Catholics against independence
Published Feb 14, 2019 12:28 am
LANDSCAPE
By GEMMA CRUZ ARANETA
Gemma Cruz Araneta
Unbeknown to most of us, the Philippines was a thorny political issue in the United States of America, at the turn of the 20th century. During the Philippine-American War and the ensuing occupation of our republic, the case for immediate independence provoked acerbic debates in the legislative and executive branches of the American government. When the USA invaded Cuba in 1898, the local revolutionaries convened a constitutional convention, after which Cuba became independent in 1902, with a caveat that the USA could intervene in the electoral process when deemed necessary. Curiously enough, the Cuban template was not applied to its half-sister, the Philippines, despite efforts of the Philippine Independence Committee, a body composed of 40 prominent liberal-minded Americans.
On 26 April 1904, the unexpected happened when President Theodore Roosevelt purposely linked the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines and the American colonial government by declaring that if independence were granted, the degeneration of the Roman Catholic Church would be unstoppable. Furthermore, if independence were granted at that point, the position of American Bishop Hendrick in the Philippines and that of his ecclesiastical colleagues “would grow literally intolerable.” (Skolnik, 1973). Echoing President Roosevelt, American Bishop Hendrick said, “Independence for the islands would deliver the Church into the hands of the enemy. “
Who was the enemy?
Not the Protestants, even if they were zealously making inroads in this Roman Catholic society; the enemy was the Philippine Independent Church established by Gregorio Aglipay, a fruit of the the Philippine Revolution and the First Philippine Republic.
As you know, the Philippine Revolution was essentially anti- friar; it denounced the “soberania monacal” (monastic sovereignty), to use the words of propagandist Marcelo H. del Pilar. For centuries, the Spanish friars were the symbols of colonial oppression. During the Revolution, they either fled, were captured, and killed; the more fortunate ones were ordered to render forced labor. On the other hand, many devout Filipinos protected their parish priests; even President Aguinaldo sent a boatload back to Spain, unharmed.
The Malolos Congress took steps to separate Church and State but since the matter threatened to cleave national unity, it was put aside for more peaceful times. There were other core issues that affected the agricultural sector, like the friar lands. The Malolos Constitution’s Article 101 stipulated that since 12 June 1898, when Independence was declared, all lands in the hands of religious orders automatically reverted to the people.
The Philippine Independent Church was not anti-God but it abjured the Vatican; it drafted legislation to proclaim native saints, like Jose Rizal, and to ordain its own priests and officiate civil marriages. The Aglipayans readily filled the vacuum friars left in the countryside; Catholic churches, convents, lands were taken over by them. A host of local principalia turned Aglipayan and boycotted the Roman Catholic Church. Although the USA upheld a “freedom of worship” policy, that did not apply to the Philippine Independent Church because it was a vanguard in the continuing struggle for Independence. For the Roman Catholics, American Protestantism was stealing their flock; but the USA had to shield American Protestantism while the colonial administration courted the Roman Catholic Church and turned it into a staunch ally against the independence issue.
By virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898), the USA was bound to protect “ecclesiastical and civic bodies,” among other things. In 1901, the Pope prevented Spanish Archbishop Nozaleda of Manila from directly negotiating peace with the USA and appointed Archbishop Chapelle of New Orleans as apostolic delegate to the Philippines, at the behest of James Cardinal Gibbons. Sadly, Chapelle was instantly unpopular because of his “friar ways “and had to be replaced by Archbishop Jean Baptiste Guidi, in December, 1902. Pope Leo XIII officially recognized the end of Spanish sovereignty and proclaimed the Americanization of the Philippine Church, with specific instructions about increasing the number of native priests who should desist from political involvement.
Meanwhile, there were momentous debates about the destiny of the Philippines in the House of Representatives of the United States of America; the bone of contention was the Clarke Amendment which granted independence to the Philippines in 2 to 4 years. On 1 May 1916, the Clarke Amendment was defeated by a vote of 213 to 165. As a result, Filipinos had to wait 30 more years to regain their independence. Governor Francis B. Harrison (1913-1921) reported that 28 Democrats “bolted the party leadership” and voted with the majority of Republicans against independence and the “bolting members” were all Roman Catholic. In a surprising about turn, James Cardinal Gibbons, the anti-imperialist, twisted Catholic arms in Congress to reject the Clarke amendment. He was acting at the instigation of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, according to Governor F. B. Harrison who revealed much more in his book, Cornerstone of Philippine Independence (1922)
According to historian Richard Lee Skolnik, American ecclesiastics who manipulated Catholic opinion in and out of the USA, the native Philippine clergy, Spanish religious orders who survived the Revolution, and the Holy See, the Pope himself, spared no effort to determine the march of events in the Philippines from 1898 to 1916:
The series of Independence petitions that began with the Clarke Amendment of 1904 continued with the Jones Bill of 1912 and 1916, which deferred independence to an ambiguous time of when “Filipinos were ready.” By 1916, James Cardinal Gibbons and his power group decided that the Catholic Church in the Philippines would flourish under an American colonial government, so the possibility of totally withdrawing from the Philippines was totally rejected.
(More)
([email protected])
Gemma Cruz Araneta
Unbeknown to most of us, the Philippines was a thorny political issue in the United States of America, at the turn of the 20th century. During the Philippine-American War and the ensuing occupation of our republic, the case for immediate independence provoked acerbic debates in the legislative and executive branches of the American government. When the USA invaded Cuba in 1898, the local revolutionaries convened a constitutional convention, after which Cuba became independent in 1902, with a caveat that the USA could intervene in the electoral process when deemed necessary. Curiously enough, the Cuban template was not applied to its half-sister, the Philippines, despite efforts of the Philippine Independence Committee, a body composed of 40 prominent liberal-minded Americans.
On 26 April 1904, the unexpected happened when President Theodore Roosevelt purposely linked the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines and the American colonial government by declaring that if independence were granted, the degeneration of the Roman Catholic Church would be unstoppable. Furthermore, if independence were granted at that point, the position of American Bishop Hendrick in the Philippines and that of his ecclesiastical colleagues “would grow literally intolerable.” (Skolnik, 1973). Echoing President Roosevelt, American Bishop Hendrick said, “Independence for the islands would deliver the Church into the hands of the enemy. “
Who was the enemy?
Not the Protestants, even if they were zealously making inroads in this Roman Catholic society; the enemy was the Philippine Independent Church established by Gregorio Aglipay, a fruit of the the Philippine Revolution and the First Philippine Republic.
As you know, the Philippine Revolution was essentially anti- friar; it denounced the “soberania monacal” (monastic sovereignty), to use the words of propagandist Marcelo H. del Pilar. For centuries, the Spanish friars were the symbols of colonial oppression. During the Revolution, they either fled, were captured, and killed; the more fortunate ones were ordered to render forced labor. On the other hand, many devout Filipinos protected their parish priests; even President Aguinaldo sent a boatload back to Spain, unharmed.
The Malolos Congress took steps to separate Church and State but since the matter threatened to cleave national unity, it was put aside for more peaceful times. There were other core issues that affected the agricultural sector, like the friar lands. The Malolos Constitution’s Article 101 stipulated that since 12 June 1898, when Independence was declared, all lands in the hands of religious orders automatically reverted to the people.
The Philippine Independent Church was not anti-God but it abjured the Vatican; it drafted legislation to proclaim native saints, like Jose Rizal, and to ordain its own priests and officiate civil marriages. The Aglipayans readily filled the vacuum friars left in the countryside; Catholic churches, convents, lands were taken over by them. A host of local principalia turned Aglipayan and boycotted the Roman Catholic Church. Although the USA upheld a “freedom of worship” policy, that did not apply to the Philippine Independent Church because it was a vanguard in the continuing struggle for Independence. For the Roman Catholics, American Protestantism was stealing their flock; but the USA had to shield American Protestantism while the colonial administration courted the Roman Catholic Church and turned it into a staunch ally against the independence issue.
By virtue of the Treaty of Paris (1898), the USA was bound to protect “ecclesiastical and civic bodies,” among other things. In 1901, the Pope prevented Spanish Archbishop Nozaleda of Manila from directly negotiating peace with the USA and appointed Archbishop Chapelle of New Orleans as apostolic delegate to the Philippines, at the behest of James Cardinal Gibbons. Sadly, Chapelle was instantly unpopular because of his “friar ways “and had to be replaced by Archbishop Jean Baptiste Guidi, in December, 1902. Pope Leo XIII officially recognized the end of Spanish sovereignty and proclaimed the Americanization of the Philippine Church, with specific instructions about increasing the number of native priests who should desist from political involvement.
Meanwhile, there were momentous debates about the destiny of the Philippines in the House of Representatives of the United States of America; the bone of contention was the Clarke Amendment which granted independence to the Philippines in 2 to 4 years. On 1 May 1916, the Clarke Amendment was defeated by a vote of 213 to 165. As a result, Filipinos had to wait 30 more years to regain their independence. Governor Francis B. Harrison (1913-1921) reported that 28 Democrats “bolted the party leadership” and voted with the majority of Republicans against independence and the “bolting members” were all Roman Catholic. In a surprising about turn, James Cardinal Gibbons, the anti-imperialist, twisted Catholic arms in Congress to reject the Clarke amendment. He was acting at the instigation of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, according to Governor F. B. Harrison who revealed much more in his book, Cornerstone of Philippine Independence (1922)
According to historian Richard Lee Skolnik, American ecclesiastics who manipulated Catholic opinion in and out of the USA, the native Philippine clergy, Spanish religious orders who survived the Revolution, and the Holy See, the Pope himself, spared no effort to determine the march of events in the Philippines from 1898 to 1916:
The series of Independence petitions that began with the Clarke Amendment of 1904 continued with the Jones Bill of 1912 and 1916, which deferred independence to an ambiguous time of when “Filipinos were ready.” By 1916, James Cardinal Gibbons and his power group decided that the Catholic Church in the Philippines would flourish under an American colonial government, so the possibility of totally withdrawing from the Philippines was totally rejected.
(More)
([email protected])