Prepared by: Social and Behavioral Sciences Department

CRACKS WITHIN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE

CAVITE MUTINY

Overview:
In the view of some historians, the actions of the Church and Spanish colonial authorities during the
Spanish colonial period (1521-1898) led to tensions and social upheavals in the Philippines. While some
Filipino clergy as well as the Catholic lay population expressed discontent regarding the lack of access to
proper religious training, for the Filipino clergy, the lack of religious training also meant the lack of
opportunities to rise to positions of power within the Church and subsequently effect changes in their
country. However, the Spanish authorities and Catholic officials feared that more education would lead to
Filipino independence and loss of the Church’s control over the populace and revenue for the Church and
the Spanish Crown. In this lesson, the students will be taught about some highlights in the religious scene
during the Spanish period and the secularization issue in the Philippines during that time which paved way
to the birth of nationalism among Filipinos.

Learning Outcomes:

1. Evaluate the relationship and differences between the Catholic and Secular clergy during the Spanish regime
2. Realize the implications of Cavity Mutiny in the development of nationalism in the colonial society
3. Relate how the conflicts within the Church affected Philippine history and Rizal's political beliefs

The Church during the Spanish Period: The Secularization Issue

RELIGIOUS LEADER ON THE LOCAL LEVEL
 The parish priest who, in many instances, was usually a
friar endorsed the candidates running for office.
 He also approves who should be admitted to higher
educational institutions in the Philippines.
 He was the guardian of morals in the community and the
chief censor at the same time keeps the record of the
people living in his community.
 The parish priest or the friar-curate is invited to important
gatherings and social events and he always occupies the
places of honor.
RELIGIOUS LEADER ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL
 The Archbishop of Manila was the highest church
official in the islands.
 He is also the most powerful religious official in the
colony.
 Like his local counterpart, the parish priest, he also had
a strong influence on the government and on the nation
as a whole.
 He can influence the decisions of the governor general
and many governor generals were removed because of
the opposition of the Archbishop.

Many Governor Generals have been labeled as "bad" by the Church either because they clashed with the
Archbishops or were slow to comply with their wishes. Also there were governor generals they labeled as good ones
because of their repressive attitude and leadership towards Filipinos.
 The term of the Spanish Governor General averaged two years in office unlike the Archbishop who can stay in his
post indefinitely. On record, the Philippines had 96 appointed governor generals. There were instances when the
Archbishop was the acting governor general. These were Archbishop Francisco de la Cuesta (0ctober 11, 1719-August
6, 1721); Archbishop Juan Arrechederra (September 21, 1745-July 20, 1750); Bishop Miguel Lino de Ezpeleta
(June-1759-May 31, 1761); Archbishop Manuel Rojo del Río y Vieyra (June 1761-October 6, 1762). The position of
the Church in the Philippines was strengthened when Queen Isabella II issued a decree making the Rector of the
University of Santo Tomas the supervisor of all higher education in the Philippines. It meant that all higher academic
certificates and titles will be issued by the University of Santo Tomas.

The Church during the late Spanish colonial era was not a monolithic structure. Its members are divided into two
types;

Since the beginning of Spanish rule, the religious community in the Philippines was in conflict with itself over the
issue of supervision and visitation by the bishops and archbishops. It must be pointed out that the missionaries who
established churches in the Philippines belonged to the regular clergy Although the regular clergy were not supposed to
administer parishes, they were doing so because of the prevailing circumstances. During the early part of the Spanish
period, there were few or no secular clergy to take over the parishes. Since they were regular religious priests, they
insisted that they were under the jurisdiction of their own respective provincials.
 A question arose whether the regulars acting as parish priests were under the authority of the archbishop or bishop.
If this happens the regulars will have two masters, their own provincials and the archbishop. The regulars cited the
directives from Pope Leo X, Adrían VI, Clement VII and Julius III which stated that they were not subject to visitation
by the archbishops and bishops. They also reasoned out that since it was their duty to spread Christianity.

Hence, they should be exempt from visitation. Canon Law explicitly mandated visitation by the archbishop or
bishop. Under the Council of Trent (1545-1563), regulars holding parishes were subject to visitation.When Fr.
Domingo de Salazar, a Dominican, became Bishop of Manila, he made it clear that he would visit the parishes in his
domain to stop any abuses committed in the spread of the Gospel. Bishop Salazar was a veteran missionary in Mexico
and the parish priests who were regular clergy never objected to visitation. But in the Philippines the friar curates
objected saying that if there were defects in their administration of the parishes these should be corrected by their own
provincials. Though Bishop Salazar was a strict disciplinarian, he gave up his plan of visitation.

In 1653, Archbishop Miguel Poblete invoking the Papal Bull of 1633 ordered all the regulars to submit to his
authority and all parishes should be visited. The Archbishop was backed by the Royal Audiencia to enforce visitation.
This time the Regulars made good their threat to abandon their parishes forcing Poblete to give up his plan.

Archbishop Camacho also appealed to Pope Clement XI in 1705 regarding the issue of visitation. The Pope issued
an order subjecting the Regulars to visitation. Despite the Pope's order, the regulars continued to oppose the order for
visitation. In 1707. Archbishop Francisco de la Cuesta tried to enforce the Papal Bull of Clement XI.This time the
recalcitrant Regulars did not object but they asked that the provision regarding the enforcement of visitation be
suspended temporarily until the Pope heard their side. Archbishop de la Cuesta granted their request. The request was a
clever move by the regulars as nothing was heard about the Pope's decision. The request remained in limbo until the
1740s.

In 1744 and 1745, Pope Benedict XIV decreed that the friar curates were subject visitation. The Archbishop
Basilio Sancho de Santa Justa said that he would enforce the visitation of the parishes. Governor General Jose Raon
supported the Archbishop. The insistence of the archbishop to supervise all the parishes resulted in the resignation of
some friar curates. This provided Archbishop Santa Justa and Governor Raon reason to replace the parish priests with
native seculars. However, it turned out that the newly ordained priests were not as competent enough to administer the
parishes. Worse, there were complaints that the secular priests were vicious compared to the regulars they replaced.

In 1767, King Charles III issued a decree expelling the Jesuits not just from Spain but its entire Empire. The Jesuits
who had grown in power and influence have produced noted educators and scientists. However, they were seen as a
threat as the Jesuits were accused of causing intrigues and teaching radical ideas which tend to subvert the people's
loyalty to the monarchy. In 1768 the Jesuits were expelled from the Philippines, their colleges were closed and their
properties confiscated. This provided the opportunity for Archbishop Santa Justa to replace the Jesuit parishes in
Pampanga, Bataan and Iloilo with seculars. Secularization continued during the term of Governor General Simon de
Anda who replaced Governor Raon who died in 1770.

The Church in the 19th Century: The Secularization Issue Awakens

Filipino Nationalism

With the dismal result of the secularization, the King suspended the secularization of parishes on December 11,
1776. Since that time on parishes held by seculars began to be reverted to the Regulars. The decree was a reversal of the
struggle of the seculars and an insult because at that time the Filipino seculars have become competent. Many seculars
were already ministering the parishes. This led to a new movement for secularization led by Filipino priests; Fathers
Pedro Pablo Pelaez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora. Those opposing sides were Spanish, the struggle for
secularization became a racial oneand it became a rallying point of Filipino nationalism.The secularization issue had a
racial aspect as the limpieza de sangre or racial superiority played a part in the assignment of parishes. Since many of
them cannot be parish priests, they were relegated to being just coadjutors. It was at this time when more native-born
individuals especially mestizos were entering the religious life and some of them became excellent clergymen.
 The 19th century produced some of the most brílliant native priests of the Philippínes. These were
Fathers Pedro Pablo Pelaez, Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora. Of the three, Burgos was the
youngest and the most brilliant with eight degrees from the University of Santo Tomas. Fr. Zamora was an
examiner of priests at the Manila Cathedral. Fr. Pelaez was the most erudite among the three. Fr. Gomez who
became parish priest of Bacoor protected the ordinary natives from the abuses of the Dominicans in Cavite.
Because of his crusading stance he was hated by the Regulars.

During the brief liberal administration of Governor General Carlos Maria de la

Governor General
Carlos Maria de la Torre
Torre, both laymen and native priests came out into the open expressing their desire for
reforms. He listened to their views and complaints just like a popular politician. While
portraying himself as a liberal, Governor de la Torre was not really a kind
and sympathetic governor general that liberal natives and Filipinos were made to
believe. He was actually devious and calculating. While he allowed the natives to
express their desire openly for true meaningful change, he had the leaders identified and
closely placed under surveillance. Their letters were intercepted and opened.

Governor de la Torre was replaced by Rafael de Izquierdo and in 1871 a new

Governor General named Rafael de lzquierdo arrived. Izquierdo repealed the reforms
initiated by his predecessor, saying he would rule with a cross on one hand and a sword
on the other. While de la Torre had an ear on the complaints of the people, Izquierdo
would have none of that. Needing funds in the colony, he increased the taxes of state
workers. In 1872, workers at the Cavite Arsenal were aghast to learn that their salaries
were cut in half due to tax deductions and that they were no longer exempted from forced Governor General
labor. Rafael de Izquierdo

The Cavite arsenal workers found sympathy among the soldiers of the fort led by
a Sergeant Lamadrid. Thus, what was supposed to be a protest over wages by workers
turned into a mutiny. It was expected that Lamadrid's comrades in Manila will join the
uprising on January 17, 1872. The signal to start the uprising would be the firing of
rockets from Manila. On that night, the district of Sampaloc had a noisy celebration,
which included a grand fireworks display. This was mistaken as the signal by the
Cavite mutineers who started killing their Spanish officers. The next day, Lamadrid
and his men found to their dismay that they were alone and soon troops from Manila
crushed the mutiny. Lamadrid was killed in the fighting.
 The incident was used as a pretext to go after the people who exposed themselves as enemies of the conservatives
during the term of Governor de la Torre. It was alleged that the mutiny was part of a larger conspiracy to bring about
the separation of the Philippines from Spain and the main leaders were the leaders of the Secularization Movement. The
Spanish authorities immediately arrested Fathers Mariano Gomes, Jose Burgos and Jacinto Zamora. They were charged
for advocating a revolution that would bring about the independence of the Philippines from Spain. It was alleged that
Father Burgos was the leader of a movement that will separate the Philippines from Spain. The two other priests were
his co-conspirators. A fourth priest, Fr. Pelaez escaped being included among the three principal accused because he
was earlier killed in the earthquake in 1863 which demolished the Manila Cathedral. The friars rejoiced upon learning
that he was killed and even said that the earthquake was God's way of showing his disapproval for challenging the
Spaniards.

Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were found guilty of treason and attempted rebellion on the kangaroo
trial. The effect of the execution of Fathers Gomes, Burgos and Zamora is considered a milestone in Philippine history
as the birth of Filipino nationalism. The natives no longer thought of themselves as Tagalogs, Pampangos or Visayans
but as a people of a nation. It had a cathartic effect that made the natives as well as the mestizos and Spaniards born in
the Philippines that they are separate from the colonizers and they belong to a country. In the latter part of the 19th
century nationalists and movements would invoke the memory of the execution of Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora
as a rallying event. For his part Rizal dedicated his second novel, El Filibusterismo in their memory and offering its
pages as a tardy tribute to their unknown graves.During the rest of the Spanish period, the Church remained a divided
institution.

Learning Materials:
1. PowerPoint Presentation
2. Educational Video Clips

Expected Output:
1. Worksheet from the textbook (Exercise 8.1 found on pages 107-108)
2. Lesson Quiz

Time Allotment:
1.5 Hours (One week)

References:
Online: https://rlp.hds.harvard.edu/faq/catholicism-philippines
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2140780.pdf

Journal: Stefano, M. D., (2015). José Rizal, the Quest for Filipino Independence, and the Search for Ultimate
Reality and Meaning. UTP Journals, URAM Volume 34, nos. 1-2.https://utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/uram.34.1-2.113

Book: De Viana, A. V. (2019). Laon-Laan: A Guide for the Study and Understanding of the Life and Contributions
of Jose Rizal to Philippine Nationhood and Society. Mandaluyong City. Books Atbp. Publishing Corp.