A Problem To Be Faced

Chapter 3
A Problem to be Faced
The Royal Order of Queen Isabel II , dated October 19, 1852,

provided for the coming of the Vincentians to the Philippines, " so that
they should take charge of the teaching and administration of the
Conciliar Seminaries ." It emphatically declared that this was "abso-
lutely indispensable to improve the education given in the Conciliar
Seminaries which, for lack of professors and resources, cannot duly
fulfill the end for which the Holy Council of Trent established them."
(stress, ours)
Indeed, there were some serious deficiencies in the formation of
the secular native clergy in the colony. As a matter of fact, it was
obvious that up to the mid-nineteenth century, the number and even
often the quality of the Filipino native clergy was below the level it
should have reached in a three-century old Christian country.
A very recent book on Philippine Church History says:
The Spanish missionary enterprise had one major defect,

which was to stunt, and even undo, a good deal of the
development that had been achieved. This was its disastrous
failure to develop an adequate native clergy. Today it seems
so obvious that any missionary enterprise which does not
develop a native clergy is gravely deficient, that it is hard to
imagine how missionaries otherwise so deserving of admiration
could have failed so seriously . I
Another writer on the Philippine Missions remarked:
What happened?
Any answer is very complicated, and cannot be adequately
sketched in a few paragraphs. Still more, the whole history is
difficult to relate ...
It must be observed from the start that the question of the
29
JU Vincentians During The Spanish Regime
native clergy in the Philippines is only one small aspect of the

whole native clefgy question in all Spanish colonies. Some-
how it seems that wherever Spain colonized, despite her other
achievements, she had little success with native vocations.
To this day most of South and <::;entral America suffers from a
shortage of priests. The fault probably lies in the Spanish
temperament or system. 2
Still another erudite researcher, following the scholarly investiga-

tions of one of our best modern historians, observes:
This sorry situation was an unforeseen by-product of what was

in itself an excellent work: the Christianization of the Philip-
pines by the Spanish religious orders. Because on the one
hand the religious were already caring for the parishes and on
the other hand a numerous and competent Filipinos clergy
might have challenged their tenure and disturbed the tran-
quility of Spanish rule, there was no serious effort to provide
native secular priests, nor hence to provide seminaries to
prepare them. 3
There is no doubt about the strange phenomenon of the slow and

deficient formation of the native clergy in the Philippines before the
arrival of the Vincentians in 1862. This was precisely one of the main
reasons for their coming. They were sent by the Spanish Crown to put
an end to that disastrous situation that had been unduly protracted for
such a long time. But the very fact that the Vincentians were sent by
virtue of the Royal Patronage of Spain is an indication - among many
others that will be mentioned later - that the Spanish Government was
interested in remedying the problem. Hence, to attribute the problem
to the Spanish temperament or to the Spanish colonial system, as if
these were systematically opposed to the formation of a native clergy,
seems to be an easy but unwarranted oversimplification.
More unfair is the supposition advanced about a widespread op-
position or lack of interest and concern among those zealous, and
dedicated religious Spanish missionaries, for the promotion and forma-
tion of a worthy Filipino native clergy. Individual, isolated instances
may be found of selfish attitudes and misunderstood zeal among those
virtuous missionaries; but it is hard to believe that such was the general
case.
Most recent historical studies and scholarly research seem to
point out with clear evidence that the explanation to this problem
which the Vincentians had to confront upon their arrival in the
Philippines , was more complex than the above overslmplifications. 4
A Problem to be Faced 31
The problem of the slow and deficient formation of the Filipino

native clergy, prior to the mid-nineteenth century, was the product of
various historical factors and intervening circumstances, proper to
those past centuries, so different in many aspects from our present-day
conditions. Spanish temperament and colonial prejudices against the
native race had little, if anything at all, to· do with this problem. To
attribute such past deficiencies to the Spanish colonial regime, or to
the temperament and prejudices against the native race, would be
tantamount to blaming Spain or the Spanish people for not having given
us, in the past, motor cars, radio, television or air mail; and the
missionaries of those days, for not having celebrated the Mass in the
vernacular dialects as today ... The old Latin adage said: "Differenti-
ate the times, and you will reconcile the claims" (Distingue tempora, et
concordabis jura)
Undoubtedly, there were historical factors that contributed to the
slow and deficient formation of the native clergy in the Philippin~s
before the arrival of the Vincentians in 1862. These historical fact~rs
were: (1) the mission ideas about the formation of a native clergy at the
time of Spanish colonialism; (2) the occasional adverse side effects of
the Royal Patronage in the Philippines; (3) the paternalism of the
Spanish colonial system; (4) the far-fhng extension of the Spanish
missionary enterprise in the colonies; and (5) the indirect influence of
certain Spanish policies adopted for a time in Spanish America.
HISTORICAL FACTORS THAT CAUSED A SLOW AND

DEFICIENT FORMATION OF THE NATIVE CLERGY IN THE
PHILIPPINES DURING THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES OF
SPANISH REGIME
Let us study in detail each one of the factors.
I. Early Mission Ideas about the Formation of a Native Clergy
This factor is just an aspect of the long process of progressive

and homogenous evolution in Church pastoral discipline. The work
of evangelization in our present days is undertaken in the light of
principles that were not so well defined in past ages. During the era
of geographical discoveries, the science of missionology was not yet
developed and the doctrine on the urgency of promoting an indige-
nous clergy was not yet fully clarified nor presented as a priority to
be pursued in foreign missions. Before the 16th century, the words
"mission" or "missionaries" did not appear in Church documents;
and there was no specific mention of an "indigenous" clergy until
the 17th century.5 Even the Council of Trent, in its decree on
32 Vincentians During The Spanish Regime
Seminaries, speaks only of a "local" clergy. In the same vein are

written most of the documents of the Popes and of Propaganda
Fide, relative to missions , in the 17th and 18th centuries. The word
"indigenous" - when it is used - appears as just a synonym of
"inhabitants of the place" (incolae, in latin), that is any "native"
(born and permanently residing in the place), belonging to a
particular place, regardless of blood ancestry or racial origin. 6
Before the era of geographical discoveries, the natives of any
place were generally the indigenous inhabitants only; but when the
Europeans discovered new lands, we find among the natives, not
only the indigenous race, but also the mestizos and the creoles. As
the famous founder of International Law, Francisco de Vitoria,
O.P. declared, way back in the 16th century, anyone "who is
born in a country, may be called and is truly a citizen of that
country," either by jus sanguinis (right of blood or parentage) or
by jus soli (right of birth within the country).7 And that is why,
whenever the Church speaks of a native clergy, there is no reason
to restrict its meaning to full-blooded natives, or to an indigenous
clergy. As historian, Fr. H . de la Costa observes "the qualification
'native' in the writers of the period (17th century) could mean
Creoles, that is, Spaniards or other Europeans born in the
colony."8 Even today, serious historians and scholars all over the
world understand the word 'native' to include also "mestizos" and
"creoles. ,,9
Hence, it does not seem accurate to affirm "that the native
Filipinos were ordained (priests) a few years after 1720. ,,10 In a
Royal Cedula dated October 19, 1623, the King asked the
Archbishop of Manila about the opportunity of conferring some
benefices, e.g., parishes, to the natives (of the secular clergy) who
studied in the Seminary College of Santo Domingo (i.e., College of
Santo Tomas) and the Society of Jesus (i.e., College of San
Jose).,,11 Another Royal Cedula to Governor Sebastian Hurtado de
Corcuera, dated October 2, 1638, ordered that "new parishes
should be given to the secular native priests of the city of Manila.,,12
Evidently, from these documents by the first quarter of the 17th
century, that is , a few years after 1620 (and not "a few years after
1720") the first Filipino natives (most of them probably, "creoles"
or "mestizos") had been ordained priests. "Father Brou ("Notes sur
les origines du clerge philippin" 'Revue d'histoire missionaire',
IV, 1927, p. 546) states , without citing his sources, that there were
already native priests numbering sixty by the year 1655."13
From the College of San Juan de Letran , during a period of
only nineteen years (from 1632 to 1651) twenty-six Filipino natives
A Problem to be Faced ' 33
were ordained priest (twelve of the secular clergy, eight Augusti-

nians, two Dominicans, two Franciscans,' one Recollect and one
Jesuit)/4 probably all of them mestizos or creoles. Other famous
Filipino priests also came from the cloistered Seminaries of the
Religious Orders in the 17th century, such as Fr. Pedro de San
Jose (+ 1651) and Fr. Ignacio de Mercado (+ 1698). These were
in reality true Filipino natives, though probably mestizos or
creoles. IS Not to be forgotten are the names of four Filipino native
Bishops during the same 17th century; Juan Velez, Bishop of Cebu
(1653) Francisco Pizarro de Orellana, Bishop of Nueva Segovia (27
May 1680), and two other candidates presented for the same
Bishopric of Nueva Segovia, Lucas Arquero (1676) and Rodrigo de
la Cueva Giron (1674) . There was also the illustrious Manuel Jose
de Endaya , a Manila mestizo (born on October 4, 1674) who
became Bishop of Oviedo and Archbishop of Mexico. In the
following century and a half, there were eight more Filipino native
Bishops: Domingo de Valencia, of Nueva Caceres (1715), Gero-
nimo de Herrera, of Nueva Segovia (1724), Felipe de Molina, of
Naga (1724) Protasio Cabezas, of Cebu (1740) , Isidro de Arevalo,
of Naga (1740), Miguel Lino de Ezpeleta, of Cebu (1757), Ignacio
de Salamanca, of Cebu (1792) , and Francisco Mira, of Nueva
Segovia (1858). By 1655 there were fifty-nine secular priests in the
Diocese of Manila alone, and by 1699 the number of these secular
priests had increased to eighty, of whom the majority were, in all
probability, Filipino native priests. 16
Thus, the formation of the Filipino native clergy was not
entirely neglected, as it has been claimed during the 17th century;
although unfortunately the urgent need for promoting the indige-
nous native priestly vocations was overlooked. It was at the begin-
ning of the 18th century, before 1707 (not, as it is claimed, after
1720) when certainly, some few full-blooded indigenous Filipino
natives were ordained priests. I7 This was perhaps about one cen-
tury too late; since after the first 25 to 50 years of evangelization,
the first indigenous native vocations should have been flourishing if
these had been duly cultivated. Admittedly, there was some ne-
glect and lack of foresight on the part of the missionaries with
regard to the pressing priority of fostering indigenous priestly
vocations.
However during those days, the Church doctrine on the
importance and urgency of developing not only a native, but an
indigenous native clergy, was not as clearly defined as it is now in
the 20th century. The mind of the Church on this matter was not
openly and unambiguously expressed until the beginning of this
century, when Pope Leo XIII on September 17, 1902, in his

Constitution QUAE MARl SINICO addressed precisely to the
Philippines, then under the American regime, declared:
Church experience has shown evidently that an

indigenous clergy is most useful everywhere; and so the
Bishops should diligently strive to increase the number of
indigenous priests; in such a way, however, that before-
hand these may be formed in all piety and discipline, and
found worthy for the ecclesiastical offices; so that those
whom experience may show to be more excellent in
conduct and achievements, may be gradually promoted
to higher posts in the hierarchy. 18
Some years later, Benedict XV on November 30, 1919, in his

Apostolic Letter MAXIMUM ILLUD on the Propagation of the
Faith throughout the world, spoke once more of the indigenous
clergy in unmistakeable terms, without equating it any more - as
in previous Church documents - with a mere local "native"
clergy:
The main concern of those who rule the mISSIOns

should be to raise and train a clergy from amidst the
nations among which they dwell, for on this are founded
the best hopes of the Church of the future. Linked to his
compatriots, as he is by the bonds of origin, character,
feelings, and inclinations, the indigenous priest possesses
exceptional opportunities for introducing the faith to
their minds, and is endowed with powers of persuasion far
superior to those of any other man. It thus frequently
happens that he has access where a foreign priest could
not set foot. 19
Later on, the RERUM ECCLESIAE of Pius XI (February 26,

1926), and the EVANGELII PRAECONES of Pius XII (June 2,
1951) reiterated the same doctrine, now already well defined by
the Church Magisterium. Today, we take for granted the
"Catholic principle that no Church can rest upon a substantial
basis, unless it is manned by a native (i.e. indigenous) clergy.,,2o
But this ·idea was not so obvious in the past centuries when
mestizos and creoles were called true natives ("naturales del
pais", or "Filipinos,,21), and not European foreigners, or peninsu-
lar Spaniards.
A Problem to e Faced 35
Since it was easier, more viable and expeditious to promote

priestly vocations from among the mestizos or creoles, rather than
from among the indigenous race (whose cultural and social level
was generally inferior), the missionaries and Church authorities fell
into the temptation of choosing the easiest way, without realizing
that such a policy was a mistake, since the mind of the Church had
always been to recruit a native clergy, above all, from the indige-
nous ranks of the people that is evangelized. 22
In those centuries, the missionary ideal was to preach the
Gospel, baptize people, teach Catechism, form Christian families,
establish Catholic Schools, educate the youth, spread the faith
farther and wider, administer the sacraments, convert sinners,
etc. They did not forget to foster native priestly and religious
vocations among the youth of the region. But they were not able to
see in the Spanish overseas possessions (which were considered,
not as a Crown colony, but as part of the Spanish empire) the
urgency and imperative need for the establishment of an indige-
nous local Church and hierarchy, as we do today in the light of an
updated missionology. "Differentiate the times, and you will re-
concile the claims" (distingue tempora, et concordabis jura).
II. The Occasional Adverse Side Effects of the Royal Patronage in

the Philippines
At the dawn of the age of geographical discoveries, the Popes

were kept busy with the achievements of the Renaissance and the
conflicts with pseudo-reformists. The Catholic kings of Spain and
Portugal were only too willing to help the Popes fulfill the apostolic
trust of preaching the Gospel on the new and vast fields they
conquered in the West and East Indies. A solution was found in
the institution of the "Vicariato Real" or Royal Patronage. This
Royal Patronage assigned to the Kings certain functions which
ought normally to be the exclusive competence of the ecclesias-
tical authority or of the Holy See.
The system was ideal and legitimate in itself. But like any other
human institution, it was not immune to abuses. As a matter of
fact, under the absolutist Kings of the Bourbon dynasty, the Royal
Patronage led at times to harmful effects on the Church in the
colonies. However an impartial over-all view of the accomplish-
ments of the Royal Patronage would show the great and lasting
effects it had, which proved immensely beneficial to the Church,
as well as to the social and civil welfare of the people. This was the
verdict of Pope Leo XIII at the end of the Spanish era in the
Philippines. In his Constitution QUAE MARl SINICO in 1902, the
Pope said:
"By the harmonious efforts of our Predecessors and of

the Kings of Spain, slavery was abolished, the inhabitants
were educated in humanities, letters and fine arts; mag-
nificent churches were built and provided for; and the
number of dioceses increased, so that the nation and the
Church of the Philippines rightly excelled above others
in the splendor of social order, and in the dignity and zeal
of their religious piety. Thus, therefore, through the pro-
tection of the Spanish Kings and through the Patronage
granted them by the Roman Pontiffs, the Catholic inter-
ests were managed in a right and orderly way."
Nevertheless, serious historians in our days point to the Span-

ish Royal Patronage as the reason for slow and deficient formation
of our Filipino native clergy. This is a serious charge that deserves a
careful and impartial study. The reasons supporting the above
contention are the following:
a) With the Royal Patronage, the missions lost their super-

natural character and became "hispanized", so that
religious customs and practices from Spain were super-
imposed on the natives. The missionaries became Euro-
pean agents, political instruments at the service of their
own colonial regimes, foreign propagandists of the for-
eign interests of their own nations. They became "too
intent upon extending the earthly glory and power of their
earthly country; a missionary patriotism which would
indeed be "a plague most deadly to their apostolate,
which in the preacher of the Gospel would kill every
activity for the love of souls, and would undermine his
authority among the public" (Benedict XV, MAXI-
MUM ILLUD, November 30, 1919). Such "hispaniza-
tion" of the Catholic religion was bound to counteract
any move for a prompt and proper training of an indige-
nous clergy. If some training was given, this was seriously
hindered by the "European" organization given to the
Church in the Philippine missions, where physical, eth-
nological, cultural, moral and religious conditions were
so different from those of the centuries-old christianities
in Catholic Europe.
A Problem to b.e Faced 37
b) If ever the idea of forming an indigenous clergy was

admitted, under the Royal Patronage it was always with
the aim of giving to the Spanish clergy some auxiliary
priests who were to be just their coadjutors. The State
policy was unreservedly that of keeping a Spanish na-
tional Church in the colony, for the purpose of exercis-
ing more directly its civil authority on ecclesiastical
affairs. Hence, not only the indigenous race but even the
natives of Spanish ancestry, were excluded, as a rule (not
strictly observed for creoles or mestizos), from higher civil
and ecclesiastical offices, and preference was given to
Spaniards born and educated in the Peninsula.
c) The Philippine mission field was divided among the vari-
ous Religious Orders, by virtue of a Decree of Philip II,
dated April 27, 1594, which left no ecclesiastical terri-
tory for the secular clergy. The latter became thus
condemned to remain forever in the subordinate position
of assistant coadjutors of the Spanish missionary pastors.
Thus, the natives found no incentive to prepare them-
selves for posts of responsibility; and their religious
teachers were obviously tempted to keep low standards in
the clerical formation of their supposed-to-be future
subordinate coadjutors.
d) King Charles III and his ministers attempted to cripple
the Religious Orders; but this policy resulted, under
Archbishop Santa Justa y Rufina, in hasty and risky
ordinations of poorly trained and half-educated native
clergy who soon proved to be unworthy of their sublime
calling. Naturally, this sad result had an adverse effect on
the public esteem of the natives' aptitude, giving the
impression that Filipinos were incapable of becoming
parish rectors. As a consequence, antagonism between
the Spanish regular clergy and the Filipino secular clergy
degenerated into a sad national or racial enmity amidst
the very ranks of the ministers of the Gospel. Half-
hearted attempts of the Government, to secularize par-
ishes - transferring them from the regular to the secular
clergy - were successfully opposed by colonial officials
because of fear that the native priests might become
rebel leaders against the metropolis as happened in the
American colonies .
•
Are these allegations against the Royal Patronage valid? Let
us examine them one by one.
Vincentians During The Spanish Regime
a) First, it seems unjust and unfair to say in general that those

Spanish missionaries who left their fatherland enkindled by apos-
tolic zeal, easily became European agents, political instruments
of the colonizers, and propagandists of national interests. Some
indeed might have fallen victims of such chauvinistic "missionary
patriotism." In the Philippines, however, we find strong indica-
tions that the mission works did not lose much of their supernat-
ural character. We notice in those missionaries of old, a
wonderful spirit of adaptation to the native culture. They learned
the native dialects, wrote grammars and vocabularies of the indig-
enous language. They preserved and fostered improving or christ-
ianizing them when necessary - native customs, music, dances,
arts and folklore. There was notable degree of "europeanization"
or "hispanization", but it was not imposed by violent means nor by
a rigidly strict colonial system, but rather through education and
assimilation, integrating it with the native culture in a precious
blend of the "occidental" with the "oriental", which became in
the course of time our own specific, truly original and national
Filipino civilization, enriched but not adulterated.
The frequent clashes between the missionaries and the civil
authorities, are a strong proof that the Church mission work in the
Philippines did not lose, its supranational character. In many
cases the missionaries tried to defend the rights of the indigenous
natives against the abuses of foreign colonizers; in other cases,
they refused to submit to unfair encroachments or interference of
the State into their rights as ministers of the Gospel sent by the
Pope. They claimed always to be, first and above all, subject to
the Roman Pontiff, and not precisely to the King of Spain, al-
though the latter enjoyed the privileges of a Royal Patronage.
It is true indeed, that the admission of foreigners into the new
lands under Spanish regime, was forbidden by a general law of the
Spanish colonies. But this law was very mildly interpreted and
applied to foreign missionaries. Thus we can see, from the 16th to
the 19th centuries, a good number of foreign missionaries working
side by side with the Spaniards in Spanish America and in the
Philippines. 23
The European organization given to the Church in the far
missions of an entirely different world, was admittedly a mistake
that eventually became a serious hindrance to the quick forma-
tion of an indigenous clergy. But that mistake was due to the lack
of preparation of the missionaries to meet a situation entirely new
to them. The Church had not yet developed doctrine and methods
of missionary ·adaptation. It was one of those mistakes which, in
the words of the poet, were 'crimes of the times, and not of
Spain' . ,,24
b) The accusation that, under the Royal Patronage, the Filipino
clergy was formed just to be coadjutors of the Spanish missionaries,
because that seemed to be the situation until the end of the Spanish
regime, cannot however be substantiated by any direct historical
evidence. On the contrary, there are many proofs indicating that
the pursued aims were the contrary.
The first Bishop of the Philippines, a Spanish friar, Domingo
de Salazar, O.P., upon his arrival in Manila in 1581, declared his
intention of establishing a Conciliar Diocesan Seminary for Filipino
natives, so that "in the future - he said - as soon as we and our
successors may see and verify the Christianity and capability of
the indigenous natives, the ecclesiastical benefices (i.e., offices
endowed with revenues, such as parish rectories) may be con-
ferred, and should be conferred to these indigenous natives, as we
hereby decree with apostolic authority. ,,25
Such was then the official mind of the Spanish Church in the
Philippines - as in other Spanish colonies of America26 - with
regard to the indigenous native clergy in the colony. Five years
later, in 1586, King Philip II urged all Spanish Bishops to fulfill the
dispositions of the Council of Trent about the formation of a local
clergy in Seminaries. In 1592, he ordered that "the Archbishops
and Bishops of our Indies should found, support and sustain the
Seminary schools decreed by the Council of Trent." Thus, we see
that the highest authorities of the Spanish Church and State
unanimously agreed in the policy of forming a native, indigenous
clergy in the colonies.
Were these simply nice empty words and vain intentions?
In Mexico, in 1536, the Seminary College of Santa Cruz in
Santiago Tlatelolco was founded for the Indios through the efforts
of the Viceroy Don Antonio de Mendoza, and Archbishop Fray
Juan de Zumarraga, O.F.M., as well as other Franciscan Spanish
missionaries. In the Philippines, the College Seminary for natives,
planned by Bishop Salazar in 1581, was actually designed and
proposed by the Jesuits in 1583, endorsed at once and demanded
by Governor Diego Ronquillo and the Cathedral Chapter of Ma-
nila, as well as by Governors Santiago de Vera (1587), Gomez
Perez Dasmariiias (1596) and Francisco Tello de Guzman (1599),
just as it was recommended and urged by King Philip II in 1586.
The plan was tried out for some three years, from 1596 to 1599, but
did not prosper "because of lack of funds" to subsidize it. But the
fact is that, as early as 1596-1599, a "seminario de indios," as the
Spanish Jesuits called a pre-seminary, elementary boarding school

for Filipino indigenous natives, was actually tried, and initially put
in operation in Manila, at the College of San Ignacio (in the
Mission House of the Jesuits), as it was tried and put in operation
some years before, in 1595, in Dulag, Leyte , by the Spanish Jesuits,
Fr. Alonso de Humanes and Fr. Juan del Campo; and in 1596-1598,
in Tinagon, Samar, by Fr. Francisco de Otazo , S.J .; and later,
from 1598 to 1609, at the Seminary College of San Ildefonso, in the
Jesuit residence, in Cebu. This last one had to be closed at the
beginning of the 17th century, because of lack of students. These
historical facts show that in the Philippines, under the Spanish
regime , and under the Royal Patronage, even during the first half
century of evangelization - perhaps too early! - the Spanish
missionaries were but too eager and impatient to work for the
formation of an indigenous native clergy. If their attempts failed, it
was certainly not for the lack of interest and concern, but for
"lack of funds" or for "lack of students." Obviously, these are
"crimes of the times, not of Spain!"
Unfortunately, due to the particular circumstances of those
past centuries, only half-hearted efforts were exerted in the Col-
leges of San Jose (founded in 1601), Santo Tomas (1611), San Juan
de Letran (1620), San Felipe de Austria (1640), College for Orien-
tals (1738) under the Jesuits and Dominicans; and later, under the
secular clergy in the Diocesan Seminaries of San Clemente
(1707), San Felipe (1713) or San Carlos (1768) in Manila; San
Carlos, in Cebu (1759), Nuestra Senora de Rosario, in Nueva
Caceres (1793), and La Immaculada Concepcion, in Nueva
Segovia (1802, 1812). And thus it happened that the native Filipino
clergy remained in a subordinate position for a longer time and to a
greater extent than it was intended to.
The assumption that the ' policy of the State and of the
Church, under the Spanish Royal Patronage was to keep the
inferior or subservient status of the indigenous clergy, is contra-
dicted by the fact that most of the Spanish Bishops (with few
exceptions) seconded by almost all the Spanish Kings, earnestly
tried again and again to "secularize" the parishes, transferring them
from the Spanish religious missionaries, to the Filipino secular
clergy. How then could such frequent moves ever recurring from
time to time, be still reconciled with a Church and State policy
supposedly opposed to them? Particular and occasional remarks
or personal opinions from some individual religious or even from
some Governor or Bishop, cannot represent a general policy of
the Church and the State.
Most Rev. DOMINGO DE SALAZAR, O.P. (1581-1594) First BISHOP OF THE
PHILIPPINES, proposed by Philip II to be the first Archbishop of Manila. On
December 21, 1581 in his Bull of erection of Diocese of Manila, declared that "as
soon as the indigenous natives may show and prove their capacity for ecclesiastical
benefits, these should be given to them rather than to the Spanish clergy;" and for this
purpose, he manifested his intention to establish a Conciliar Diocesan Seminary Jor
Filipino natives.
King PHILIP II of Spain, 1527-1598, (reigned 1556-98). The Philippines derived
its name from his. In 1583 he disposed that "the rectory of parishes should belong
to clerics (secular clergy) who are to be helped by the religious as their coadjutors."
And in 1592 he ordered all Archbishops and Bishops of the Indies to found and
support the Seminaries "decreed by the Council of Trent" for the formation of a
local (native) clergy.
(Titian's painting in the National Museum of Naples, dated about 1550)
c) King Philip II reigned in Spain from 1556 to 1598 and left

his glorious name stamped in the name of our country for whose
evangelization he was ready to lose the entire wealth of his
kingdom.27 And yet it is said that he discriminated against the
Filipino clergy through some of his Royal Decrees, apparently
innocuous and well intentioned.
On April 27, 1594, King Philip II, by virtue of his Royal
Patronage prerogatives, issued from Aranjuez the following order
directed to Governor General Gomez Perez DasmariIias:
"Because I have learned that better results will be ob-

tained by assigning each (religious) Order a district by
itself, I command you, together with the Bishop, to
divide the provinces among the religious, in such a
manner that where Augustinians go there shall be no
Franciscans, nor religious of the Society of Jesus where
there are Dominicans. ,,28
Previously, by the Royal Cedulas of 1557 and 1561, the same

King had decreed that mission parishes assigned to the regular
clergy "could not be transferred by the Bishops to the secular
clergy. Secular priests were to be given parishes in territories
which had not previously been assigned to any Religious Order."
Some learned historians, however, argue this way. This was all
very well in theory; but in the Philippines, the entire mission had
already been divided among the Religious Orders. Hence, the
secular priests were practically reduced, by royal fiat, to being
mere assistants of the religious parish priests. 29
The whole contention may be summed up on the following
grounds: (1) that the Royal Patron apportioned the entire mission
field of the Philippines to the various religious Orders working then
at its evangelization, (2) that the secular clergy was thus utterly
disregarded and left without any chance of becoming parish rectors,
(3) consequently, the Filipino native priests were condemned to
remain perpetual curates or coadjutors of the foreign regular parish
priests.
Are these contentions valid?
(1) The Royal Decree of 1594 did not actually refer to the entire
mission field of the Philipines, which by that time (1594) haa not
yet been completely covered by the evangelical laborers. In those
early years of evangelization, the harvest was so great, and the
laborers so few that it was impossible to suppose that the mind of
the Spanish King was to reserve the entire mission field of the vast
archipelago exclusively for the four religious Orders working

then, to the exclusion of the secular clergy and of other religious .
The Recollects who came in 1606, still found plenty of work
among the pagans of Zambales, Mindanao , Palawan , Calamianes,
Romblon, Masbate, Tablas , Sibuyan, Ticao and Burias .30
In fact, the 1594 Decree does not speak of the entire mission,
but rather of the few "districts" or " provinces" where the four
religious Orders were actually working at the time ; and the King's
intention was simply that "more emulation will ensue among them
without their embarrassing one another, or their work overlapping,
as might happen if they were assigned to districts regardless of
order. .. ; "because I have learned, he said , that better results will
be obtained by assigning each Order a district by itself." In short,
the King's aim was to encourage and provide for a more effective
evangelization, not to preclude the work of other available minis-
ters who might possibly come later to the fields that were already,
"white for the harvest."
The King entrusted the task of assignmg districts for the
Religious Orders to his Governor-General "together with the
Bishop" who would know particular conditions obtaining in the
districts as well as available personnel , from the regular as well as
from the secular clergy. 31 If the secular priests were not men-
tioned in the Royal Cedula, it was, firstly, because in 1594 their
number was very insignificant and so they were unable to take
charge of any particular region, or provinces of the islands. They
were not mentioned also, because in the mind of Philip II, ex-
pressed eleven years before, in the Royal Cedula of 1583, it was
taken for granted that the secular priests should be "by right" the
Rectors of any parish, anywhere in the whole mission , to be
preferred over to the religious missionaries who were to be only
their coadjutors in the ministry of preaching and hearing confes-
sions. The Royal Cedula of 1583 emphatically declared this:
"The rectory of parish churches belongs to the clerics

(secular) who should be helpe{l by the religious as their
coadjutors in the task of preaching and hearing
confessions . . . but since it is appropriate to bring this
matter back to its original form and, as far as possible, the
common and accepted usage of the Church be
reestablished ... wherever there may be found compe-
tent and sufficient clerics (-secular-) you should grant
them rectories of the parishes, "doctrinas" (mission post) ,
and benefices, in preference to the friars. ,,32
This Royal policy, intended ·for all the Spanish Indies, was
obtained at the repeated instance of the Bishops of Spain's domin-
ions, who from the mid-16th century strove to replace the regular
clergy with secular priests, in parish rectories and ecclesiastical
benefices, which under the regulars could not often be subject to
pastoral visitation.
It is obvious, therefore, that the secular clergy, though not
mentioned in the Cedula of 1594, was by no means excluded from
the administration of parish rectories and ecclesiastical bene-
fices. In 1602, eight years after districts had been assigned to
particular Religious Orders, a Jesuit document stated that "the
islands were partitioned by royal command among the religious
Orders and secular clergy"; that, by that time, there were "par-
ishes and towns of the diocesan clergy", i.e., administered by
secular priests . Although these (-parishes-) were then, still "few
and small", missionaries or ministers of the Gospel could be sent
to "other districts which lie in still unconquered territory". 33 And
some nine years before the 1594 Royal Cedula, "all the likely
towns, and the whole Tagalog region were already in the hands of
the friars and the diocesan clergy. North and South of the Tagalog
provinces, there was no lack of places crying for priests ... "
How could we imagine that the Cedula might have intended to
remove the diocesan clergy from parishes they were already
administering, or that might be crying for them, because of lack
of available personnel?
And as to the claim that the Royal Cedulas of 1557 and 1561
forbade the Bishops to transfer mission parishes from the regular to
the secular clergy, it should be noted that the Bishops were
forbidden to make such transfers by themselves alone, indepen-
dently from the Royal Patron. But they could make the transfers,
as actually they often did, with the approval of the Royal Patron .
And, since not rarely the State authorities were at odds with the
religious, they, not only did willingly approve, but even encour-
aged and persuaded any move to secularize the parishes.
(2) About the contention that the secular clergy, by royal legisla-
tion, was left without any chance to become parish rectors, the
following facts may be examined.
When the first Bishop of the Philippines, Fray Domingo de
Salazar, O.P., came to Manila, he was accompanied by some
secular priests from Mexico. "The Bishop gave them the care of
the Cathedral. As they grew in number, owing to the foundation of
the Seminary-Colleges some Augustinian parishes were given
them, through the petition of the Prelates."34 A Royal Cedula to
Gov~rnor Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, dated October 2, 1638,

ordered that "new parishes should be given to the secular native
priests of the city of Manila. ,,35 A document dated in Manila, July
25, 1621 shows that "the secular priests had parishes in all the
dioceses (Manila, Cebu, Nueva Caceres), except Nueva Segovia.
In Manila, they had, in addition to the Cathedral, 12 other bene-
fices ministering to 20,000 souls. In Cebu, they served in the
Cathedral, in the Villa de Arevalo, and in 12 other benefices in the
islands of Caraga with a total of 15,000 souls. In Nueva Caceres,
they administered two towns adjacent to the Cathedral which was
also under them, plus five other benefices scattered all over the
region; they were in charge of 8,400 souls.,,36 Hence , it is evident
that the 1594 Decree apportioning various districts or provinces
of the Philippines to the religious Orders, was not meant, nor was it
understood, to withhold from the secular clergy the chance to
become parish rectors.
If anyone would still argue that those secular priests in charge
of parishes were Spaniards, or of Spanish lineage, it should be
observed that the Royal Cedula of 1638 speaks expressly of "secu-
lar native priests." And in another previous Royal Cedula of
October 19, 1623, the King asked the Archbishop of Manila about
the opportunity of conferring some benefices to the natives (of the
secular clergy) who studied in the (Seminary) College of Santo
Domingo (i.e., Santo Tomas) and of the Society of Jesus (i .e., San
Jose).37
From these documents, it may be deduced that the first
Filipino native priests were ordained during the first quarter of the
17th century, at most, a few years after 1620 (and not , as it is said
referring to indigenous natives, "a few years after 1720").38 The
Spanish Church and the Spanish State, some fifty years after the
beginning of the evangelization , were happy to see some Filipino
natives already raised to the sublime dignity of the Catholic Priest-
hood and were eager to confer upon them, as soon as possible, the
ecclesiastical benefices and dignities. Probably, most of these
were creoles or mestizos ; but we cannot discard the possibility
that someone at least could have been an indigenous native .
Anyhow, those Filipino priests ordained in the 17th century were
true natives of the land.
"Father Brou ("Notes sur les origenes du clerge philippin", p.
546, Revue d'histoire missionaire, IV, 1927, p. 546) states, without
citing his sources, that there were already native priests numbering
sixty in the year 1655. 39
The final contention, that the Filipino native priests were con-
demned to remain perpetual curates or coadjutors of the Spanish
religious parish priests cannot be maintained after the two premises
on which it is based have been proved false. It is simply not true,
therefore, that the natives found no incentive to prepare them-
selves for posts of responsibility, since they could see the 'r epeated
efforts of the Government to transfer the rectories of the parishes
from the regulars to the secular priests.
(3) Less true, and even slanderous, is the charge that the religious
had tried to keep low standards in the clerical formation of their
supposed future subordinate coadjutors.
The gratuitousness of such a contention can be seen at once if
we remember that, as a rule, and even by royal legislation, the
religious Friars were not entrusted with the direction 'of the Dioce-
san Seminaries in the Philippines, which generally were run and
directed by secular priests. Only in exceptional cases, and for short
periods, only when sufficiently prepared and available secular
priests could not be found to take over the administration of the
Seminaries, were religious friars allowed to teach in the Seminaries.
The ordinary policy from the beginning was to entrust the Semina-
ries to diocesan secular priests, generally Filipino natives, not to
Spaniards. By Royal Order of King Carlos III dated August 14,
1768, "the (Seminary) teachers are to be chosen from among the
parish rectors known for their piety and learning. ,,40 Thus the
native seminarians constantly had a powerful incentive to prepare
themselves for the full responsibilities of their vocation, learning
from their own tutors, not only the ecclesiastical sciences, but also
examples of priestly virtue. The possibility of becoming parish
rectors some day just as their own professors was a source of
constant inspiration to them.
In the ProvIncial Council of Manila, in 1771, the above Royal
Order was reiterated. 41 Hence, the Philippine Seminaries were not
directed, as a rule, by the Friars, "unless in Cases of extreme
necessity, for some time only, and with possibility of removal from
the office, at will of the Bishops. ,,42 Consequently, if there were
deficiencies, if the ecclesiastical training, discipline or teaching
was poor, the regulars could in no way be blamed for it, since they
were not the directors of the Seminaries.
The Spanish Vincentian Fathers who took charge of the
Seminaries since 1862 only, were not, strictly speaking, Friars nor
even regulars. They belonged to the secular clergy. They had no
parish mission, as the religious Friars, and thus could not be
suspected of any intention to keep low standards for their future

coadjutors. They were precisely sent by the Spanish Government
"to raise the standards of education in the Conciliar
Seminaries. ,,43
In the Colleges of the Friars or regulars, like San Juan de
Letran, San Jose, Santo Tomas where the academic standards
were excellent and solid Catholic education was imparted to the
laity, priestly vocations were fostered, which produced excellent
and illustrious figures among the native secular and regular clergy.
Graduates from the Seminary College of San Jose alone, under the
Jesuits, were Manuel Jose de Endaya, Bishop of Oviedo, Spain and
later Archbishop of Mexico; three Bishops of Nueva Caceres
(Jose Cabral, Felipe de Molina y Figueroa, and Domingo de
Valencia), three other Bishops of Nueva Segovia (Rodrigo de la
Cueva Giron, Francisco Pizarro de Orellana, and Jeronimo de
Herrera), one Bishop of Cebu (Protasio de Cabezas), three Provin-
cials of the Society of Jesus, seventy-nine religious, forty secular
priests, and above all, three glorious Martyrs of the Catholic
faith.44
From the Dominican College of San Juan de Letran came
many illustrious priests, such as the national heroes, Fathers Bur-
gos, Gomez and Zamora, and above all, the glorious Martyrs of the
faith, Blessed Vincent Liem de la Paz, Venerable Domingo Tuco,
and Venerable Bautista Fung. From Santo Tomas came most of the
great figures of the secular clergy in the Philippines. 45 At the end of
the 17th century a historian wrote:
Since the foundation (1611), many Masters and

Doctors have graduated ... great number of Graduates
who take charge of the parishes and prebends of the
Metropolitan Church, and others for the religious Or-
ders, so that the students of Santo Tomas, whether secu-
lar priests or religious can be found all over the islands. I
have known four (Cathedral) Deans, three Bishops and
many Canons who graduated from this College and Uni-
versity.46
And in an official Report to the Government of Madrid, in

1864, Dr. Arrieta affirmed:
The University of Santo Tomas has, for more than

two centuries, amply attended to all the necessities of
religion and of justice, supplying the Church with native
clergy, coadjutors; parish priests, Canons, and Bishops;

for the State, it educated Judges and Lawyers. 47
If any defect was to be found in the clerical training given by

the Dominicans or Jesuits in their Seminary Colleges of Manila, it
was in the mixed training of aspirants to the priesthood with lay
students aiming at other secular careers. The Church has been
quite definitely opposed to such type of clerical training, which
was a popular practice before the Council of Trent, and even for a
long time after it. The Church has insisted on an ecclesiastical
training exclusively intended for the candidates to the priesthood,
segregated from other lay students. Unfortunately, due to the
poverty of the colony and to the urgent need of educating the
youth of the nation, a true "Conciliar Seminary", that is, an
authentic "seedbed" of priestly vocations, could not be estab-
lished until a century and a half had elapsed. After another
century and a half, even the Conciliar Seminaries could not be
run properly, "for lack of professors and resources", as the Royal
Cedula of Queen Isabel II, on October 19, 1852, candidly
revealed.
All these explain why the Filipino native clergy developed
slowly and deficiently, until the coming of the Vincentians in
1862. And, since the training of the Filipino native clergy was
defective, the secular native priests were not generally able to take
over the parishes from the regular clergy. It was not, therefore, the
ineptitude of the natives, nor any discriminatory policy adopted
by the Spanish Church or State, nor the Royal Patronage that can
be reasonably blamed for.
d) The last allegation advanced against the Royal Patronage is
the only one that might be admitted: that of a harmful occasional
side effect of the Royal Patronage . .
Under the absolutist Bourbon Kings, the danger of unwise and
unlawful use of power interfering Church affairs was great. King
Charles III and his ministers, for instance, attempted to cripple
the Religious Orders; and that policy resulted, under an imprudent
Archbishop, in hasty and risky ordinations of poorly trained native
priests, who soon proved to be unworthy of their calling. Public
esteem for the Filipino clergy was badly affected. A destructive
antagonism between the regular and secular clergy soon degene-
rated into a sad national enmity among the ministers of the Gospel.
Attempts of the Government to secularize the parishes of the
religious were countered by colonial officials who feared the
native priests as possible rebel leaders, as in fact had already
happened in the American colonies. All these lamentable events

could perhaps be traced, to some extent, to the abusive interfer-
ences of the State in Church internal affairs, and ultimately to an
adverse influence of the Royal Patronage.
Admittedly the Royal Patronage although in itself a beneficial
and legitimate system, established and encouraged by the Church,
was not exempt from occasional abuses. But, obviously, such
abuses cannot be reasonably attributed to the system, but to the
persons or to the circumstances that provoked them. They may
be considered at most as regrettable side effects of an otherwise
rightful system.
III. The paternalism of the Spanish colonial system
From the beginnings of the colonial regime in the Philippines,

as it happened also in America, Spain considered the indigenous
natives as "minors" in need of tutelage and protection. All the
Laws of the Indies breathed such spirit, which was seen to be
immensely beneficial to the natives, as long as their social status
and cultural level did not reach the perfection of the European
colonizers. 48 But, differently from other colonial systems, Spain
strove always to raise the social and cultural level of the natives,
by bringing to the masses the Gospel of Christ, and to the youth of
the nation the blessings of education and public instruction in
schools and Universities.
Hence, the "paternalistic" or tutelary system of treating the
natives as "minors" should not have been protracted for a longer
time than was necessary or suitable. Unfortunately, Spain com-
mitted this error through inertia; she did not realize (as no other
colonial powers did in those days) that colonization should not be
kept as a permanent system. For Spain, the lands she occupied
abroad were not to be colonies subjugated, but kingdoms of her
empire "where the sun never sets"; provinces or regions as those
existing in the Iberian Peninsula; and hence, they should remain as
such, indefinitely. This "paternalistic" colonial policy, so
praiseworthy at the beginning, but certainly mistaken at the end,
brought about, with the passing of centuries, serious conflicts and
problems, among others, those related to the proper formation of a
native clergy.
In the Philippines, as in other Spanish colonies of America,
there were different ethnological groups living together. But unlike
other colonies where race discrimination was officially accepted
and practiced, here, the colonizers and the natives, two entirely
heterogenous ·cultures and civilizations, met together, and fused
with each other so closely as to become one people and one

empire. 49
This noble and humanitarian colonial system, born from the
Christian principle of the equality of all races before God, and
worthy indeed to figure in our modern charters of human rights,
carried however along with its own nature, an almost unavoidable
and inherent defect. Spain expected the natives of the newly
discovered lands to rise up to the cultural, social, moral, and
religious standards of life acquired by the Europeans in the course
of long centuries of Christianity. The natives were not considered
fit to occupy posts of leadership in the Church or State, before
they had assimilated a foreign culture, language, civilization and
customs relevant to the colonizers, and totally strange to the
indigenous races. Otherwise, they were not considered worthy for
lofty vocations as those of the Catholic priesthood or the religious
life.
This indeed was a mistake. To assimilate a foreign culture and
reach a foreign level of civilization had not been demanded in the
Christianization of the pagan nations of Europe, and was not either
demanded strictly in the evangelization of other mission lands
outside the colonies of Spain. But the very nature of the Spanish
colonial system in the Philippines where colonizers and natives
lived so closely together as to form, in a certain way, one nation,
the colony being taken but as an extension of the Spanish empire,
rendered this condition as an almost imperative demand.
Furthermore, one of the obligations of the Royal Patronage
was to send to the colonies a sufficient number of missionaries to
take care of the new Christians. so Most of these missionaries were
members of Religious Orders who had received a quite perfect
and solid ecclesiastical training in their Houses of formation in
Europe; while the natives, due to the defective clerical training
offered to them here, could hardly compare advantageously with
those religious. The abundant and constant supply of missionaries
coming from Spain also contributed to their failure to realize the
urgent need of a native clergy.
No wonder then, that in this remote colony of the Far East,
for almost two centuries after the Council of Trent, no Conciliar
Seminary was established (as the Tridentine decree 18, section 23
of Reform demanded). Even after these seminaries were estab-
lished, from 1702 to 1862, their condition was precarious and
unfavorable to the proper formation of a worthy and sufficient
secular clergy. Even in Europe and in other regions of Christen-
dom, during the 16th and 17th centuries, one could hardly find
places where Conciliar Seminaries were flourishing. The same
precarious conditions, and even worse than in the Philippines,

were prevailing in most Seminaries of Europe, by the 18th and 19th
century.
All these historical factors, added to the difficulties created,
in some way, by the very paternalism of the Spanish colonial
system, explain the strange phenomenon of a slow and deficient
formation of the Filipino native clergy.
IV . The Far-flung Extension of the Spanish Missionary Enterprise

in the Colonies
During the era of geographical discoveries, the world was

divided practically in two parts that were entrusted by Pope
Alexander VI (in his Bull Inter Caetera of May 3-4, 1493), to Spain
and to Portugal for colonization ("if the natives would willingly
choose to submit themselves": "si se subjicere velie contingeret,,)51
and for evangelization.
Although the Catholic Kings of both countries were filled with
the same genuine zeal for souls, the evangelical labor undertaken
under the Spanish Patronato and the Portuguese Padroado present
certain important differences that deserve to be considered in
relation to the formation of a native clergy. The following is worth
noting:
The Portuguese occupied coastal points, which they

fortified, without paying much attention to the interior of
the country. The Spaniards, on the other hand, went
farther into the interior, where they established them-
selves and formed settlements. From there they fanned
out and penetrated deeper and deeper into the interior.
The Spaniards colonized the interior extensively with their
own nationals, whereas the Portuguese did little of that.
Spain was a large and populous country with an abun-
dance of priests for any mission needs that developed
during the 16th century. But how could Portugal with a
population of less than 2,000,000 ever hope to do justice
to the obligation undertaken of evaqgelizing the natives of
the countries she occupied, as well as those of countries
she expected to occupy later? How could she hope to send
enough missionaries to India, China, Japan, and all of
Eastern Asia ?52
Portuguese missionaries could realize at once the urgent need

of forming a native clergy, if they were to fulfill the obligation
undertaken by their metropolis by virtue of the Padroado. They

could not limit their evangelization to the Portuguese coastal
settlements; but they were few and could not count on abundant
and continuous supply of missionaries. And so, by the very cir-
cumstances of their evangelical labors, they were forced to look
around for ministers of the Gospel who might continue their
mission when they were gone, or could spread the Good News in
more remote regions which they could not reach. This explains
the eagerness and zeal they showed in forming as soon as possible •
an indigenous native clergy (the non-indigenous natives, creoles
or mestizos, were not so abundant in Portuguese colonies as in the
Spanish dominions). Their situation was quite similar to that of the
foreign apostles who pioneered in the evangelization of England,
Germany, Spain, France, and other Christian nations of Europe.
On the other hand, the condition of the Spanish colonies was
entirely different. The newly subjugated lands were considered as
an extension of the Spanish Empire; the native population was
supposed to enjoy the same and even greater rights than the
Spanish settlers themselves. The natives were to be supplied with a
continuous inflow of pastors from the metropolis to attend to their
spiritual needs. And these pastors were to be, at the same time,
apostolic laborers in charge of evangelizing far and wide, deeper
into the interior of the country. Thus, their missionary effort was
directed more towards preaching, baptizing, and making good
Christians, than towards looking for native priestly vocations, the
urgent need of which was not easily seen and realized under those
circumstances.
The missionaries in the Spanish colonies worked tirelessly and
heroically for the salvation of souls, for the propagation of the faith
and for the extension of the Church, rather than for planting the
Church on the solid basis of an indigenous native hierarchy. They
concentrated their attention on what Pope Pius XII called "the
object of missionary activity, that is to bring the light of the Gospel
to new races and to form new Christians," so that, to a certain
extent, they did not pay due attention, or lost sight of "the ultimate
goal of missionary endeavour, which is to establish the Church on
sound foundations among non-Christian peoples, and place it
under its own native hierarchy. ,,53 That was their mistake. They
forgot the Gospel's saying: "these things you ought to have done,
while not leaving the others undone." (Mt. 23:24)
But the doctrine of the ultimate goal of missions, which is
planting the Church in foreign lands by the establishment of a
native clergy, was not so clearly defined yet in the past as it is today,
after the encyclicals MAXIMUM ILLUD (1919), RERUM EC-
CLESIAE (1926) and EV ANGELII PRAECONES (1951) . Even

the Patron of missionaries, St. Francis Xavier, although he did not
overlook the paramount importance of forming a native clergy, did
not personally spend much time in forming native priests. His
burning zeal prompted him to advance farther and farther into the
remotest regions bringing the light of the Gospel to those who were
in the darkness of paganism. Speaking of him, Pius XII said:
Cautious planning ... would never have had the effect of

that great flame of love which devoured him in a few
years, and which shines for ever on the shores of the Far
East. 54
And like him, in this respect, were other giant figures in the
missjon annals of those days, as St . Louis Bertrand, St. Francis
Solano, St. Toribio de Mogrovejo , St. Peter Claver, and countless
other heroic missionaries of the past.
Vatican II, in AD GENTES, n. 6, declares that "the proper
end of missionary activity is evangelization and the planting of the
Church"; and "missions" are those " peculiar initiatives by which
the heralds of the Gospel sent out by the Church, carry out the
task of preaching the Gospel and planting the Church among
peoples who do not yet believe in Christ. . . The principal means
of this planting of the Church is the preaching of the Gospel."
Hence, according to Vatican II, the evangelization and the
planting of the Church are not two alternative ends that should be
contrasted or counterposed, but rather they must be seen as
interdependent, the first as a proximate end that should become
the principal means to attain the second, or ultimate goal.
Therefore, although the Spanish missionaries in the Philip-
pines, as in Spanish America, did not pay due attention to the
formation of an indigenous native clergy, the worst conclusion
that can be drawn about their work is that they did not "finish" it.
But they did "fulfill", and wonderfully at that, the first duty of all
missionaries. By their very preaching of the Gospel, they also
achieved the principal means of planting the Church later on.
Considering the immense magnitude of their far-flung mission
enterprise, which involved not only the evangelization of an ever
growing haIvest of souls, but also the task of bringing to those
natives the blessings of European culture and civilization, it is easy
to understand why those missionaries did not pay so much atten-
tion to the formation of an indigenous clergy for the planting of the
Church as soon as possible. The work entrusted to them was
enormous; something was necessarily left undone. Unfortunately
among so many pressing needs of the mission, they forgot that

priority should have been given to the formation of an indigenous
clergy.
But for this mistake it is groundless to cast aspersions on the
Spanish temperament or system, as if they were tainted with racial
prejudices or discrimination. Somebody has quite pointedly re-
marked:
It will hardly do for us who live in the English speaking

part of North America to criticize the policy of our
Spanish and Portuguese neighbors in regard to a native
clergy among the Indians. We have treated the Ameri-
can aborigines more shabbily in this and in other respects
than the Spaniards and Portuguese ever did. ss
V. The Indirect Influence of Certain Missionary Policies Adopted

in Spanish America.
The Spanish missionaries in the Philippines came most often

from Mexico, where they got acquainted with ideas, programs,
and policies prevailing then in Spanish America. Hence, it is
easily presumed that they brought along to our country many of
those ideas and policies. Truly, in the religiousness of our people,
in our Christian way of life, customs, Church traditions, etc.,
many points of similarity with those of the Spanish colonies in
America are noticeable. But this was because our conditions and
theirs, under the Royal Patronage and the Laws of Indies, were
very much alike. It could not be attributed to blind imitation. As a
matter of fact, those same missionaries, when they transferred
from the Philippines or America to other missions beyond the
Spanish Royal Patronage, as Japan, Cambodia, Cochin-China,
Tungkin, etc., knew how to adapt themselves and use different
methods from those popular in the countries under the Royal
Patronage.
It is often alleged that since in Spanish America the indige-
nous natives were precluded by the Church and the State from
admission to the Holy Orders, the Spanish missionaries also
adopted the same policy here. And this was the reason it is further
alleged, for the retarded ordination of Filipino natives to the
priesthood, not to mention the too slow and deficient development
of an indigenous Filipino clergy.
Is there truth in this allegation? First of all, is it true that in
Spanish America, through racial prejudice and discrimination,
the indigenous natives were precluded from becoming priests?
The answer is found in the scholarly work of Fr. Carlo Santi, II

Problema del Clero indigeno nell' America Spagnola del sec. XVI,
(Assisi, 1962).
As early as 1512, i.e., just twenty years after the discovery of
the New World, a College was established in Sevilla, Spain, under
the Dominican Fathers, for' the education of the children of noble
Indians. The following years, 1513, the Franciscans opened in the
island of Santo Domingo, by express order of the King, an elemen-
tary school for the children of noble indigenous natives. A year
before the arrival of the Franciscans in Mexico (1523), a pioneer
Franciscan lay Brother, Fray Pedro de Gante, founded another
such school in Tetxcoco. And in the very city of Mexico, Fr.
Martino de Valencia established another. In his report of June 12,
1531, the same Fr. Martino, Superior of the mission in Mexico,
said that in each of their twenty convents, the Franciscans had
schools where some 500 young Indian boys in each of them were
educated. The students of St. Francis' College in Mexico reached
1,000.
What the Franciscans did, the Dominicans and the Augusti-
nians soon undertook as their unanimous policy: attached to all
their convents, a school like the so called "seminario de indios",
of the Jesuits in the Philippines, was opened. In South America, in
the second half of the 16th century, schools of this kind were
found everywhere. The success of this educational endeavor led
most missionaries to found Colleges of higher studies to prepare the
indigenous natives for posts of leadership, and even for the priest-
hood. On December 15, 1525, the State Auditor (Treasurer),
Rodrigo de Albornoz, wrote to Emperor Carlos V:
In order that the sons of the caciques (noble Indians) and

lords (Indian chieftains) be instructed in the faith, Your
Majesty must needs command that a College be founded
wherein they may be taught Grammar (Latinity), Philo-
sophy and other Arts, to the end that they may be or-
dained priests; for he who shall become such among
them, will be of greater profit in attracting others to the
faith, than fifty simple Christians (i.e. Europeans).
Another letter, probably from a religious missionary, asked

the King,
to establish in Tenuxtitlan a General Study (i.e., a Univer-

sity of General Studies, "studia generalia") for the
teaching of Grammar (Latinity), of Arts (Humanities),
and of Theology, where the (indigenous) natives of this

land may be trained, and whereto all the sons of the
(Indian) nobles and heads of this land should come.
Ten years after these suggestions, on January 6, 1536, the first

Seminary College of America, the Seminary College of Santa
Cruz, was founded in Santiago Tlatelo1co, a suburb of the city of
Mexico, for the American indigenous native boys, to prepare
them, as soon as possible, for the Priesthood. The promoters of this
project were the Franciscan Friars, first missionaries of Mexico,
headed by the saintly Fray Juan de Zumarraga, O.F.M. , first
Bishop of Mexico, "Defender and Protector of the Indians." This
seminary college was encouraged and helped by the Viceroy Don
Antonio de Mendoza, backed by the Audiencia, specially by its
President, Sebastian Ramirez de Fuenleal, Bishop of Santo Do-.
mingo, and generously supported by the Crown which provided
the necessary revenues for its foundation and maintenance. The
highest ecclesiastical and civil authorities of Spain undertook
with all enthusiasm the foundation of a Seminary for the full-
blooded natives of America, more than a quarter of a century
before the Council of Trent's decree on the erection of clerical
Seminaries. This refutes the myth that the Spanish Church and
State, through racial prejudice, were opposed to the ordination of
indigenous natives to the Priesthood.
Soon the example of the Franciscans was followed by the
Augustinians who founded another similar College in Mexico in
1537. The first results of these experiments were quite encourag-
ing. In a Royal Cedula of November 30, 1537, the King of Spain
declared that,
he was well pleased to hear that, upon an examination of

the intelligence of those boys studying Grammar (Latin-
ity), many were found with great ability, vivacity of mind
and excellent memory.
But, for a priestly vocation, intelligence is not the only

requirement , nor the most important at that. Sterling and lofty
moral and supernatural virtues are required to dedicate oneself
totally to the glory of God and the salvation of souls, in the life of
self-denial and sacrifice demanded to continue Christ's mission on
earth. And that was too much to ask or expect from those,
otherwise good-natured and well-gifted boys , who were still neo-
phytes , too young in their faith.
The experiment of training the natives for the priesthood just

thirteen years after the beginning of the evangelization, was evi-
dently too premature. It has been wisely observed that,
though it is not impossible for a true vocation to exist in a

convert from paganism, especially if the culture as a
whole is already Christian, in the ordinary course of
things, a priestly vocation comes from a Christian family
background and an environment where Christian values
are generally accepted. . . The acceptance of the Gos-
pel value of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God
would be a part of that maturation in the Christian faith
which one would, in all reasonableness, expect two or
three generations to develop, at least as a generally ac-
cepted value. 56
No wonder, the Indian seminarians of Tlatelolco found the

requirement of a celibate life demanded by the Church from her
priests too hard. Just fOUf years after its foundation, the Seminary
of Tlatelolco disappointed its foremost promoter, Bishop Zumar-
raga, who on April 17, 1540, wrote:
We know not whether this College of Santiago (of Tlate-

lolco) will continue much longer, since the Indian stu-
dents, and from these the best grammarians (students of
Latinity) have a stronger tendency for marriage than for
celibacy ("tendunt ad nuptias potius quam ad continen-
tiam") .
The experiment was pronounced a failure, in so far as the

result expected was not attained. But the experiment served to
prove eloquently that the Spanish Church and State, far from
officially discriminating through racial preconceptions the indi-
genous natives, on the contrary strove much too prematurely to
raise those natives to the greatest dignity on earth, that of the
ministerial Priesthood.
Unfortunately, the negative result of this noble experiment
paved the way for some disillusion and pessimism. Even its most
eager promoters, were tempted to give it up entirely or at least for
the time being. The College of Tlatelolco however was not totally
abandoned. The Franciscans still continued in their hopeless
endeavor, until the years of 1547-1548 when, finding already among
the Indian students persons intellectually well prepared to teach as
professors, they resolved to entrust to the indigenous alumni the

administration and direction of the College. Thus, the missionaries
became free to devote themselves to the vanguard posts of their
vast mission fields. After twenty years of decadence, due to lack
of economic resources, the Franciscans decided once more to
resume its direction in 1570; but soon after this reorganization,
several epidemics decimated the population. In 1576, the College
was left without students. This was practically the end of it.
The sad experience of the Tlatelolco experiment produced in
some sectors a strong anti-indigenist reaction. As a consequence,
the First Council of Mexico held in 1555 issued a decree forbidding
the admission to Holy Orders of Indians, mestizos, mulattoes and
descendants of muslims or of parents condemned by the inquisi-
tion. The reason behind this apparently harsh decree was not racial
discrimination. The Bull VERITAS IPSA of Paul III in 1537
definitively declared that the Indians were capable of receiving all
the Sacraments. The decree waS issued simply on account of the
impediment of lack of good reputation of the indigenous natives.
Even in our days, ill fame constitutes a simple impediment for
sacred ordination (previous Code, cc.987, nn. 1,4,6,7: and 2293,
n.3; new Code, can. 1041). In the Mexican Council's decree, the
indigenous natives are considered to be in the same level as the
mulattoes and mestizos who in most cases were illegitimate chil-
dren, and thus considered in general as persons of ill reputation, or
held in disfavor among the colonizers. No wonder then that the
Indians, even those with good qualities, but with poor family
background, were seen to be lacking the necessary good esteem,
specially after the Tlatelolco experience. The doors of the Priest-
hood were closed to them, not on account of their race, or radical
incapacity, but for their supposed temporary unworthiness, be-
cause they were still new in the faith, and this has not yet taken firm
root in them.
Thirty years later, in 1585, this provisional exclusion from the
priesthood of the Indios, Mestizos, or descendants from Moorish
or Negro parents, was cautiously but definitively and permanently
removed by the intervention of the Holy See in the III Provincial
Council of Mexico. The pertinent text approved by the Council
Fathers did not yet intend to change the previous legislation
excluding the natives from the Holy Orders. But when the text was
sent to Rome for confirmation, the Holy See amended it, by
adding the cautionary words "sine magno delectu" (without a very
careful choice). Thus the III Council of Mexico in 1585 pro-
vided: "let them (Indians, Mestizos, descendants from Moors or
Negros) be not admitted to the (Holy) Orders without a very

careful choice," which is equivalent to saying: "let them be
admitted, but not without a very careful choice. "57
In South America, the II Council of Lima, Peru in 1567-1568,
influenced by the current anti-indigenist reaction prevailing in
Mexico, issued also a decree forbidding the admission of Indians
(nothing was said about mestizos or creoles) to the clerical state.
But , again, this prohibition was phrased in such a way as to let it be
understood that there was no question here of discriminating
against the Indians, as if they were naturally incapable or un-
worthy; but only because they were not yet fit at that early time to
discharge the duties of the sacred ministry. That is why the
provision was included in the II Council of Lima to prepare and
train the Indians, through an elementary Christian education for
acting as altar boys. Like the children of the ancient Cathedral
schools forerunners of our Conciliar Seminaries.
Again, in South America, the prohibition against the admis-
sion of Indians to the priesthood lasted for a short time only.
Fifteen years later, in 1583 , in the III Council of Lima, under
Archbishop St. Toribio de Mogrovejo, the legislation precluding
the ordination of Indians was dropped. It was not mentioned any
more, leaving to the discretion of the Bishops the question of
admission of Indians to the Holy Orders. In addition, during that
same III Council of Lima, the South American Bishops, headed
by St. Toribio, asked the King of Spain to found a Seminary
College (again, as formerly in Tlatelolco! ... ) for the "sons" of the
"caciques" (chieftains) and noble Indians, so that "duly
instructed. . . in the course of time, they may succeed to
become ... fit and capable for the studies and for the service of
the Church, and even to become ministers of the Word of God in
their nation"; and they suggested it as "one of the most effective
means . . . for the good of the natives and for the propagation of the
faith. "
Indeed, the Seminary College proposed was immediately es-
tablished in Lima for the Indian natives. But it was only short-lived,
not because of neglect, but because of adverse circumstances.
These two III Provincial Councils, of Lima in 1583 and of
Mexico in 1585, were of lasting fame and decisive influence on
Spanish America and on the Philippines, where they kept vigor of
standing law during more than two centuries. Rome approved the
III Council of Lima in 1588, and that of Mexico in 1591. King
Philip II sanctioned the Lima Council in 1591, and that of Mexico
in 1621. Thus, the restrictive provisional legislation forbidding the
ordination of indigenous natives, lasted, only thirty years in Mex-

ico (1555-1585), and fifteen years in Lima (1568-1583).
Hence, we can safely affirm that since 1585 there was no legal
ecclesiastical prohibition against the ordination of indigenous
natives, in all the Spanish colonies of America, and consequently
in the Philippines. Our first Diocese of Manila, embracing the
whole archipelago , was erected on February 6, 1579 as a suffragan
of the Archdiocese of Mexico; and thus it remained until it was
raised to the rank of Metropolitan Archdiocese of Manila, on
August 14, 1595. Thus , the Philippines was canonically dependent
on Mexico for sixteen years only (from 1579 to 1595). And, since
the Mexican legislation precluding the admission of natives to
Holy orders was definitively lifted in 1585, so we can truly say that
such legislation was in effect in the Philippines, for six years only
(1579-1585). Anyhow, those were simply the last six years of the
first twenty years of our evangelization - too early a time for
admitting native converts or neophytes to the Priesthood!
And yet, even during the 30 years in Mexico , and six years in
the Philippines, when a legislation against the ordination of natives
was in effect, some Spanish Bishops believed that the standing
legislation on this particular point was not to be strictly inter-
preted. That is why some indigenous natives were ordained in those
years such as Rev. Pablo Caltzonzin , son of the last Michoacan
king , and first American indigenous native priest , about the year
1566-1572; and Rev. Pablo Ponce , parish priest of Tzonpahucan,
and author of a famous book about the indigenous natives. Even
before 1562, it seems there were others whose names have not
come to US . 58 In the Philippines, the first bishop, the Spanish
Dominican, Fray Domingo de Salazar, on December 21, 1581
made a provision in his Bull of erection of the Manila Diocese ,
that " as soon as the indigenous natives may show and prove their
capacity for ecclesiastical benefices, these should be given to
them, rather than to the Spanish clergy." Bishop Salazar was
quoting literally the very words of a text used by the II Council of
Lima, Peru, in 1567.
That is how the Spanish Church and State understood those
apparently discriminatory laws against the ordination of Indians,
so short-lived in America, and in effect here in the Philippines for
six years only, and which nevertheless have been the stone of
scandal for so many serious scholars who make a big fuss about
them. As a great Jesuit missionologist of the 16th century re-
marked, those were simply "prudential laws" laws of provisional
and temporal character, "for this period of time. " 59
Undeniably, due to the demand for a "very careful choice"

in the admission of indigenous natives to the Priesthood, as insisted
in the American Church legislation, the development of a native
clergy in the Phililppines was somewhat retarded, and remained
too slow and deficient. Such demand may have exerted an adverse
influence upon some particular Church authorities or certain
religious individuals, as Archbishop Felipe Pardo in 1680, or Fray
Gaspar de San Agustin in 1720, who were against the ordination of
Filipino natives. But many others among Church and State au-
thorities opposed those narrow views such as Archbishops of
Manila, Diego Camacho, Francisco de la Cuesta, Basillio Sancho
de Santa Justa y Rufina, Gregorio Meliton Martinez, Pedro Payo;
the Bishops of Cebu, Joaquin Rubio de Arevalo, Francisco Ge-
noves and Romualdo Jimeno; those of Naga, Domingo Collantes,
Francisco Gainza, and Arsenio Campo y Monasterio; those of
Vigan, Agustin Pedro Blaquier, Francisco Alban, Rafael Maso-
liver, Francisco Miro, Juan Jose Aragones; and those of Jaro,
Mariano Cuartero y Medina and Leandro Arrue Agudo; mission-
aries as the Jesuit Fr. Juan Delgado, and the Spanish Vincentian
Fathers; besides Kings like Philip II, Philip V, and Isabel II; and
Governors-General as Domingo Zabalburu, Simon de Anda;
Statesmen such as the Fiscal of the Audiencia Diego de Viga.
They and many others tried their best, even imprudently at times,
to foster and promote the Filipino native clergy.
Undoubtedly, many factors hindered such initiatives in favor
of the natives. The requirement that these indigenous candidates
assimilate a European culture so alien to their own environment;
the low social status of the natives who were considered by the
Spanish laws of the Indies as "minors" in need of tutelage, all these
were obviously handicaps that natives who hoped to assume posts
of leadership over a mixed community of Spaniards and natives
had to contend with.
Furthermore, the general environment, living standards, fam-
ily background, educational means and facilities in which the
native youth grew and was reared, were generally, by force of
unavoidable circumstances, less apt and propitious in developing
priestly or religious vocations, than the conditions in which Spa-
niards or natives of Spanish ancestry found themselves. The far-
flung amplitude of the Spanish missionary enterprise offered to the
Philippines an "extensive" evangelization, rather than an "inten-
sive" one; hence, the indigenous natives could not be properly
attended to, and the seeds of priestly or religious vocation among
their youth was not properly and carefully cultivated, as it should
have been to let those seeds grow and blossom in due time.
These conditions of our Philippine missions, so similar to

those of Spanish America, can be said to be the indirect influence
of certain missionary policies adopted in the Spanish dominions,
that were responsible for the slow and deficient formation of an
indigenous native clergy, more than the short-lived policies of
some Provincial Councils of America.
INSISTENT EFFORTS OR ATTEMPTS DURING

THE SPANISH REGIME TO FOSTER FILIPINO
PRIESTLY VOCATIONS AND TO FORM AND PREPARE
A NATIVE SECULAR CLERGY
As early as 1595, i.e., some twenty-five years only after begin-

ning the evangelization, the Spanish Jesuit missionaries built the
first "seminario de indios" (pre-seminary elementary boarding
school for Filipino indigenous natives) in Dulag, Leyte. Then, in
1596-1598, another was built in Tinagon, Samar; in 1596-1599, at
the College of San Ignacio, in Manila; and in 1598-1609, at the
Seminary College of San Ildefonso, in Cebu. It seems that the
Spanish missionaries in the Philippines were as eager to prepare a
native clergy as in America! They refused to accept the defeat or
failure of Tlateloko, just fifty-five years before.
The first Filipino native priests (most probably, creoles or
mestizos, and possibly also some indigenous natives) were or-
dained, at most, a few years after 1620, i.e., some fifty years only
after the beginning of the evangelization, which is what normally
could be expected in any mission country. By the year 1655, there
were already some sixty native priests in the Philippines. Certainly,
by the years 1695-1707, some full-blooded Filipinos were ordained
priests by Archbishop Diego Camacho y Avila. There is also
documentary evidence that a few years after 1720, there were
some full-blooded Filipino priests, of whom Fr. Juan Delgado
wrote in 1754; "I am acquainted with some secular priests, who,
though Indios, can serve as an example to shame Europeans
because of their natural talents and priestly virtues."60 In 1760,
there were thirty-two Indio priests in the Archdiocese of Manila,
thirteen Chinese mestizos, and six Spanish mestizos, out of a total
of 111 secular priests. 61
But much earlier before, during the 17th century, the Col-
leges of the Spanish Jesuits and of the Dominicans, San Jose
(founded 1601), Santo Tomas (1611), and San Juan de Letran
(1632) were actually Seminaries at the same time, fostering eccle-
siastical and religious native vocations. From Letran alone, in just
nineteen years (1632-1651) twenty-six Filipino natives (creoles or
mestizos) had been ordained priests: twelve seculars, eight Augus-

tinians, two Dominicans, two Franciscans, one Recollect and
one Jesuit.
During the 17th century, the students of these Colleges of San
Jose, Santo Tomas and Letran, were, practically all, Spaniards or
natives of Spanish descent, although there was no systematic
exclusion of indigenous natives. After the initial trials of the
"seminarios de indios" by the end of the 16th century, the idea
expressed by Governor Pedro de Acuna to King Philip III in his
report of July 15, 1604 seems to have prevailed among the settlers,
namely, that although the education of the indigenous natives for
the priestly vocation was "a very good and holy work," still there
was no use in trying it further "since the sum of what these will
learn is reading and writing and nothing more, for they can neither
be priests nor officials, and after they shall have learned some-
thing, they will return to their homes and take care of their farms
and earn their living. "62
This way of thinking might have been the sad result of a
colonial mentality one manifestation of which was the "paternalis-
tic" attitude that considered indigenous natives as "minors" who
are not yet ready for higher instruction or for posts for leadership.
Such "paternalism," profitable and praiseworthy at the beginmng,
should not have been prolonged further than necessary. Again,
this was Spain's mistake. Thus, this was one of the causes that
contributed to the slow formation of an indigenous clergy. In fact
in 1680, Monsignor Urbano Cerri, secretary of the Sacred Congre-
gation of Propaganda wrote a Memorial to Pope Innocent XI
indicating certain deficiencies in the Church in the Philippines.
"Among these was the fact that natives (sc. the indigenous) were
not raised to sacred orders, although they fulfilled the prerequisite
conditions to receive them. ,,63 This statement seems to imply
obviously that the indigenous natives by that time, had been given
ecclesiastical training in the Colleges of the Dominicans or
Jesuits; otherwise, how could he have known that they fulfilled the
prerequisite conditions? Although practically all the students of
Letran, Santo Tomas or San Jose, were of Spanish descent, there
was no systematic exclusion of the indigenes from these institu-
tions. And, although the general policy, according to Msgr.
Cerri, was not to ordain indigenous natives, still it could have been
possible that some of them might at least have been among the
natives that were certainly ordained in the 17th century.
But before that report of Msgr. Cerri, Spain was already taking
some steps to remedy the situation. It seems that a report by the
French Bishop, Monsignor Francois Pallu, founder of the Paris

Foreign Mission Society, who had visited Manila and returned to
Europe, occasioned the intervention of Charles II of Spain and of
the Holy See. Three years before Msgr. Cerri's memorial of 1680
the archbishop of Manila, His Grace Felipe Pardo, O.P. received
a royal cedula dated on August 2, 1677, ordering him to provide
the natives (indigenes) with a program of studies aimed at the
priesthood; he was to ordain at the proper time those who showed
suitability for the priesthood and had been properly prepared; and
finally, the colleges run by the Dominicans and the Jesuits were to
open their doors to them until a seminary could be established. At
the same time, the Provincial of the Dominicans received another
cedula dispatched on the same date for the same purpose. And
likely the Jesuit Provincial received one of the same tenor.,,64
The answer of Archbishop Pardo to the royal cedula of 1677
was quite harsh and biased not only against the indigenous natives
but also against the "sons of Spaniards, born in the islands"
(creoles qr mestizos). He said that the "Indios" "had little inclina-
tion for theological and moral studies," and that their evil traits
"made it necessary to treat them as children , even when they were
fifty or sixty years old" (Notice the unwise and mistaken "pater-
nalism"!) And he adds: "On account of the sloth produced by the
climate, and of effeminacy and levity of disposition, it was evident
that if they were ordained priests and made ministers to the Indios
(when they were not sufficiently qualified for this) through the
necessity there was for them, they did not again open a"book, and
with their vicious habits set a very bad example to their
parishioners. ,,65 Here it is implied that, at the last quarter of the
17th century, there were some few instances, of ordination of
indigenous natives, to support what the Archbishop noted as evi-
dent. Otherwise, his statement would have been entirely groundless.
Although Archbishop Pardo was against the ordination of
indigenous natives at that time, he was still hoping that in the near
future, after receiving proper education, indigenous natives would
be worthy of the priestly vocation. That is why, on March 12,
1689, he offered to the Dominican Provincial a legacy of 13,000
pesos, "signifying his desire that Letran College be a school
exclusively for indigenous and mestizo students, so that some day
they could merit the priesthood after sufficient training. ,,66 This
noble and apostolic desire indicates two things: 1) the
Archbishop's opposition to the ordination of natives did not arise
from racial prejudice and 2) Letran College although exclusively
for Spaniards did not systematically excluded indigenous natives.
Although things were going too slowly in the remote Philip-

pine colony for the fulfillment of the King's desires and orders, the
Crown was not sleeping. In 1697 King Carlos II inquired from the
Governor of the Philippines whether there was already a Seminary
in the Archdiocese of Manila, and if there was none, how much
money would be necessary to subsidize it. The Governor answered
on July 13, 1700 that there was no need for the said Seminary since
the Colleges run by the religious in Manila already served the
purpose. However, this answer did not satisfy the King's zeal to
develop the indigenous clergy on the country. Thus the royal
cedula of April 28, 1702 issued by King Philip V provided for the
foundation of a Conciliar Seminary in Manila with eight scholar-
ships for native seminarians.
However, the royal mandate could not be made to take effect
at once. Archbishop Diego Camacho tried to take the initial
steps, but legal blocks hindered his efforts for two years. Finally,
through the zealous initiative of a certain Abbe John Baptist
Sidotti who came to Manila in 1704, together with the future
Cardinal Maillard de Tournon, legate a latere of Pope Clement XI
to the missions of the Far East, a Conciliar Seminary was opened
in Manila on December 8, 1707, with the approval of Archbishop
Camacho and Governor Domingo Zabalburu. It was an ambitious
project, indeed to establish not only a Diocesan Seminary, but a
Regional Mission Seminary for the mission lands of the Orient. The
Seminary was to admit 72 students, of whom eight were to be
Filipino natives. It was to be called San Clemente, in honor of the
reigning Pontiff.
All this was however, quite different from the King's orders.
The King was displeased to see that a foreigner had intervened to
change his dispositions; and so, he sternly ordered that his Royal
Cedula of 1702 be followed to the letter. Thus the Seminary of San
Clemente had to give way in 1712 to another, strictly Diocesan
Seminary, which in 1715 was called San Felipe, in honor of the
King.
In his earnest zeal to form as soon as possible an indigenous
clergy, Archbishop Camacho proceeded to ordain, between 1702
and 1706, some full-blooded Filipino priests. Likewise, the Univer-
sity of Santo Tomas and the Colleges of San Jose and Letran, began
to admit, as a matter of policy indigenous native students. 67
In spite of all these, the results were quite disappointing. On
July 20, 1718 Archbishop Francisco de la Cuesta wrote:
In the eleven years that I have been in possession of this

See (of Manila), I have hardly ordained eleven men for
the clergy from the four colleges (sc. Santo Tomas, San
Jose, Letran, and San Felipe).68
The explanation of this failure lies, most probably, in the fact

that Santo Tomas, San Jose, and Letran were offering a type of
mixed clerical training in which prospective aspirants to the
priestly vocation were formed together with lay students aiming at
secular careers. Church experience of centuries has shown that
this type of mixed training is not conducive to fostering ecclesias-
tical vocations. The Conciliar Seminary of San Felipe, although
exclusively clerical, was a pious lay foundation, under the Royal
Patronage. It had no adequate financial resources and worse, no
personnel fitted to run it. As a Diocesan Seminary it was to be
administered, not by the religious friars, but by the secular clergy.
But, where, among the secular clergy-which was just about to be
formed-were the priests duly prepared for directing a Seminary?
This was the vicious circle that explains the languid condi-
tion of the Philippine Diocesan Seminaries of those centuries. The
religious offered a solution to the situation by cooperating occa-
sionally when there was an imperative demand for them. But that
was not the normal policy, since the Diocesan Seminaries ought
generally to be run by secular priests. Such policy actually
became law by Royal Order of Carlos III in 1768, and by legisla-
tion of the Provincial Council of Manila in 1771.
The best solution to the problem was found by Queen Isabel II
when in 1852 she decided to entrust the direction of Philippine
Seminaries to the Vincenti an Fathers. Canonically speaking, the
Vincenti an fathers were not "religious" in the strict sense, but
"secular priests" living as religious in a community and under a
Rule. Hence, they could properly assume the Direction of the
Philippine Seminaries "which - as the Queen avowed - for lack
of professors and resources could not fulfill the end for which the
Council of Trent established them". If this solution could have
been adopted two centuries before 1862, the development of a
Filipino native clergy might have been very different indeed.
In the Seminary of Manila the eight students with Government
scholarships were to be Indios. 69 However, Archbishop de la
Cuesta reported to the King that, instead of indigenous natives, he
chose eight "creoles" (sons of Spaniards born in the Philippines).
Besides the eight students with scholarships, there were 16 others,
called "porcionistas" (paying students), some of whom were pure
Spaniards, others Chinese mestizos, and indigeneous natives. Out
of the eight original students. only five were finally ordained; and of
the succeeding classes. only one reached the Priesthood. 70
The Faculty of Philosophy in the Seminary was instituted on

May 13,1712; and Theology, in 1714. In 1722 however, these were
closed for lack of students (there were only one or two attending
the classes). For all practical purposes therefore , the Seminary
was not existing any more by 1739. And when the English occu-
pied Manila in 1762, the few remaining students sought shelter in
their own homes. After the evacuation of Manila in 1764 nothing
was done to reorganize the extinct Seminary until May 24, 1768
when Archbishop Basilio Sancho de Santa Justa y Rufina reestab-
lished it, and on June 8, 1770 placed it under the patronage of King
Carlos III.
The new Seminary of San Carlos of Manila received, during its
first decade (1768-1778) 140 seminarians of whom 77 were or-
dained with but a minimum of training. "Spanish wits in Manila
joked about there being no more oarsmen for the boats on the
Pasig because the Archbishop has ordained them all.,,71 Gover-
nors Jose Raon and Simon Anda seconded ' the Archbishop's
moves to secularize the religious parishes immediately. However,
the hasty and unwise ordinations of unworthy candidates soon
proved disastrous to the cause of the Filipino clergy. Yet, one
conclusion we can gather from this is that the authorities of the
Church and State in the archipelago were not in the least opposed
to the promotion of a secular native clergy. On the contrary on
this occasion they showed an indiscreet and damaging zeal to
promote a native clergy at all costs.
The secularization of parishes created a hostile atmosphere
between the Filipino clergy and the religious missionaries who
were favored by the Spanish Government. 72 And yet, even in this
period of animosity and antagonism between the two clergies, it
was clear that there were Spaniards who did not hesitate to favor
and promote the cause of the Filipino priests.
Worthy to be remembered for their zeal in promoting Filipino
native vocations were: in Cebu, Bishops Francisco Genoves,
Santos Gomez Maraiion, and Romualdo Jimeno; in Naga, Bishops
Juan Antonio de Orbigo, Domingo Coli antes , and Francisco
Gainza; in Vigan, Juan Ruiz de San Agustin, Agustin Pedro Bla-
quier, Francisco Alban, Rafael Masoliver, Francisco Miro, and
Juan Aragones; and in Jaro, Bishop Mariano Cuartero y Medina.
All of them lived during the last century of the Spanish regime.
Their tireless efforts, admittedly, came rather late, and were
counteracted by the historical circumstances previously explained,
particularly by the recurrent problems of lack of funds and lack of
adequate personnel to run the Diocesan Seminaries. However by
the middle of the 18th century, the Filipino native priests in 1750
were administering 142 parishes; and by the middle of the 19th
century, in 1845, they were administering 229 parishes. In 1762, out
of 156 secular priests in the diocese of Manila, 87 were Filipinos .
"In the second quarter of the 1Hth century the Filipino priests
had under their parochial care more souls than either the Domini-
cans , Franciscans or Recollects; and were next only to the
Augustinians and Jesuits. One-sixth of the Filipino Catholics were
then under the care of their native clergy. One fifth of the parishes
were then administered by Filipinos who had 142 parishes, i.e., 27
more than the Augustinians who were the religious having most
parishes in the Philippines. In 1750 the Filipino secular priests had
more parishes than any single religious Order , and each Filipino
priest was entrusted with an average of 2,800 souls, while each
Spanish Friar was governing only an average of 1,900 souls. Eigh-
teen years later, the expulsion of the Jesuits came , and the 93
parishes they had, were given over to the Filipino clergy. And in
1863 the Filipino priests were in charge of more Catholics than any
one of the religious Orders working in the country.73
The following statistics gathered from various authoritative
sources positively show - in spite of some strange incongruities
- that the number and quality of Filipino secular priests in the
19th century was not so insignificant as we might think. In the
diocese of Manila alone there were in 1805, at least 200 Filipino
secular priests, 26 of whom held academic degrees; in 1826 there
were 294, of whom at least 14 held degrees; and in 1860 there were
285 Filipino priests . In 1876 there were in the whole Philippines 748
Filipino priests ; in 1889 there were 777; in 1890 there were 825 .
However in 1898, official statistics strangely count only 675 Fili-
pino priests. 74
But even taking this low figure as a point of reference , we find
that in 1898, for a population of about 7 million, there were some
675 Filipino priests, i.e., one priest for every 10,000 souls; while in
1950 for a population of about 20 million, there were 1,250 Filipino
priests only, i.e. , about one priest for every 16,000 souls. From the
end of the Spanish regime up to the mid-20th century, the Philip-
pine popUlation became almost three times bigger, while the
number of Filipino priests had scarcely doubled. Proportionally,
there were more Filipino priests during the Spanish regime than in
our own days.
These numbers are taken from reliable sources indicate that,
although the development of the Filipino native clergy was rather
slow and deficient, there have been many unfavorable exaggerations
on the situation of past centuries. Despite all the shortcomings and

defects of those times, the formation and development of the native
clergy was not entirely neglected by the Spanish Crown nor by the
Spanish Church in the Philippines. 75
The true solution to those deficiencies was found by Queen
Isabel II in 1852. The Vincenti an missionaries came to our land in
1862 "to improve the education given in the Conciliar Seminaries
which, for lack of professors and resources, could not duly fulfill
the end for which the Holy Council of Trent established them."
This royal disposition was achieved in the last 36 years of the
Spanish regime. Still, some object that even during this period, the
Seminary training was quite substandard; "there was little or noth-
ing done to give superior academic training to the secular clergy;
though the minimum level for all priests was undoubtedly raised,
the top level dropped considerably" as compared with the "Pelaez-
Burgos generation of university educated priests" (1850-1872).76 Is
this correct? The level of the secular clergy is not to be measured by
half-a-dozen prominent figures of specially gifted priests with the
highest academic degrees. Diocesan Seminaries are not precisely
intended to form doctors in theology or canon law, but rather
worthy and zealous pastors of souls. And, it is obvious that these
were found more easily during the last 30 years of the Spanish
regime than before. If the Seminaries under the Vincentians of-
fered a poor program of studies, it might be asked where in the
world, even in Spain, France or Italy, were better programs of-
fered? One can easily compare the religious and disciplinary train-
ing offered in our Philippine Seminaries, with that of other
Seminaries in Catholic Europe or America. Fermin del Campo,
C.M. who took the trouble to research on this aspect, found
nothing our Philippine Seminaries had to envy Seminaries abroad.
On the contrary, the local seminaries could "advantageously com-
pare with any of them. ,077

A Problem To Be Faced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Problem To Be Faced

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Problem To Be Faced

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

The Royal Order of Queen Isabel II , dated October 19, 1852,

The Spanish missionary enterprise had one major defect,

Another writer on the Philippine Missions remarked:

native clergy in the Philippines is only one small aspect of the

Still another erudite researcher, following the scholarly investiga-

This sorry situation was an unforeseen by-product of what was

There is no doubt about the strange phenomenon of the slow and

The problem of the slow and deficient formation of the Filipino

HISTORICAL FACTORS THAT CAUSED A SLOW AND

Let us study in detail each one of the factors.

I. Early Mission Ideas about the Formation of a Native Clergy

This factor is just an aspect of the long process of progressive

Seminaries, speaks only of a "local" clergy. In the same vein are

were ordained priest (twelve of the secular clergy, eight Augusti-

century, when Pope Leo XIII on September 17, 1902, in his

Church experience has shown evidently that an

Some years later, Benedict XV on November 30, 1919, in his

The main concern of those who rule the mISSIOns

Later on, the RERUM ECCLESIAE of Pius XI (February 26,

Since it was easier, more viable and expeditious to promote

II. The Occasional Adverse Side Effects of the Royal Patronage in

At the dawn of the age of geographical discoveries, the Popes

"By the harmonious efforts of our Predecessors and of

Nevertheless, serious historians in our days point to the Span-

a) With the Royal Patronage, the missions lost their super-

b) If ever the idea of forming an indigenous clergy was

a) First, it seems unjust and unfair to say in general that those

Spanish Jesuits called a pre-seminary, elementary boarding school

c) King Philip II reigned in Spain from 1556 to 1598 and left

"Because I have learned that better results will be ob-

Previously, by the Royal Cedulas of 1557 and 1561, the same

archipelago exclusively for the four religious Orders working

"The rectory of parish churches belongs to the clerics

Gov~rnor Sebastian Hurtado de Corcuera, dated October 2, 1638,

suspected of any intention to keep low standards for their future

Since the foundation (1611), many Masters and

And in an official Report to the Government of Madrid, in

The University of Santo Tomas has, for more than

clergy, coadjutors; parish priests, Canons, and Bishops;

If any defect was to be found in the clerical training given by

happened in the American colonies. All these lamentable events

III. The paternalism of the Spanish colonial system

From the beginnings of the colonial regime in the Philippines,

with each other so closely as to become one people and one

precarious conditions, and even worse than in the Philippines,

IV . The Far-flung Extension of the Spanish Missionary Enterprise

During the era of geographical discoveries, the world was

The Portuguese occupied coastal points, which they

Portuguese missionaries could realize at once the urgent need

undertaken by their metropolis by virtue of the Padroado. They

CLESIAE (1926) and EV ANGELII PRAECONES (1951) . Even

Cautious planning ... would never have had the effect of

among so many pressing needs of the mission, they forgot that

It will hardly do for us who live in the English speaking

V. The Indirect Influence of Certain Missionary Policies Adopted

The Spanish missionaries in the Philippines came most often

The answer is found in the scholarly work of Fr. Carlo Santi, II