CHAPTER II

.

THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS ORDERS CONSIDERED.

In 1896 we heard of a rising in the remoter parts of the Philippines. It was represented by the Spanish authorities, who at the time controlled the news, as of no moment,--an insurrectionary movement that they could easily cope with. Yet it continued, and seemed to wax strong; and, from rumors which began to circulate about the murdering of monks and friars, we began to feel that the insurrection was of no ordinary or commonplace nature. It seemed to be directed against the Church, and to be animated by a deadly spirit of hostility to the representatives of Religion. It was, of course, impossible at the time to form an opinion as to the cause of the insurrection, from the isolated facts which were allowed to come under the notice of the public. Now, however, the mists have cleared away; and we hope to be able to prove in the course of this inquiry that the insurrection was a premeditated and deliberate attack made upon the Church by a native secret society which was affiliated to, and adopted the methods of, that type of Freemasonry which gave the Carbonari to Italy and the Jacobins to France; a type whose disastrous work has been so much in evidence in South and Central America. It has unfortunately been busily at work for the last thirty or forty years, indoctrinating the simple natives of the Philippines with the modern watchwords of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,"--liberty meaning in this case, license, anarchy, cruelty, bloodshed; equality, the confiscation of property; and fraternity, an impious combination against all opposed to their designs. And foremost amongst these were undoubtedly from the very first the friars, spiritual guides of nearly six millions of native Christians, who, in consequence of their opposition, drew upon themselves the bitter hatred of the members of the Craft. It thus happened that the friars found themselves denounced and vilified in Spanish newspapers, in circular letters issued at Madrid, in speeches at the lodges and clubs, and in the Cortes. The grossest calumnies the foulest lies, were industriously circulated, to lower their prestige, and bring about a downfall of that spiritual power they had justly acquired, and were exercising for the good of souls. Nothing was known of the struggle in these countries until the Spanish-American war brought the Philippines into prominence before the English-speaking world. Then the echoes of the struggle began to reach our ears. Unfortunately for the friars, the sympathies of the world were sought, and sought successfully, to be enlisted on the side of the secret societies, or insurgents, who in this instance were for the most part one and the same. The news sources were shrewdly manipulated by astute conspirators to foster their own purposes; on the Philippine question, world-wide circulation was given to false and calumnious reports and interviews with leaders of the insurrection, full of virulent ex parte statements, while no exposition of views has been sought for from any representative of the friars. As an instance of the unreliability of these interviews, circulated through such justly suspected channels, we give the following. The correspondent of the Daily Telegraph sent, a few months ago, through "Reuter's Special Service," an interview he had with Dr. Nozaleda, the Archbishop of Manila, who, by the way, is a Dominican. From this interview it would appear that the Archbishop is opposed to the friars. He is made to say: "The religious Orders must go. That is undeniable, because the whole people are determined on their abolition, and are now able to render their retention impossible."

His Grace is also made to blame the Orders for causing dissensions, and thus increasing the disfavor with which they are regarded. The correspondent adds that he heard privately from a native priest that the reason the Archbishop hopes for the expulsion of the religious Orders is that the friars have grown too strong for him, and that he expects by getting rid of them to increase his own authority. Now, apart from the fact that the Archbishop is a member of a religious Order himself, a fact worth a dozen arguments, we may dismiss the whole interview as unreliable, since very recently the Archbishop delivered himself, to a representative of the Chicago Record, of quite opposite sentiments.

Mr. Halstead made a special journey to Manila to study the situation. He was most favorably impressed by the Archbishop, whom he has undertaken to vindicate before the people of America. One paragraph from his interview with the Spanish prelate is of special interest at the present moment: "When asked what it was that caused the insurgents to be so ferocious against the priests, and resolved on their expulsion or destruction, he said the rebels were at once false, unjust, and ungrateful. They had been lifted from savagery by Catholic teachers, who had not only been educators in the schools but teachers in the fields. The Catholic orders that were singled out for special punishment had planted in the islands the very industries that were the sources of prosperity; and the leaders of the insurgents had been largely educated by the very men whom now they persecuted. Some of the persecutors had been in Europe, and became revolutionists in the sense of promoting disorder as anarchists. It was the antagonism of the Church to murderous anarchy that aroused the insurgents of the Philippines to become the deadly enemies of priests and religious orders. It was true that in Spain, as in the Philippines, the anarchists were particularly inflamed against the Church."

Prominence was given last year, in some of the English newspapers, to statements made by a certain Senor S. C. Valdes, a Filipino, who managed to have an interview sent to the papers, through "Reuter's Special Foreign Agency," that unfortunately met with a degree of credence on the part of uninformed persons. It is instructive to analyze some of the statements of this gentleman, and compare them with statements made for a similar purpose by other correspondents.

Desiring to prove that the inhabitants of the Philippines are not naked savages, he says: "The inhabitants of the groups of Luzon, the Viscayas, and the coast of Mindanao are very advanced in their education. Seventy-five per cent of them can read and write. There are many native lawyers, doctors, chemists, members of the military and scientific corps, naval and land architects, merchants, naval officers, engineers, and also clever and competent secular priests." We believe Senor Valdes. In spite of what he says a little further on about numbers of them going abroad for their education, we will refer our readers to the last chapter, in which we showed that it is owing to the friars, who have all the primary, secondary, and higher education in their hands, that the people are so advanced in education; and as regards the native lawyers and other professional men, we refer them to the official reports we have given of Manila University, with its two thousand students, carried on by the Dominicans. As to Mindanao, what the Jesuits have done there can also be referred to. Valdes speaks of "clever and competent secular priests," having no word of praise for the religious; and yet the higher education of the secular clergy is entirely in their hands.

After this eulogium of his own people by Senor Valdes, is it not curious to find quite an opposite statement, made for party purposes, by the Manila correspondent of the Daily Telegraph? Wishing to show the incompetence of the friars, he says: "The education of the people is entirely in their hands; it is enough to say that practically it does not exist." And this of a country in which seventy-five per cent of the people, according to Senor Valdes, can read and write, a percentage that would put more than one European country to the blush.

Senor Valdes asserts that the friars exercise a tyrannical power in the islands. He says that they generally consider it an act of disrespect for the natives to visit them except with bare feet. It is curious that Wingfield in his travels never noticed this, and he had an eagle eye for such deficiencies. Valdes is not afraid to make the incredible statements that "the friars and the military said that before the reforms should be granted they would first drown the insurgents in their own blood," and that General Weyler, when he was captain of the islands, ordered the town of Calumba to be destroyed, and set fire to, simply to please the Dominicans, who were anxious to show their power and influence. Proofs, and strong ones, not mere assertions, are needed when religious men, voluntary exiles from country and friends for the sake of civilizing rude peoples and bringing them under the sweet yoke of Christ, are accused of atrocious cold-bloodedness--wantonly slaughtering innocent men, women, and children for the sake of satisfying a sense of vanity!

The truth of the matter is that the rebellion in the Philippines against Spanish rule was not the uprising of a whole people. Of what account, except for brute force, are some thousands of armed men out of a peaceful population of eight millions. The insurrectionary movement was planned, and directed almost exclusively, by the mestizos, or half-breeds,--the offspring of the union between native women and the Chinese, who form a large proportion of the town population, and do most of the retail trade. We must bear in mind that the leaders had at their command all the refractory elements of the native population,--the banditti, who always existed in large numbers, and were to be found in force not many miles from Manila, and the common criminals whom, at the first opportunity, they let loose from the jails to scour the country. Can we form a judgment of the sentiments of the Philippine people from the conduct of men who have treated their prisoners inhumanly, who have burned churches, looted schools and hospitals, treated ordinary ecclesiastical students with brutality, and subjected nuns in convents to shameful treatment? We have plenty of evidence that the natives on the whole are very much attached to the friars, whom they rescued, when they were able, from the hands of the rebels, and visited constantly while in captivity, doing their best to alleviate their sufferings. That they were peaceably disposed, and loyal to Spain even during the progress of the rebellion, we may assume from Blumentritt, who said, as late as 1897, when recounting his experiences as a scientific explorer in these islands, "There are not many colonies where less blood has been shed, and also not many where the conquered people have so little hatred of, or dislike to, their conquerors. Already so richly endowed with the climate and the beauty of their native land, as well as with the fertility of the soil, the natives of the Philippines are neither despised nor downtrodden by their rulers, whom they, in their turn, do not dislike. One must, therefore, reckon them among the happiest in the world." His words, of course, do not apply to the noisy demagogues, to the Freemasons, to the insurgents, at least to that part of them who have not been forced into revolt by threats and terrorism, but they describe the state of the millions as yet untouched by the rebellion. Senor Valdes and other men of his stamp are fond of declaring the resolve of the inhabitants of the Philippines "to be free and civilized," and "not to be subjected to the domination of friars or monkish orders." They speak the sentiments of a small, but very active and noisy, portion of the population; the overwhelming majority are happy, peaceful, and contented.

We now come to the painful task of noticing some reckless charges made by Senor Valdes against the honor of the missionaries, a painful, yet necessary task, as the accusations were laid before the public some months ago without comment or contradiction of any kind. Senor Valdes may think he has scored a point in making such outrageous statements; but he falls into error if he imagines that what might be readily swallowed by those who hate religion in Spain and Portugal would be as readily accepted in England, Ireland, and America. Apostate priests and nuns, lecturing under the auspices of Mr. Kensit and the Protestant Alliance, have long since made England familiar with this gross kind of calumny, directed against our own priests and nuns, repeated, too, year after year, without proof or shadow of foundation, so recklessly and shamelessly, indeed, that the lecturers only excite the disgust of the sensible portion of the Protestant body. Senor Valdes, with unscrupulous audacity, tries to beslime the character of some of the missionaries, by falsely laying to their charge the foulest and most unnatural crimes, which for decency's sake we refrain from detailing. According to this vile traducer the priests are devoid of all honor and all the moral virtues.

Now, if this were the first time that these atrocious charges were made, we might say with horror, "Can such things be?" but we learn from the memorial presented last April by the heads of the various religious orders in the Philippines to the Spanish government, that charges of a similar nature were constantly repeated in Spain during the previous eighteen months, both in public and in private; made the subject of speeches in clubs, published in anti-clerical newspapers--all part of the campaign against the friars, all done to lower their prestige in the eyes of the people, and to obtain their expulsion from the islands. If there were any truth in the charges, they would have been brought home to the friars long since; names, dates, and documentary proofs would have been given. A list of well-proven cases, say twenty or thirty, would have been made up, and submitted to the Government, to whom the Freemasons were clamoring for their expulsion. But, like the stuff the anti-clerical lectures nearer home are made of, the charges were always vague, general, and indefinite. The religious, like men of honor, took no notice of these calumnies for a long time, hoping that gradually the storm would blow over; but seeing that it increased day by day, and that they were being constantly insulted by petty government officials in the Philippines, they at last took notice of them, amongst other charges, in their memorial to the Government last April. They asked, as a matter of right and justice, that names and dates would be given, that documentary proofs would be produced. They affirmed that the charges were not made by those who had access to them, and saw them day by day; that their convents were open to inspection; that the lives of those living in the country parts were well known to their parishioners; that in those places they could not act in disguise, as their Spanish nationality made them conspicuous objects to all eyes. They asked, in case their innocence were doubted, that proper judicial proceedings would be instituted.

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. [2] 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."

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 Senor 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.

A sample calumny of the kind, to which unbounded circulation has been given, and its sufficient refutation from an authoritative source, to which no such reproduction has been extended, may not be out of place by way of conclusion to our present remarks. Let the candid reader judge whose words--the Rev. Mr. Parkhurst's or Father McKinnon's--bear the ear-marks of personal investigation and conscientious endeavor after the truth--"the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

These statements of Mr. Parkhurst were clipped from an article in The Cleveland Plain Dealer (Cleveland, O.); and the clipping was forwarded to Father McKinnon, who is at present in Manila, and has been appointed superintentent of all the schools in that city by General Otis, the commander-in-chief of the American army of occupation. Father McKinnon was requested to comment upon the extract. The clipping and the reply are herewith presented.

"The Rev. M. M. Parkhurst, who has lived in the Philippines for many years, says that when a couple wish to get married in the Philippines, they must first pay a fee of L6. or $30, to the priest, who otherwise will not marry them. As a native rarely earns more than $5 a month, he seldom has the necessary marriage fee, so that common law marriages are the frequent result. The baptismal fee, he says, is $25, and the death fee is $60 for an adult, and $10 for an infant. A poll-tax of $25 for each man, and $15 for each woman, is collected; and when a man builds a house, he must pay $10 for having a chimney blessed."

To this Father McKinnon replies:--

"Responding to your favor with regard to quotation from the Rev. M. M. Parkhurst, I may say it is a lie from top to finish. I have been here now nearly six months, and have studied the religious question very carefully, and, I think, without prejudice. To do this I had every opportunity, not only here in Manila, but also in the outlying provinces, as I have been sent frequently into the interior of the island to treat with the insurgent leaders. I have conversed with all classes of people, and I think I know pretty well just how matters stand. This statement of Mr. Parkhurst is in keeping with all the other statements made by irresponsible preachers concerning the condition of the Church here.

"Marriage here is like marriage any place else. If the parties are able to do so, they are supposed to pay something. If not able to pay, the priests here marry them gratis, just as you or I or any other minister of the Gospel would do in America. For rich or poor there is no fixed fee; that is left entirely to the contracting

## parties. For baptisms and deaths the rule is the same. Indeed,

for baptisms, the priest rarely receives more than one dollar, and more often he receives nothing at all. For deaths they go even further than we do in America, as every parish church keeps a supply of coffins on hand to give gratis to those who are too poor to employ an undertaker. For the grandest funeral here no more than $25 is paid, which would be equal to $12 of our money. Even the fee of $2.50, charged for marriage license reverts not to the Church or Government, but to the orphan asylums.

"Speaking of orphan asylums, the Girls' Asylum here gives a dowry of $500 to every inmate upon her marriage. This is but a sample of what is done in the way of charity here. We hear great tales of the wealth of the monks, and inquire about the property, and find it is a large estate, the income of which is used to support some hospital, or other charitable institution under the care of said monks. Nowhere in the world is charity in greater evidence than here. The magnificent hospitals and orphanages, schools of industry, etc., would be a credit to any nation. The amount expended thus every year is enormous. The monks individually are as poor as the proverbial church mouse. The islands have a population of over 8,000,000 Catholics. The priests number about 1,500; and considering the weakness of human nature, and the fact that many of them live alone out in the wilds far away from brother priests, it is not surprising that an occasional one falls. Even among the saintly (?) Parkhurst's brethren, I have heard of an occasional fall in civilized America. But here these are the exceptions. The main body of the clergy are good, holy men. The Archbishop is a man who would be an honor to any church in any country. He is a man of eminent learning and great sanctity. He is one of the kindest and most charitable men I ever met. Go to his house at whatever hour you will, and you will find it crowded with poor. For each he has a kind word and some substantial aid. Every cent he receives is given away in this manner. His personal magnetism is such that to meet him is to admire him. If I wished to use names I could give you many striking examples of this. In our army and navy we had some Parkhursts who were ready to believe or say anything about his Grace.

"For those whom I thought worth convincing that they were wrong, I arranged that at different times they should meet him. The result was the same in every case. Each would come away feeling that his Grace was a much maligned man. To-day, among the American officials in both army and navy, no man is more respected than the Archbishop of Manila. In my estimation, there are two reasons for the impression which has gone abroad concerning the Church here. Aguinaldo, knowing in his cunning that there were many Parkhursts in America, thought lying about the Church would be an excellent way to gain the sympathy of Americans. I have been all over the country, and find no poverty anywhere. For Indians I find them remarkably well instructed. The one who cannot read and write is an exception. There are public schools supported by the Government all over the country. Had Mr. Parkhurst desired to learn the truth, he could have done so from his brother ministers, who are chaplains here. I think they would have told him the truth, as I have found them to be a nice gentlemanly lot of men, ever ready to do me a kindness. Some of them I admire very much for their devotion to the sick and those in need."

##