle the whole matter, and justice and charity be satisfied, without disgrace to the delinquent and without a stigma on the religious order. But when the regular who is a parish priest is subject to the ordinary, the provincial cannot remove him by his own authority alone; and it is necessary for him to resort to that very ordinary and to the vice-patron, and that the two agree on the removal of the offender. And, in such case, what has the provincial to say to them? If it be answered that by keeping the case entirely secret the provincial becomes a sharer in the guilt of his subordinate, he and the superiors of the religious orders declare, with all submission and humility, that they refuse to put in practice such a form of theology. Can the ordinary acting alone, can the governor, the father, and the master, each alone, punish and correct the fault—of a priest, of a citizen or a soldier, of children, of servants—without the least injury to the culprit’s honor; and a provincial, who can in innumerable ways do the same with any subordinate of his, be obliged to leave the offender in disgrace with the heads of the community, ecclesiastical and secular? The religious orders would sooner remove [from the islands], to transplant themselves to Europa, than submit to so heavy a burden.